hi!
Can people please use humans to refer to humans unless they are
specifically talking of 'man' and 'his' place in the universe.....
If your argument is that using one gender refers to both, please use 'her'
and woman all the time and see how included men will feel.
nitasha
______________________________________________________________________
> The spiritual-social aspect as in man and his place in the universe is the
> same in both, that is, living in rapport with nature and sowing the fruits
> of nature; non domineering, no state control (dreaming) ... when it came to
> the economic aspect, the east says: (as always, even in Buddhism) nature's
> way is to own all by owning non - "renounce" grasping of accumulated wealth
> and the west will equate 'individual freedom' to fighting to hold that
> wealth. SO which one you think will lead one to ultimate happiness?
> (presuming that all ideology , culture, form of govt has as one of the end
> objectives of achieving happiness and progress for its people). I suppose
> Lao Tzu's The Way of Tao is more for anarchists whose spiritual needs are at
> the top and western anarchism is for people whom are also modernist. You can
> check out the site, it has all the contents of Tao Te Ching translated.
>
> >
> Actually. I believe women are socially suppressed hence we fight for rights
> but I am not a feminist, if by feminist, it means one is totally
> concentrated on the female psyche. I am not always in sync with the 'female'
> psyche, my yang energy often prevails but I do think women are more
> beautiful, truer, compassionate than men. Thus, having said that I am not
> > 'race', ageism, ableism, sexual orientation, etc.
> >
> I prefer to be issue-oriented ( I don't know if it's politically correct)
> especially in the 21st century where people from all countries are better
> connected and everyday more and more issues come up! We can't give credence
> in solving them if it is simply, very conveniently 'categorizing' the
> issues ... or perhaps, if we know the rational behind every political theory
> and say "ok for this issue that is class based and racial in content, we use
> the reasoning of Marxism and Pluralism to solve the fundamentals. But not to
> get stuck, thinking therefore a Marxist state has to be created in its place
> and maintained ...I find some theories are better at different stages of
> development.
> Do you 'personalize' or 'collectivized' an item before approaching it? Do
> you go by the majority or do you say:' I, this individual, believe that
> .....'. There are people who feels that unity is power therefore to solve a
> social issue, one has to go with the majority and there are people like
> myself who are bloody self-oriented and starts feeling the 'energy' in me
> and then decide 'ya' I want this to happen.... or no, go and fly kites. I
> am also bloody childish but I try to grow up as much as the system allows
> me...and in a way, that does not take away my spontaneity as a person. I
> donwanna grow up 'dead'/
>
> Over to you!
>
> > So that's it! Guess I will go read some more posts!
> >
> > Wong Ee Ling < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I understand you although not perfectly but you need to see it from
> > my point
> > of
> > view which is within the Asian social mileau whereby the
> > authoritative
> > figure
> > is the 'father figure' and that runs through the society with of
> > course the
> > head of
> > the family, the father having a tight control over the kids - what
> > better
> > way of
> > control or monopolization than this? The family is the unit that
> > makes up
> > all society.
> > It is 'real' for us here perhaps not for you. Anyway, this probably
> > does not
> > interest
> > you since your culture is different......in China, do you know that
> > the
> > government is
> > called the 'parents'.
> > I wish you had a name since 'unleesh' is not a name and you know my
> > name.
> > And with your experience with various political groups, I'll like to
> > know
> > what is your
> > opinion of communism? Is it the path to freedom vis-a-vis
> > capitalism? Does
> > c! ! ommunism
> > empowers the individual and frees him/her from the mock 'slavery' of
> > capitalism?
> > Because I feel that communism is worse off than capitalism or
> > corporatism
> > since
> > it is state control. In corporations, if they get too powerful like
> > MS, the
> > law can handle
> > them. The state is sometimes so intertwined with the legislate that
> > the
> > individual will
> > have no recourse.
> > >From your past messages, you seem to adhere to 'anarchism', which I
> > use to
> > like
> > (it's quite close to the Chinese' Taoism vis-a-vis Confucianism)
> > although it
> > is not
> > a properly developed theory of government, that is, it can assist in
> > efforts
> > to change
> > systems (so can communism) but might settle to be something that
> > cannot
> > guarantee
> > freedom. What do you think? I like to her your opinion but pls note
> > that
> > (if you do not know
> > it which I think you do....) most emails are read by other than you
> > and me.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > > ----------
> > >! ! ; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 10:11 AM
> > > To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT
> > > Subject: RE: REPLY: One WTO account
> > >
> > > "The 'father figure' is symbolic of the 'oppresive' figure you're
> > claiming
> > > freedom from..."
> > >
> > > I'm not claiming freedom from any "oppressive figure", so a
> > "father
> > > figure"
> > > couldn't even be symbolic.
> > >
> > > The State is not a "father figure" nor an "oppressive figure".
> > It's a set
> > > of
> > > relations formalized into a monopoly of legitimized force.
> > >
> > > Those who are attacking forces which constrict life are not
> > engaged in
> > > some
> > > Oedipal struggle. It is real.
> > >
> > > (un)leash
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > � _____ �
> >
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
> > Yahoo! Shopping.
> >
> >
>
_____________________________________________________________________________
Nitasha Kaul
Deptt: Economics & Philosophy
Room 307 Wilberforce Building
University of Hull
Hull HU6 7RX, UK
Phone: +44-1482-446589
Fax: +44-1482-466216
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____________________________________________________________________________
