John, I've even heard women defend men with this kind of justification, but it is a masculine point-of-view. It's a good story and there is a ring of truth to your rationality, but it is not very deep. I can only ask you to consider what happens to a foot that is bound from infancy? I've seen photos. It is very distorted. The only thing I know to do at the moment, is to try to step outside of it.
Marsha On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:49 PM, John Carl wrote: > Marsha, > > I'd like to just sorta start from scratch on a few issues that you brought > up, without doing the whole line by line thing. I wanna talk about your > charges of the oppression of women through patriarchical organizations of > politics and religion, especially religion. And I figure the best place to > start is by looking at what I'd call our predessesors, the victorians. It > doesn't make as much sense to discuss the fallout of mesopatamian attitudes > toward women, they're so far removed their effects have been blunted. The > victorians, on the other hand, we feel more immediately present. Not to > mention, the Lila connection. > > Furthermore, I'd say the victorian culture most exemplified the kinds of > oppression you describe of masculine denigration of women to mere roles in > kitchen and bedroom. Primogeniture and all that. > > > However, I think you are mischaracterizing this as "male" domination - I > think, much more you are seeing patterns of feminine domination of society - > other women, than you are male patterns. You do know Victoria was a > woman, don't you? You blame religion all the time, but you know who the > real church goers are? Go sometime. Look around. It's almost all women. > And if you looked deeper into the relationships, the men who are there are > there because their wives dragged them. They'd much rather be at home > watching tv. It's probably always been like that. > > > Do you honestly think men came up with rules about strictly covering female > flesh? Hah! Believe me, if men were in charge the rules would be way more > lax. Even during the Victorian era. Concerns of fashion appropriateness is > women controlling other women's dress. Well, until modern times. I think > gay men are in charge now, and I must say it's an improvement! > > You think it's men who burn witches? It's usually women who gossip about > the outcast or gang up with social networks to ostracize the different > other. Men just give them the muscle and intellectual justification to get > it done. It's this way because it's in women's interest to rein in the > purely biological urges in the interest of a social arrangement. The human > infant is the longest-developing in infancy of any animal, and it takes > teamwork to survive while raising one. Therefore the woman has the most > vested interest in social controls, and it's women who shape the society's > leanings. > > Also, women are just more in tune with social cues and facial expressions > and communicating from infancy. > > Until they find a way to raise children in test tubes or whatever, men need > women and the acceptance by a woman has always been the driver behind all > civilizing progress, all intellectual or athletic competition among males. > So what you see as a male dominated society, I see as a female-dominated > one. > ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
