Hi John, You are right that women are the traditional culture-bearers, but something seems wrong or incomplete about saying that we should basically blame the victim. Reams of feminist literature has been written to refute the line of argument you've made here, and at the moment I only have a vague recollection of any of it, but something about your formulation doesn't ring true. I wonder if we can figure out what it is without quoting Gloria Steinem?
Best, Mary > 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 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
