[Vision2020] all male school board
Sharon Sullivan
herbals@moscow.com
Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:41:42 -0700
--=======5F6D21F=======
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7C4E2D83; boundary="=====================_17476291==.ALT"
--=====================_17476291==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7C4E2D83; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mr. Wilson, and others of the partriarchal persuasion,
Please pardon the length of this post, as it is a not a treatise to
Feminism 101, but to Respecting History101. I have a need for you to
understand the view of individuals as complex entitities, each quite
different, yet of equal value. I hold that all people are special and to
be equally valued at the level of essential individual beings, a quality
that goes much deeper than our physical bodies. I do not assert that all
men tyrants, nor do I believe that all women need or want to be
'liberated'. Of course differences exist within genders! I wouldn't lump
any group of people together and assume they have identical philosophies,
even the members of Christ Church. (unless you really do brainwash).
Equality is not synonymous with identical. Of course childbirth and nursing
children is one aspect of being female. Some women may feel it is their
highest good to scrub the toilet; some men also. I met a man today who
said he would love the opportunity to be pregnant, should technology make
it possible. Some of us females may choose to experience, cherish, and
devote ourselves to nurturing children. I myself feel extremely blessed
be able to have had this opportunity. But this is not the entirety of my
identity, rather only one aspect of the extremely complex task of becoming
and being a whole person. I hope for the day when our modes of personal
expression, roles, and choices can be freely chosen as individuals, not as
men or as women.
Do men have different hearts than women? Do you love differently
than we do? Perhaps, perhaps not. Who is to know the matters of the heart
and of the spirit? These are not choices that should be ruled by law, by
rules printed in black and white. Yes, nuances, as someone said, pervade
everything, and we can all explore the wide world of thoughts and ideas
rather than limit ourselves to a single book. Yet, history shows that
society has presented opportunities and limitations based solely upon our
genders.
Why am I so interested in your model of all-male
leadership? Because gender-based rule making is the root of much tragedy
throughout history. Because, as Susan Sontag wrote in her 1973 article,
The Third World of Women, "The oppression of women constitutes the most
fundamental type of repression in organized societies. That is, it is the
most ancient of oppression, predating all oppression based on class, caste
and race. It is the most primitive form of hierarchy...the structure of
this society is precisely based on patriarchal oppression, the undoing of
which will modify the most deeply rooted habits of friendship and love, the
conceptions of work, the ability to wage war, and the mechanisms of
power. The very nature of power in organized societies is founded on
sexist models of conduct."
Another fine philosopher, Andrea Dworkin writes, "Patriarchy is a
system of ownership wherein women and children are owned...every tyrannical
form is derived from it. The destruction of the master-slave political
scenario, however we describe it (capitalists-worker, whites-blacks,
rich-poor, etc) requires the destruction of the source of that scenario --
patriarchy. The destruction of the psychologies and behaviors which we
call dominant (master, male) and submissive, (slave, female) or
aggressor-victim, demands the destruction of those mental sets and behaviors."
Barbara Deming, in We Are All Part of One Another, paraphrases
Dalla Costa's writings. "The woman's role in the family is not only that
of hidden supplier of social services who does not receive a wage...Her
function is essentially that of receptacle for other peoples emotional
expression. This passivity of the woman in the family is itself
'productive'...It makes here the outlet for all the oppression that men
suffer in the world outside the home, and, at the same time, the object on
whom the man can exercise a hunger for power that the domination of the
capitalist organization of work implants...she acts as a safety
valve." The supportive woman makes it possible for the worker to devote
himself to the exploitation at work.
I will now quote at length Barbara Deming, in Love Has Been
Exploited Labor:: "The theft of a woman's sense of herself as a complete
person--autonomous, self-sufficient--produces for the husband his surplus
sense of himself. If a woman's very Self is being stolen from her, what
wage can compensate her for the theft? The role of housewife must be
destroyed... When we talk about the exploitation of women, we are not
talking simply about an unfair division of labor. We are talking about an
unfair division of be-ing. Women is supposed to want to produce not her
own self but man's self. She is supposed to think this the only possiblity
there is for her -- to produce her husband, to produce her son."
> Now, to bring in religion and the Trinity into the picture. "The
> woman was from the beginning recognized and respected as a giver of
> life. Before it was realized that the man played a part in reproduction
> too, she must have been regarded by man with some awe. The earliest
> divinities were female. And property rights and children followed the
> matrilineal line, as it was certain whose child was whose. Engels writes
> "The overthrow of the mother right, was the world historic defeat of the
> female sex." Deming continues: "Father right was not just a matter of
> affirming paternity. It was a matter of denying maternity. This fact is
> reflected in the subsequent change in religious practice. It is not that
> from now on new divinities are worshipped, who are both female and
> male. God, the Creator of all that is, is now supposed to be seen as
> simply Father (and Son). Once we have struggled free of this
> superstition, it can be seen as comically grotesque -- "a kind of cosmic
> joke" as Mary Daly puts in (in Beyond God the Father). But of course for
> long centuries it was, for women, no joke at all. 'If God is male, then
> the male is God.' And he has expected to be regarded as such. ...
> Doesn't father right make private property a necessity? For how can
> paternity be authenticated unless woman herself is held as
> property? Yes, didn't the lust for property begin with man's lust to own
> "his" children by owning their mother? We desire a society in which
> nobody owns another person.
Hope lies in encounters with others who refuse to be an
"It". Women and men can make that refusal--and are making it. The
contagion of this refusal of objectification extends outward, toward male
liberation, refusal to rape earth, air, fire, water...We will look upon the
earth, earth's creatures, and her sister planets as being with us, not for
us.
Of course, man's attempt to make himself Lord has kept him, in
fact, a child. He has named woman "submissive and evil." Yes, submissive,
--his wife, simply, a mere extension of his own being. But also
evil. There is a curious contradiction here. Why evil? Jeanne Gallick
points out the transformation of ancient myths under patriarchy. "Eve, who
is called Mother and whose name literally means life is made over into the
mischievous figure in the Old Testament. Why? Pandora, too, "was
originally the Earth Mother. Her name, meaning, "all gifts" or "all
giving", refers to "the Mother as the source of the blessings of
life." She, too, is made over into the source of evil. Man's dual message
to woman exposes what he truly wants. He wants to be Lord, but he wants to
be Lord without ever taking life into his own hands. He wants woman to be
responsible for him. He says to her in effect: You have been called The
Mother, the birth-giver. All right. Then keep on giving birth to Man for
the whole of his life. That is to be your life, woman's life. And you are
to blame for anything that goes wrong. Which is to say, he refuses
adulthood, to clean up his own messes. At the very same time that he asks
to be treated as God, he asks to be treated as a perpetual child. The
thought suddenly flicks into my mind: is this the reason why a favorite
subject of painters down through the years has always been the infant God
upon his Mother's lap?
Yes, to be both God and Child-- this has been man's dream. But it
is time for him to wake up." (Thanks, Barbara.)
And, so, I add, can we sing praises to a day when men and women
achieve true partnership? A day when no being exploits, controls, or
dominates another? A parity, such as the Native American tradition of
honoring both Mother Earth and Father Sky? Does one need to be the boss
(or the school board member) simply on the basis of the Ychromosome?
If you've gotten this far, I honor you, dear reader. I genuinely
strive not to judge; I do not think poorly of any person who chooses to be
a homemaker. Raising children and cleaning house against the forces of
entropy is one of the most demanding of professions, requiring patience,
creativity, and stamina. I only wish that all women would have the choice
to wear other hats as well, when their highest expression of self exceeds
the limits of the walls of their home and the rule of their husband. May
all beings be free to find their most satisfying and fulfilling life.
Respectfully,
Sharon S
--=====================_17476291==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7C4E2D83; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<font face=3D"Garamond">Mr. Wilson, and others of the partriarchal
persuasion,<br>
Please pardon the length of this post, as it is a not a treatise to
Feminism 101, but to Respecting History101. I have a need for you
to understand the view of individuals as complex entitities, each quite
different, yet of equal value. I hold that all people are special
and to be equally valued at the level of essential individual beings, a
quality that goes much deeper than our physical bodies. I do not
assert that all men tyrants, nor do I believe that all women need or want
to be 'liberated'. Of course differences exist within genders! I
wouldn't lump any group of people together and assume they have identical
philosophies, even the members of Christ Church. (unless you really
do brainwash). Equality is not synonymous with identical. Of course
childbirth and nursing children is one aspect of being female. Some
women may feel it is their highest good to scrub the toilet; some men
also. I met a man today who said he would love the opportunity to
be pregnant, should technology make it possible. Some of us females
may choose to experience, cherish, and devote ourselves to
nurturing children. I myself feel extremely blessed be able to have
had this opportunity. But this is not the entirety of my identity,
rather only one aspect of the extremely complex task of becoming and
being a whole person. I hope for the day when our modes of personal
expression, roles, and choices can be freely chosen as
<i>individuals</i>, not as men or as women. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Do men
have different hearts than women? Do you love differently than we
do? Perhaps, perhaps not. Who is to know the matters of the
heart and of the spirit? These are not choices that should be ruled
by law, by rules printed in black and white. Yes, nuances, as
someone said, pervade everything, and we can all explore the wide world
of thoughts and ideas rather than limit ourselves to a single book.
Yet, history shows that society has presented opportunities and
limitations based solely upon our genders. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Why am I
so interested in your model of all-male leadership? Because
gender-based rule making is the root of much tragedy throughout
history. Because, as Susan Sontag wrote in her 1973 article,
<i>The Third World of Women,</i> "The oppression of women
constitutes the most fundamental type of repression in organized
societies. That is, it is the most <i>ancient</i> of oppression,
predating all oppression based on class, caste and race. It is the
most primitive form of hierarchy...the structure of this society is
precisely based on patriarchal oppression, the undoing of which will
modify the most deeply rooted habits of friendship and love, the
conceptions of work, the ability to wage war, and the mechanisms of
power. The very nature of power in organized societies is founded
on sexist models of conduct." <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Another
fine philosopher, Andrea Dworkin writes, "Patriarchy is a system of
ownership wherein women and children are owned...every tyrannical form is
derived from it. The destruction of the master-slave political
scenario, however we describe it (capitalists-worker, whites-blacks,
rich-poor, etc) requires the destruction of the source of that scenario
-- patriarchy. The destruction of the psychologies and behaviors
which we call dominant (master, male) and submissive, (slave, female) or
aggressor-victim, demands the destruction of those mental sets and
behaviors."<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Barbara
Deming, in <i>We Are All Part of One Another, </i>paraphrases Dalla
Costa's writings. "The woman's role in the family is not only
that of hidden supplier of social services who does not receive a
wage...Her function is essentially that of receptacle for other peoples
emotional expression. This passivity of the woman in the family is
itself 'productive'...It makes here the outlet for all the oppression
that men suffer in the world outside the home, and, at the same time, the
object on whom the man can exercise a hunger for power that the
domination of the capitalist organization of work implants...she acts as
a safety valve." The supportive woman makes it possible for
the worker to devote himself to the exploitation at work.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>I will now
quote at length Barbara Deming, in <i>Love Has Been Exploited
Labor</i>:: "The theft of a woman's sense of herself as a
complete person--autonomous, self-sufficient--produces for the husband
his surplus sense of himself. If a woman's very Self is being
stolen from her, what wage can compensate her for the theft? The
role of housewife must be destroyed... When we talk about the
exploitation of women, we are not talking simply about an unfair division
of labor. We are talking about an unfair <i>division of
be-ing</i>. Women is supposed to want to produce not her own self
but man's self. She is supposed to think this the only possiblity
there <i>is </i>for her -- to produce her husband, to produce her
son."<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite><x-tab> &nb=
sp; </x-tab>Now,
to bring in religion and the Trinity into the picture. "The
woman was from the beginning recognized and respected as a giver of
life. Before it was realized that the man played a part in
reproduction too, she must have been regarded by man with some awe.
The earliest divinities were female. And property rights and
children followed the matrilineal line, as it was certain whose child was
whose. Engels writes "The overthrow of the mother right, was
the world historic defeat of the female sex." Deming
continues: "Father right was not just a matter of affirming
paternity. It was a matter of denying maternity. This fact is
reflected in the subsequent change in religious practice. It is not
that from now on new divinities are worshipped, who are both female and
male. God, the Creator of all that is, is now supposed to be seen
as simply Father (and Son). Once we have struggled free of this
superstition, it can be seen as comically grotesque -- "a kind of
cosmic joke" as Mary Daly puts in (in <i>Beyond God the
Father). </i>But of course for long centuries it was, for women, no
joke at all. 'If God is male, then the male is God.' And he
has expected to be regarded as such. ... Doesn't father right make
private property a necessity? For how can paternity be
authenticated unless woman herself is held as property? Yes, didn't
the lust for property <i>begin</i> with man's lust to own "his"
children by owning their mother? We desire a society in which
nobody owns another person. </font></blockquote><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><font face=3D=
"Garamond">Hope
lies in encounters with others who refuse to be an "It".
Women and men can make that refusal--and are making it. The
contagion of this refusal of objectification extends outward, toward male
liberation, refusal to rape earth, air, fire, water...We will look upon
the earth, earth's creatures, and her sister planets as being <i>with</i>
us, not <i>for </i>us. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Of course,
man's attempt to make himself Lord has kept him, in fact, a child.
He has named woman "submissive and evil." Yes,
submissive, --his wife, simply, a mere extension of his own being.
But also evil. There is a curious contradiction here. Why
evil? Jeanne Gallick points out the transformation of ancient myths
under patriarchy. "Eve, who is called Mother and whose name
literally means life is made over into the mischievous figure in the Old
Testament. Why? Pandora, too, "was originally the Earth
Mother. Her name, meaning, "all gifts" or "all
giving", refers to "the Mother as the source of the blessings
of life." She, too, is made over into the source of
evil. Man's dual message to woman exposes what he truly
wants. He wants to be Lord, but he wants to be Lord without ever
taking life into his own hands. He wants woman to be responsible
for him. He says to her in effect: You have been called The
Mother, the birth-giver. All right. Then keep on giving birth
to Man for the whole of his life. That is to be <i>your</i> life,
woman's life. And you are to blame for anything that goes
wrong. Which is to say, he refuses adulthood, to clean up his own
messes. At the very same time that he asks to be treated as God, he
asks to be treated as a perpetual child. The thought suddenly
flicks into my mind: is this the reason why a favorite subject of
painters down through the years has always been the infant God upon his
Mother's lap?<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Yes, to be
both God and Child-- this has been man's dream. But it is time for
him to wake up." (Thanks, Barbara.)<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>And, so, I
add, can we sing praises to a day when men and women achieve true
partnership? A day when no being exploits, controls, or dominates
another? A parity, such as the Native American tradition of
honoring both Mother Earth and Father Sky? Does one need to be the
boss (or the school board member) simply on the basis of the
Ychromosome? <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>If you've
gotten this far, I honor you, dear reader. I genuinely strive not
to judge; I do not think poorly of any person who chooses to be a
homemaker. Raising children and cleaning house against the forces
of entropy is one of the most demanding of professions, requiring
patience, creativity, and stamina. I only wish that all women would
have the choice to wear other hats as well, when their highest expression
of self exceeds the limits of the walls of their home and the rule of
their husband. May all beings be free to find their most satisfying
and fulfilling life.<br>
Respectfully, <br>
Sharon S<br>
</font><x-tab> </x-tab><br><b=
r>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><br>
<br>
</html>
--=====================_17476291==.ALT--
--=======5F6D21F=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7C4E2D83
Content-Disposition: inline
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.467 / Virus Database: 266 - Release Date: 4/1/03
--=======5F6D21F=======--