....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
- Reaction score
- up to my arse in alligators
Sorry as l cant multi quote l have been unable to respond point to point as your posts deserve.
I'm not dauer, but I might be able to help.
There's a little flag on the bottom right of every post that will allow multi quotes from several posts. This even works with posts from other threads, but you must use the advanced posting format and answer yes when prompted about the posts from other threads.
Splitting a long post into several talking points can be done by copying the first quote tag with the poster's name and then pasting that at the front of each part you wish to address, and follow up with an end quote:[ /quote ] with no spaces.
There may be easier ways, but this is how I've been doing it for a while now.
when Juan brings up men living in an agrarian society according to natural cycles, NA protests that in her village, many men have an us-and-them perspective. But being in tune with the cycles of the planet does not entail a lack of ethnocentrism for men or for women. They're two entirely different things. Even if we go, for the sake of argument, with the assumption that because of their periods women are more in tune with natural cycles, that says nothing about us-and-them mentalities among women. Surely, in the same post NA observes that the women of the village are "in competition" as well. I would suggest that the gender differences don't entail a lack of us-and-them but rather, different types of us-and-them and that these distinctions themselves may be in many ways merely normative.
None were seeking this but it seemed as though some thought that was what russell was promoting; his culture was 'too trusting' [juan], the very thing lost in the millenia of the alienating and continual competition for land etc splaying out from the density of populations around Europe. No he was pointing out that lack of reverence given to the 'fairer' sex had been taken over by the reverence to tools and technology and therefore the 'raping' of the earth which he equated as feminine. [glad to hear parallels with judaism here, perhaps you could expand?].
OK, but this still brings us back to "city versus country," and ultimately has nothing to do with gender. Gender is used as a way to label the process, but it is misleading. As we see, people get hung up on the label and lose sight of the underlying principles at work.
Look, I'm part Native American. There are some things that echo and resound and make perfect sense...and there are other things that don't. I have an affinity with animals that goes back to my youngest childhood, yet I am appalled by the concept of zoos and pets. I am more at home in the woods or at the sea than I am in the city, but I can't make enough of a living to support myself, let alone a family, foraging for berries. Even among Native Americans there is disagreement over how to do things. Means is Lakota, my heritage is Cherokee, and even then I do not speak for any others than myself. Means does not speak for all Lakota, and he sure doesn't speak for all Native Americans.
One really difficult truth that is hard to swallow is that the Native Americans lost. The "Eurocentric" "paternal" societies or whatever manner one wishes to use to designate whooped @ss on the Native Americans. Yes, one side of me is appalled at the tactics and dishonorable lies and slavery and bloodshed and loss of ancestral homeland and etc, but the other side of me must acknowledge the fateful truth that "evolutionarily" the "paternal Europeans" were superior...in numbers, in technology, in social cohesion and in a number of other ways that ultimately proved significant...they won.
Can't blame it on warriors versus no warriors, the "maternal" "tribal" societies that made up the typical Native American tribe were quite experienced on the whole with warfare, they just had a different concept socio-culturo-religiously as to what warfare meant and entailed...there was a certain "code of honor" so to speak that was sacrosanct, and that concept of warfare was foreign to the Europeans.
So I am not convinced of any superiority of maternal social orders. I suppose in some idealized manner there is some philosophical comfort in living as one with nature and the planet. Let's examine how that translates into reality for a minute: prior to being pushed to the reservations, how many tribal peoples lived in houses? With running water? With indoor plumbing? With electricity?
Sure, one can opine philosophically about low environmental impact, but I don't see those same people ready yet to live in yurts with dirt floors and herd goats for a lifetime for sustenance. Forget about the internet, forget about the nightly news, forget about the favorite reality show or comedy, forget about the next Hollywood movie (gasp!), forget about modern medical advances and space shots, telephones, designer clothes, bananas, escargot, Italian wine, or Single Malt Scotch. In effect, forget about modern lifestyles with any form or type of amenities.
When I break it down to the logical conclusion and compare the two side by side, I am just hedonistic enough to say I'll stick with what I have, thank you very much. There is nothing "superior" in a maternal socio-cultural order to offer, other than a philosophical feel-good that will last until the first good blisters raise from having to actually do things for ourselves. And lest someone try to take this last out of context, I am referring specifically to the mechanical technologies that "paternal" societies have developed to do a lot of the drudge work for us.