There is no possible reply to such stuff.
>>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> 11/01/07 10:02 PM >>>
You make getting to rule sound like a reward.
You assume, I suppose, that it involves power.
What's good about having to look after someone
who is a virtual parasite? Reminds me of the
dumb wife syndrome of the 50s, who was always
deferring to her husband. An awful situation. Often
as not she was doing it to bolster his ego, so she had
a kind of subversive control -- the power behind the
throne. Blondie lives.
What's so good about having a lot of power but no
sense of an inner dynamic of control so everything
is just action in the moment? Self is dragged in the mud
by raging hormones.
Don't forget Esther and Judith!?
Also don't forget Saul and David.
And since when were not most men subservient to
one kind of master or another?
Some societies evolved into male dominance,
others didn't. One cannot generalise here.
Why is it vengeful to follow through with a punishment
that was forwarned of?
If a parent gives away or somehow sacrifices or loses a patrimony,
then none of the progeny will ever get it. That's just the way things work.
It may not be nice, but how is that to be helped, given the way
biological procreation works? Besides, for Christians, God did intervene,
and sacrificed His Son precisely to reverse the situation. The opportunity
for equity is there, but should it be forced on people?
I have often wondered if the dominance of which we speak has more
to do with power than with sex. Men tend to have the power, but
maleness and power should not be equated. If equity were pursued
in relation to power rather than biology, at least some of the problems
might be more easily dealt with. What did people like Margaret Thatcher
do for the cause? How was her control of power any different than a man's,
and think of all the weak men she dragged along with her. The UK
conservative party still hasn't recovered from it.
No, I'm not at all satisfied with how the questions of social control
have been framed. As my women friends in the 60s and 70s frequently
exponded, they were really having at their mothers, not their fathers.
It was burn the bra, remember, not burn the jock strap. They had a
point that has long since been lost sight of, in the frenzy to turn male
control into a punching bag. More raging hormones.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: TS Eliot: The Paradox of Simplicity - Language and Sin
> It is pretty vengeful to punish all women for all time because one of them
disobeyed first and pretty cruel to make it eternal subordination. And as I
said, Adam may well be as clueless and punished as Eve, but he still gets to
rule. And if you ever met a man who would prefer that women rule them
privately and in all public arenas and prevent them from being educated and
deny them the vote or any participation in governing and require them to
limit themselves to one only way of living and accept beatings from them if
they fail to please, let me know.
> What is confusing about that?
> >>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> 11/1/2007 4:37 AM >>>
> From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
> > [This is the beginning of the direct assertion of male control. So the
> authors who wrote it down imagined a vengeful and rather pointlessly cruel
> god who created an eternal system of subjection because Eve did it first.]
> How is He vengeful and pointlessly cruel when He warned
> them not to eat of the tree?
> Adam's punishment it would seem, is to have to rule over Eve (and work)
> Doesn't look like he had much choice in the matter, either.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.17/1103 - Release Date:
11/1/2007 6:01 AM