A Most Twisted Love Sept 3, 2009 7:43:28 GMT -5
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Sept 3, 2009 7:43:28 GMT -5
athenac ~ you said it exactly! This is why I started the Kobayashi Maru series ~ QF/P is replete with No-Win Scenarios like this. And yes, I definitely will be making this point in the book.
Oh Sea ~ do go on ...
Religious Patriarchy is really just a sub-set of the patriarchy-at-large except, apparently, they use the promise of salvation to enslave boys and men to do their bidding. As in the feudal system, the more serfs, the more power for the king and his court.
Historically, as women (both religious and secular) we’ve been put in the position of supporting men as they tilt at windmills because another one of those ‘rights’ he believes he has is to have a woman – a mother, wife, girlfriend, sister, daughter – cheer him on to something he most likely will never achieve.
So, in this sense (as in a great number of pedophilia cases) the abuser is also the abused and can be pitied on that level. Warren can be pitied on that level.
Yes ~ exactly. It is frustrating in a way, because there is no absolute bad guy to pin the blame on.
this is the fault of a super-capitalist, super-competitive mindset: it praises competition and hierarchy over cooperation and egalitarianism, and it damages everybody who is part of that rat-race.
It's actually ironic that many religiously patriarchal groups eschew the materialist patriarchy as evil, and vice versa, when they're in many ways the same thing: slavery for the promise of greater things, and division and alienation from each other of those participating.
This is an important point, jadehawk. One of the first books I read after "losing my religion" (LOL) is The Skeptic Feminist ~ I'm pretty sure it was from that book that I got the idea that male-dominated spirituality tends to emphasize hierarchy and power whereas female spirituality is more like a spider's web ~ interconnectedness rather than top-down authoritarianism.
When I was studying "intelligent design" with my uncle, I discovered that in the mid-1800s Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations) was popularizing the economic principles of competition ~ the beginnings of capitalism. I was surprised to learn that economic competition was actually the philosophical springboard for Darwin's evolutionary formulation ~ domination and survival of the fittest, etc.
Much later, in place of a Darwinian view of progress by competition and strife, a female scientist, Lynn Margulis proposed advancement by cooperation and symbiosis. Organisms in her view aid one another, join forces, and accomplish together what they could not accomplish separately. It would be interesting to investigate what sort of economic system would flow from Margulis' symbiosis model.