What Should We Do To Effect Change?

[meridiantoo]

Originally Posted by Arwen

Mother Earth, for me, is a living, breathing entity. She is part of my spiritual beliefs. Why would it bug you for someone to speak of their Deity?

Or do you not factor that in? I believe that is how Alice Walker uses the term as well. For me, Mother Earth is Gaia. Gaia is one of the many names of the Goddess. I also hold to the GreenMan as the living embodiment of the forest. He is the masculine soul.

But to the original poster (op)'s comment, I flat out do not think it is a feminine or a masculine problem. I think (and I know this will be twitchy for some) that it is the attitude of stewardship that some religions teach. That of humans being somehow superior and therefore "in charge" of nature.

We should, in my opinion, live in a partnership with nature not an attitude of ownership.

Can small things make a change? Yes. And, for me, they are far better than big splashy things. My turning off the water when I brush my teeth or wash my hands is a, you should pardon the pun, drop in the bucket, but it counts. More than that, it adds up.

I may not be able to do the twice a year "clean up the river" patrols, but by the Gods I can and do conserve the water I can touch.

I also recycle as much as possible.

YMMV of course. Each person can only do what they are called, moved to do. And that is the right thing for them.

Gender, for me, has no place in this discussion. Religion, though...religion certainly does.

By the way, I am in no way angry at IslandScout (I assume she knows that but will caveat this in case since we are still under a Mercury Retrograde.)

Love this post, Arwen!

The concept of stewardship is something I never considered, but I think exactly what we are talking about. Thank you for that perspective.

I think what we do on a personal level makes a huge difference, especially when combined with the same/similar actions of others.

[Ginger]

Originally Posted by IslandScout

On a related note, personally it always bugged me when people talked of "mother" earth (Alice Walker included), but it's human nature to personify things so we can understand them.

Originally Posted by Arwen

[COLOR=Purple]
Mother Earth, for me, is a living, breathing entity. She is part of my spiritual beliefs. Why would it bug you for someone to speak of their Deity?

Or do you not factor that in? I believe that is how Alice Walker uses the term as well. For me, Mother Earth is Gaia. Gaia is one of the many names of the Goddess. I also hold to the GreenMan as the living embodiment of the forest. He is the masculine soul.

[/SIZE]

Hi, Arwen.

I didn't mean to denigrate anyone's beliefs, if that's what I did.

These words might have been better: I don't share the belief that the earth is a female being. I have very, very deep feelings and haunting sadness for the earth and for all living things and for the ecosystem I'm part of, but I don't relate to their personification.

I was too flip I guess.

Scout

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by IslandScout

Hi, Arwen.

I didn't mean to denigrate anyone's beliefs, if that's what I did.

These words might have been better: I don't share the belief that the earth is a female being. I have very, very deep feelings and haunting sadness for the earth and for all living things and for the ecosystem I'm part of, but I don't relate to their personification.

I was too flip I guess.

Scout

Flip, maybe,but not wrong since that is your perspective. I accept your viewpoint. Like I said, not angry with you in the least. Just curious.

[femmeInterrupted]

Wonderful thread, and I've really enjoyed reading all the responses.


Dominion over vs Stewardship of.

I don't believe it's possible to take gender out of the equation when deconstructing pertinent issues that deal with a Power Over/Power Under construct.

I believe we would be hard pressed to NOT include gender. In the case of issues surrounding our world/environment, it seems fairly clear from my own standpoint, that the ways of conceptualizing power (Power over) fits within a domination/power over relation to the land/earth/environment. More specifically, an unjust or subjection of power that falls under oppression/patriarchy.

If we consider the matter closer to home (North America) then a post-colonial framework is appropriate, and a gendered lens is essential when rethinking our position. In terms of Environmental Stewardship, First Nation's people have long been regarded as societies working with nature, not against it.

In pre-contact society, many First Nations ( in Eastern and Western Canada) had matriarchal structures. The balance was that Chiefs could still be male, but were chosen by clan Mothers, and equally, removed if they didn't like what the chief was doing.

Even in Plains Nations, were societies tended to be patriarchal, the power differential was unimportant because women were respected and women's roles believed to be important to survival. Balance.

Gender inequality started creeping in the same time as the rape of north america began with the fur trade.
There is a parallel between not only this gender inequality, but colonization, the destruction of land/water/species and the advent of industry.

Sometimes I feel that we've internalized fears as women/feminists/lesbians about being seen 'man haters' etc.
Globally, our decision making power doesn't even register.
We hold bare percentages of the world's wealth/power. The issues that are contributing to the degradation of our enviroment are issues BECAUSE of male dominated systems of thinking/power/decision making.
This is what allows the disconnect. Without derailing this issue, ALL creatures get the shit end of the Patriarchy stick, boys and men included.

Of *course* there are men who are allies, who are globally conscious on all levels. Everybody loves David Suzuki! But to not frame the discussion with some attention to gender leaves for me, not a lot of room for answers.
For me, there is no disconnecting any of it. Poverty. War. Pollution. Rape. Violence.

The OP used words like fairness, compassion, kindness, loving, collective work, etc. in describing the 'feminine'. These characteristics are heavily gendered. Women are expected to be compassionate and kind, etc. (and when not, are seen as flawed somehow) Men with those qualities are often derided for them, are seen as 'less than' a 'real man', and at the most misogynistic end, called 'pussies' or 'girls/women'. Of course, it's all a construct.

Anyways, that's my two.cents. (which will soon be a nickel, Canada has discontinued the penny!)

[meridiantoo]

Originally Posted by femmeInterrupted

Wonderful thread, and I've really enjoyed reading all the responses.


Dominion over vs Stewardship of.

I don't believe it's possible to take gender out of the equation when deconstructing pertinent issues that deal with a Power Over/Power Under construct.

I believe we would be hard pressed to NOT include gender. In the case of issues surrounding our world/environment, it seems fairly clear from my own standpoint, that the ways of conceptualizing power (Power over) fits within a domination/power over relation to the land/earth/environment. More specifically, an unjust or subjection of power that falls under oppression/patriarchy.

If we consider the matter closer to home (North America) then a post-colonial framework is appropriate, and a gendered lens is essential when rethinking our position. In terms of Environmental Stewardship, First Nation's people have long been regarded as societies working with nature, not against it.

In pre-contact society, many First Nations ( in Eastern and Western Canada) had matriarchal structures. The balance was that Chiefs could still be male, but were chosen by clan Mothers, and equally, removed if they didn't like what the chief was doing.

Even in Plains Nations, were societies tended to be patriarchal, the power differential was unimportant because women were respected and women's roles believed to be important to survival. Balance.

Gender inequality started creeping in the same time as the rape of north america began with the fur trade.
There is a parallel between not only this gender inequality, but colonization, the destruction of land/water/species and the advent of industry.

Sometimes I feel that we've internalized fears as women/feminists/lesbians about being seen 'man haters' etc.
Globally, our decision making power doesn't even register.
We hold bare percentages of the world's wealth/power. The issues that are contributing to the degradation of our enviroment are issues BECAUSE of male dominated systems of thinking/power/decision making.
This is what allows the disconnect. Without derailing this issue, ALL creatures get the shit end of the Patriarchy stick, boys and men included.

Of *course* there are men who are allies, who are globally conscious on all levels. Everybody loves David Suzuki! But to not frame the discussion with some attention to gender leaves for me, not a lot of room for answers.
For me, there is no disconnecting any of it. Poverty. War. Pollution. Rape. Violence.

The OP used words like fairness, compassion, kindness, loving, collective work, etc. in describing the 'feminine'. These characteristics are heavily gendered. Women are expected to be compassionate and kind, etc. (and when not, are seen as flawed somehow) Men with those qualities are often derided for them, are seen as 'less than' a 'real man', and at the most misogynistic end, called 'pussies' or 'girls/women'. Of course, it's all a construct.

Anyways, that's my two.cents. (which will soon be a nickel, Canada has discontinued the penny!)

I loved this post. But, I see it from both standpoints. On the one hand, I can see how it is a purely stewardship issue as both males/masculine and females/feminine are stewards in their individual lives and as a whole in society. Regardless of our place in life or level of power, we are stewards over something, even if only over our own lives/paths. Both sexes/qualities can be stewards and the frame of mind for stewardship is much different than that of power over something with the connotations of abuse and neglect. You can teach/apply this concept to both, and it already is taught, in my experience, in the Christian/formal church setting. I grew up listening to sermons on stewardship. Nonprofits operate on the premise of stewardship. I think our greed and looting of this land are extensions from life in Europe, the natural course of history and industrialization, and a sad, but real part of human nature. This way of life started long before European people came to this continent.

The idea that women should be demure and diligent to care for men and children is a *gulp* Christian concept, further perverted by greed, selfishness, and the need to feel powerful. It is imbedded in this world's frame and will be here as long as Christianity is, in some form.

There have been matriarchal societies that were not feminine in the judao-Christian definition of female-like, even in the pagan/Eastern philosophy sense of what female means. So, this is hard to use as a point, for me.

On the other hand, I think for our society as it stands now, it is about power and how that has ravaged our Earth and will continue to do so. And that power is attributed to males at this point, which cannot be denied or averted.

Love this thread - I hope more people get into it.

[AmazonWoman1]

Originally Posted by femmeInterrupted

Wonderful thread, and I've really enjoyed reading all the responses.


Dominion over vs Stewardship of.

I don't believe it's possible to take gender out of the equation when deconstructing pertinent issues that deal with a Power Over/Power Under construct.

I believe we would be hard pressed to NOT include gender. In the case of issues surrounding our world/environment, it seems fairly clear from my own standpoint, that the ways of conceptualizing power (Power over) fits within a domination/power over relation to the land/earth/environment. More specifically, an unjust or subjection of power that falls under oppression/patriarchy.

If we consider the matter closer to home (North America) then a post-colonial framework is appropriate, and a gendered lens is essential when rethinking our position. In terms of Environmental Stewardship, First Nation's people have long been regarded as societies working with nature, not against it.

In pre-contact society, many First Nations ( in Eastern and Western Canada) had matriarchal structures. The balance was that Chiefs could still be male, but were chosen by clan Mothers, and equally, removed if they didn't like what the chief was doing.

Even in Plains Nations, were societies tended to be patriarchal, the power differential was unimportant because women were respected and women's roles believed to be important to survival. Balance.

Gender inequality started creeping in the same time as the rape of north america began with the fur trade.
There is a parallel between not only this gender inequality, but colonization, the destruction of land/water/species and the advent of industry.

Sometimes I feel that we've internalized fears as women/feminists/lesbians about being seen 'man haters' etc.
Globally, our decision making power doesn't even register.
We hold bare percentages of the world's wealth/power. The issues that are contributing to the degradation of our enviroment are issues BECAUSE of male dominated systems of thinking/power/decision making.
This is what allows the disconnect. Without derailing this issue, ALL creatures get the shit end of the Patriarchy stick, boys and men included.

Of *course* there are men who are allies, who are globally conscious on all levels. Everybody loves David Suzuki! But to not frame the discussion with some attention to gender leaves for me, not a lot of room for answers.
For me, there is no disconnecting any of it. Poverty. War. Pollution. Rape. Violence.

The OP used words like fairness, compassion, kindness, loving, collective work, etc. in describing the 'feminine'. These characteristics are heavily gendered. Women are expected to be compassionate and kind, etc. (and when not, are seen as flawed somehow) Men with those qualities are often derided for them, are seen as 'less than' a 'real man', and at the most misogynistic end, called 'pussies' or 'girls/women'. Of course, it's all a construct.

Anyways, that's my two.cents. (which will soon be a nickel, Canada has discontinued the penny!)

I so wish I could have said all that in such a clear concise way.Thank you*S*

[ClassyStud]

Changing back to "What should we do to Effect Change?"

I am seriously thinking of moving at least for a few months to see if its what I want. Wondering what the planet thinks. Is this this a good way to spawn change in ones life or do your troubles follow you as the saying goes?