What Should We Do To Effect Change?

[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

[Ginger]

Originally Posted by meridiantoo

Just as an aside, if your partner did not even recognize you as a step-parent in the relationship (this is me speaking with no knowledge of your relationship nor any of the parameters) then it stands to reason that you would fail as a step-parent. You were set-up to fail. You cannot be an effective parent where the other parent/partner devalues your role, mirrors to the child that you are just a temporary, non-parental fixture, and I hope that you don't judge yourself so harshly for that.

Thanks for that validation. I failed for a lot of other reasons too, but yeah, you're dead-on right about that part. Sorry to derail. I'll stay on track now.

[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 IslandScout

Thanks for that validation. I failed for a lot of other reasons too, but yeah, you're dead-on right about that part. Sorry to derail. I'll stay on track now.

No worries with the derail part. I could have gone on and on, but I thought maybe it would best not to.

This would be a great thread to start, I think.

[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 meridiantoo

I know I'm going to step on some toes when I say this, so I apologize in advance.

It seems that it is masculine-centered norms that are destroying our earth, not to the exclusion of the feminine participating in that destruction, but I think by far, it's masculine-dominant thinking, as our society has defined it, that contributes the most to how we live.

So, how do we (especially as lesbians/Trans/Queer/Non-bio male) address a straight white bio-male dominated societal mentality?

1) I try to look at what we can personally do first, and that illuminates to me to focus on raising boys. Mothers in our society help to form the very disgusting gender-bashing and idea that males are the entitled sex and deserve different/biased treatment. I see it all the time in parent/child dynamics.

2) I think we have to get bolder in our (the GLTB community) views and work through action.

3) For God's sake, VOTE!

This is where I get stumped and would love to hear what others have to say.

That teaching of entitlement to small boys does bring about the thinking that is destroying Everything.Even Ensler has planned an earth day to tie it inhttp://www.care2.com/causes/eve-ensler-goes-ecofeminist.html

I just really want to know how do we break the chains of this mindset to become more aware & less unhappy.

[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*

[meridiantoo]

Originally Posted by AmazonWoman1

I just really want to know how do we break the chains of this mindset to become more aware & less unhappy.

I think the root of it is capitalism, I really do. It's the foundation of our socio-political structure that is to blame. But, how can this be changed?

[femmeInterrupted]

This just came across my path. Thought of this conversation.

http://dgrnewsservice.org/2013/03/01...the-sociopath/

[meridiantoo]

Great article.


Quoting from the above article: "Humans don’t destroy landbases. Civilized humans destroy landbases, and they have been doing so since the beginning of civilization." ~ Derrick Jensen

It seems this revolves around the transition from agrarian to civilized societies. When people are in touch with the earth, literally and thus psychologically, they lose respect for and connection with the land, I think.

Our focus changed when industrialization spread here and that changed the "American Dream" concept from owning your own land and living off of its bounty to how much money can I make to place myself in a higher socio-economic bracket.

However, the rape and pillaging of the land that happens is not a recent development. It merely changed from women/animals/whomever is considered an enemy (less than myself) as the main target to land as the main target. I think of the Roman Empire and their barbaric society. I think of Lord/Feudal systems in Europe and I am not convinced that it is a purely "type of man" problem as much as it is a "human man" problem. While these are examples of civilized societies, there is recorded evidence of the same type of behavior/mentality since recorded history began. We just did not have the tools/weapons of mass destruction/capability to induce such catastrophic damage on such a large scale in such a short time period.

This leads me back to the idea of stewardship that Arwen introduced. I think this still applies as the best answer, but it still seems to me that the more masculine/male/yang characteristics/qualities are the overall perpetrators in the destruction of land/people/animals.

Thoughts? Opinions? Perspectives?

[Bad_boi]

We need to be the POSITIVE change we want to see.

What I constantly see that drives me crazy is when people shame those who are ignorant. We need to EDUCATE instead of make people feel bad. If something offends you say so. However if you treat people poorly because of their shortcomings it does not make them want to listen. Saying: "Please do not say "X" because it is hurtful and offensive". Is a LOT more effective than going on a rant and calling someone names.

[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?