Nancy Levant: The Cultural Devastation of American Women

[whimsicaldeb]

ST - glad you reposted.

The evidence seems to suggest that Old Stone Age people were matriarchal. Where did we go wrong,...

Well that's just it, maybe we didn't go wrong, maybe we aren't going wrong -- maybe it's all actually alright - correct - as it should be; for what it is for where we're at.

Maybe matriarchalism died out for a reason – it ran it’s course. Had it’s day ~ it’s “15 minutes of ‘fame’ “ earth time wise. Like the dinosaurs, and all the gods & goddesses. They had their day. And now it’s Patriarchalism turn to die … is dying, and that’s why there’s all this hullabaloo. (Who’s to blame … who’s to blame… who’s to blame.) Life is to blame, evolution is to blame. They died out because either they didn’t work, or they no longer worked, so they died and something else arose in it’s place. So maybe all this is as it should be, and maybe it’s the only way it could be (considering) … and maybe we expecting it all to happening, overnight, without problems, and perfectly. We’d all say it once ~ and presto; it’s all over and done with.

Too much of anything is not good for us, and that would include matriarchalism or patriarchalism.

Equality is here, I’m living it - so are many others, you see it all over the place here at S8 … where who’s to blame has becomes ‘what’s the cause?’ (cause & effect) and how do I create, or correct. What’s best of just me has become what’s best of us, where it’s no longer one side or the other (one side “vs” the other) but consistently is each (and/or all) sides together and how does that (or doesn’t it) fit with our greater surroundings, and superior has become nothing more than a well presented and appreciated talent …

Judih writes movingly superior poetry to my own; and Laurie present complicated issues (such as this one) in a clear, concise and accurate manner much better than I can – Norman does as well – my husband can get to the heart of a situation faster than anyone I know and with more compassion than I do … and I am not lessened in any way because they do! In fact, I’m enhanced when they do!

Superior talent does not make (or translate into) superior spirituality – or superior presence either. Except in someone’s head.

Men’s greatest gift, spiritually … they are ones most consistently ‘in the now!’ And it’s this ability that helps us pull through. Their ability to focus and take quickly action; without regard for perfection … that is both their greatest strength as well as challenge. The same way nurturing can be over done; or done well.

NL (from her email reply) : I just hope for the real brains of womanhood to return - the ones that got us through a dark and oppressive history.

But the “real” brains of womanhood are already present … and have been all along … have always been working to bring us through. It’s just that most of the time, they’re not the ones making the headlines. They don’t look, or act, like they did in the past. And that’s as it should be, for this NOW. I’m sorry she doesn’t know this for herself, for if she did … I don’t think she’d be writing the book the way she is.

In fact, she’s demonstrating why a womens “spirituality” alone is not enough; our weakness – where we need to remind ourselves to watch ourselves … we cling to the past way too much. and that blinds us to what's right here & now, in the present.

She’s looking for help in/from the past; from those who have done their parts and moved on, instead of from those of us now, in the present – were we are.

And that’s where men are better at things than woman are, they are more present; in the moment. Better – but their talent (gift) does not make them spiritually superior to us; but it does make them invaluable for the times when we’re stuck and need to get moving and take actions again.

And vice versa... we bring our gifts to this whole as well. And neither (any) "side" is lessened in any way when we do.

If I can get Ms. Levant to see anything – it would be this.

[stilltrucking]

I know I live in the past way too much. For me it is 1917 amd a preacher's son is leading this country into hell. And there are a few people who see what is happening and they do everything in their power to try and stop it. To no avail. Yes everything is on time and it will all work out for the best. And nothing is important, it is only important that we do it. And man would sooner have the void for a purpose then be void of purpose. And some folks trust in reason but I don't trust in nothing, but I know it will come out right. The fear is change, the fear of change. Going through some life changes here and I tend to mix my own little melodrama up with the my world view.

So I try to keep a stiff upper lip.

There is a Hopi saying in times of trouble, "we are the ones we have been waiting for." I suppose we have been waiting for George W Bush. Yes bring it on, hammer down on the highway to hell.

Evolution is so seductive. Like an electric guitar. It gives the illusion of progress. So I wonder if Einstein was wrong and G-d does play craps with this universe.

Ship of Fools
WD I would probably feel different if I had children, if I was leaving hostages to the future So I try to remember the young, I have had my time, and it was sweet. I do not wish to become a bitter old man at the end. But sometimes I wish the walls would come tumbling down. I wish the oil was two hundred dollars a barrel and every man woman and child had a couple of personal sized Nukes to carry around so they could feel powerful and righteous. Have I mentioned that I am crazy

[stilltrucking]

sorry I should have put that on go, just a total spilling of my guts, a spontaneous rant. You are right, Patriarchy has not failed nor has matriarchy, and hydro carbon man will go the way of the dinosaurs one way or another. My view is pretty warped these days. But I would like to see more women step up to the politcal plate. I think it would help a lot. But what will be will be, Right?

[judih]

just a brief response to all these posts of the past few days. First, how glad i am that Nancy took the time to respond to you and your questions, deb.

Next, how even gladder i am, that you have mentioned that it takes parents' intervention to reclaim the school system. If nothing else, the feminist movement has shattered that little line drawn between genders.

It's hard for me to comprehend how couples divide up responsibilities and never think that working together is the key. Even if that working together involves -

"You're good at smashing desks to make your point, i'm good at being diplomatic - let's storm the principal's office together."
(typical exchange between G and me)

Onward - greater growth through expanded use of talents - all gender bias aside.

Economics has undermined many a good intention. How can i storm anywhere if i have to teach 16 hours a day to support my family?

Still, within a lifestyle of long work hours, it's simply more efficient for parents to band together to support greater sanity in schools.

Men v.s. women? Who has time for that nonsense. We've been there. It's men and women and children and anyone else who cares to join the movement, all in favour of working out issues to make our lives better.

Is the 2nd stage of feminism over? Is there equality in all workplaces? Fraid not. It's still true, here in israel, at least, that many women doing equal work are getting paid lesser salaries.

Has America gone beyond that old prejudicial salary scale?

And what exactly goes on in non-westernized cultures? How equal are the sexes there? Remember Tilly's reports from Afghanistan? Don't go unveiled and don't speak to a man if you're female. Repercussions sometimes include stoning to death.

rhetorically speaking - we're still a far way from getting to basic zero-line. But if we can see where we're going, we can at least open our minds to sharing the resources.

It's not all about cosmetics and the right shoes when we're hoping for a successful feminine gesture. As Geoff wrote in his creative writing piece, people are often afraid of 'ugliness', but if a human being is in touch with the basic goal of living life to the fullest without infringing upon the rights of others, then outer appearances are less of a factor.

Excuse the ramble. If any of this touches any of you, carry on.

and ST, great sculpture.
Nancy, if you're reading this, glad you're open to discussion. Jump in anytime!

deb, you went right to the source and this thread is jumping with thought.

[abcrystcats]

Stilltrucking: I read your post the first time and didn't think it was at all offensive. I agree that women should save themselves and if they don't, we're all doomed.

Did women get a raw deal? Well, biologically we did, sort of.

Being dependent on others while we give birth and raise children is a bit hindering. Certainly, in the dawn of our time, giving birth was a mystery that inspired worship. Women can produce new humans, but men can't. Thus, the Venus of Willendorf and matriarchal, female-worshipping societies. Eventually, the pendulum swung the other direction. Men connected their seed with the birth of children and assigned women the role of "vessel." We never quite rose out of that depiction BECAUSE while we are pregnant, give birth and raise children, we are dependent.

If a woman doesn't even have the means to control WHEN she gets pregnant, that puts her in an underground position. Centuries went by where women could not regain the foothold attained during the Venus of Willendorf times.

Now things have changed COMPLETELY. I can go out and have sex with a man and pretty much KNOW that I'm not going to get pregnant because I took the proper precautions. No one forces me to assume the barefoot and pregnant position. Religion can't do it (there are many these days). Men can't do it. Even if I literally GET PREGNANT the law supports my decision to terminate the pregnancy.

All this means women have more power NOW than they ever did before. While I agree that children need attentive parents who are PRESENT in their lives, I don't think women are losing out in the current system. I think we are gaining, exponentially. Give it TIME. The pendulum has swung WAY far in a short period of time. It will balance out.

I look for a society where men and women contribute somewhat equally in almost all spheres. I think it can be done. Men aren't little tiny pieces of worthless shit just because they have a Y chromosome. Some are quite capable of being sensitive and caring and kind. That means there's potential in ALL men, IMO. And women aren't JUST nurturers, in touch with the spiritual side of life. We can also be dealmakers and dealbreakers. We can swing a big stick and wipe the board clean. We've proven it.

I'm just looking for more choices for each sex. If we truly had that available in the current system, MAYBE there would be less homosexuality. I don't know, I'm just guessing about this. But it seems to me that masculinity suppresses a lot of natural impulses, and femininity does the same. If you get sick of having an important part of yourself suppressed, where do you go? Just a question.

Hester:

"There are consequences if a woman really, and openly goes to her depth and power, and all women know this deep down. "


YAY. You said a mouthful here. Many women think their immediate needs are served by being the little "wifey" figure. I have no respect for that position. I get just as pissed off as you when someone suggests that we (women) had it better BEFORE the feminist movement. Bullshit. We did not have it better.

I really wouldn't like to be beaten because I did not submit to male leadership in my home.

I am sure that eventually this whole thing is going to change and men are going to play a much larger role in the family than they ever did before, but no way am I going to return to kinder, kuche, kirche(sorry my German's lousy -- children, kitchen, church) as a way of regaining my femininity. I can be very feminine and still sell a lot of health insurance policies, no problem. I don't need a man to help me do that.

I need a man for OTHER things (lol) but women have learned that they can work in a man's world.

Now the REAL solution is for men to learn to work in a WOMAN'S world, It isn't for women to return to traditional roles. BALANCE needs to happen. It takes time.

[abcrystcats]

Judih -- The places where I have seen women struggle is where they want to leave the workforce to have children but have their place secure when they return. If you don't have children, or you don't expect a seamless transition when you return to the workforce after taking time off to be with the babies, then you're fine.

There's no sex alone = unequal pay going on in the workforce now. Or very little. But you've got to expect penalties if you walk out to do other things.

I know this isn't an absolutely ideal situation, but it's better than getting chucked under the chin and patted on the butt. If women want to earn what a man earns, then they have to do as a man does, and that means don't spend several months on maternity leave.

[whimsicaldeb]

"You're good at smashing desks to make your point, i'm good at being diplomatic - let's storm the principal's office together."
(typical exchange between G and me) - Judih

~laughing~
That's myself and Cal only the rolls are reversed. Cal's the diplomat and I'm the one who storms. Just ask Eric's 6th grade core teacher. After our combined actions, we were both ‘labeled’ as hostile ~ and yet, things improved for everyone and everyone "survived" our "hostility." And that's the point... that’s progress!

I find I tend to naturally break gender barriers all the time without even meaning too. Technically (in current thinking) ‘storming’ is a ‘mans’ job. But I don't go about planning to break all these barriers (gender or others), that just happen in the course of events as I live my life. imo - if those barriers are in the way, and my actions end up help them fall... oh well, then perhaps the time has come for to let them fall.

While I agree that children need attentive parents who are PRESENT in their lives, I don't think women are losing out in the current system. I think we are gaining, exponentially. Give it TIME. The pendulum has swung WAY far in a short period of time. It will balance out. - Laurie

What women are losing in this current system, is the effectiveness (the tool) of being 'helpless & wimpy' as well as the abilities to so fully manipulate men and situations purely via their sexuality. That's what's dying - as it should.

And I whole heartedly agree -- give it time. It takes time ... it has to start someplace and then move outward; and it HAS - it is.

I am sure that eventually this whole thing is going to change and men are going to play a much larger role in the family than they ever did before, but no way am I going to return to kinder, kuche, kirche(sorry my German's lousy -- children, kitchen, church) as a way of regaining my femininity.

And that's what I'm saying, being involved in the school stuff as I am... I'm seeing men already are playing a larger role in the family ... a better role, a role that allows them to be who and how they really are; home more - caring - even being allowed to cry when it all gets to be too much at times, and still be a man; masculine. Further - this new role is gaining ground, strength. And I see this actively in the schools because that's where I'm currenlty actively involved.

Men are having larger roles in the family ... better roles (imo), roles that allows them to be who and how they really are; home more - caring - even being allowed to cry when it all gets to be too much at times, and still be a man; masculine. And that’s why I’m saying feminism is working, and not failing, in America or elsewhere. And that’s also why I agree that we should be giving everything more time.

Also, once liberated - there is no going back to that 'wimpy' female way any; anymore than once you lose your virginity you can go back to being a virgin. Once done, there is only forward. And that’s probably why those who don’t want their women influence by this type of thing find it so threatening – and what that does, is it creates the need for less ‘stormer’s’ such as myself; and more diplomats like Cal & Judih and yourself, Laurie as well.

[abcrystcats]

whimscaldeb -- thanks for the token inclusion in the role of "diplomat" but I already know I am not one (lol).

I don't know that the woman's role in the past was "wimpy." We needed to do that in order to survive, so it was totally appropriate. Now, we don't, so things just need to change. Like I said, all this takes TIME, and I am guilty of being impatient with women's roles, just as much as anybody. I get really pissed off when I see my fellow females manipulating men using the the time honored traditional methods. BE DIRECT!!! AHHH!! But things change slowly, and the work of centuries isn't going to be obliterated in a few decades, even if I want it to.

I still admire those women of the past who used indirect methods to get some SERIOUS results, and I read about them all the time. Diane de Poitiers was one of the most powerful women in France at a time when France was one of the most powerful nations in the world. She did what she did using sex and suggestion. I could never work that kind of magic as a modern, DIRECT woman. You have to hold something back -- create the aura of mystery-- to achieve those results.

It wasn't a CHEAT, it was an art. But when the playing field gets levelled for women -- and it is, swiftly -- then women should learn to play fair.

Or should they? That is the real question inherent in all this discussion. If women gained an advantage from all those years of dodging men's blows, why can't they use them now?

Just a question.

Don't mean to play devil's advocate. It just came out. [/url]

[whimsicaldeb]

It wasn't a CHEAT, it was an art. But when the playing field gets levelled for women -- and it is, swiftly -- then women should learn to play fair.

Or should they? That is the real question inherent in all this discussion. If women gained an advantage from all those years of dodging men's blows, why can't they use them now?

I'd say it depends upon what they're using their skills for, towards... just like any man; they have their advantages and skills as well. It's the same for each of us, any of us ... What are we using our talents for and why. Then & now.

To con or cure ...
To expand our greed or graciousness…

Or however it could be said – I'm trying to be poetic and it's not quite coming together.


Motive is everything


... and my inclusion of you and your abilities is not a token -- you write with focused clarity and the same directness that Nancy Levant does ~ but without the rage and judgmentalness. That’s a gift – your gift. And we get to enjoy and benefit from it!

Thank you.

[hester_prynne]

Judih, your statement above that

"Men v.s. women? Who has time for that nonsense. We've been there. It's men and women and children and anyone else who cares to join the movement, all in favour of working out issues to make our lives better."

I couldn't have said it better. This is exactly what I am all for.

But I don't kid myself that it has happened.......
H

[stilltrucking]

abcrystcats

Your user name reminds me of the old Captain Marvel comic book. The hero was a poor crippled news boy. But there was a magic word SHAZAM that he would say to become the mighty Captain Marvel. But you had to be able to pronounce it exactly right. Can't tell you how many times I tried to say it right.

Not to change the subject but there is a show on NPR hosted Diane Rehm. She had a show about Mother Daughter relationships.
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/01/24.php

She takes call ins, about half way into the show she said to her guest "The next caller is a man." The way she said it was like a warning. I can't tell you how much I love her show, not only that she is one hot looking woman. imho.

Well my point is what the hell am I doing here?

I can't argue with you cause I don't know what it is to be a woman in this best of all worlds.
Judih probably has got a better grip on this bit from the Talmud

Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who did not make me a woman."

I have always felt that way because women seem to me to much more desiarable lovers then men. Not because I think women are inferior. I think we men lucked out in getting to love women,

I am a want to be anthropologist, I think a lot of what you say about women being dependent on men is cultural not biological. But it is hard to generalize about humans, there are so many variables. That is why the bell curve fascinates me. That big hump in the middle were gender is so clear cut, and the lonely few out on the tail ends where it is more complicated. Take courage to be what you are. Barny Frank the congressman is a hero of mine too. But the quakers used to have a children's song, "it is a gift to be simple" women are the only game in town for me, I am a simple man.

done

this is just an open text box rip and run kind of post, probably a million typos. Going for spontaneous truth here. Probably spontaneous gibberish, edit later.

[stilltrucking]

Well that's just it, maybe we didn't go wrong, maybe we aren't going wrong -- maybe it's all actually alright - correct - as it should be; for what it is for where we're at.

I question my motives. WD. Tempted to delete the one above. Tell me do you think that women got the short end of the stick biologicaly? I don't want to believe that.

Dam I wish nobody had mentioned going out on a date and having sex.

[whimsicaldeb]

... this is just an open text box rip and run kind of post, probably a million typos. Going for spontaneous truth here. Probably spontaneous gibberish, edit later.

Quote:
Well that's just it, maybe we didn't go wrong, maybe we aren't going wrong -- maybe it's all actually alright - correct - as it should be; for what it is for where we're at. -- wd

I question my motives. WD. Tempted to delete the one above. Tell me do you think that women got the short end of the stick biologicaly? I don't want to believe that.

Hi ST ... Don't delete the one above, it's well worth keeping. And, don't edit it too much either (imo) you'll ruin the rhythm within the flow of your spontaneity.

As for your question, did women get the short end of the stick biologically?

I'm glad you added the word, biologically.


imo:
No, we did not. And No ~ men didn't either.

Trees are not bushes, frogs are not toads, our right hand is not our left, and our toes are not our fingers.... Viva la difference!

[abcrystcats]

Stilltrucking --

Don't bother trying to pronounce it (abcrystcats) -- it was never meant to be pronounced. "Cat" will do

I don't think I was trying to convey the impression that women got "the short end of the stick" biologically. That oversimplifies things a bit much. It's more that there are several things that go into pregnancy, childbirth and childrearing. Those things undeniably make women physically vulnerable. They just do. Patriarchy is the simple result of women being physically vulnerable a lot of the time, and men having greater mobility and the upper body strength to go out and fight and kill and do whatever.

I think a lot of what you say about women being dependent on men is cultural not biological.

Well, it could be. But think about how long it takes for children to become autonomous. And who has usually gotten stuck with the job of raising them? Women. And is it any different in other species? No, not really, unless you want to bring up a few weird examples. The female of the species raises the young, almost always. In some species, a pair-bond is formed and the male supports the female while she's doing this and even contributes by doing some parenting. But for every species with a pair-bond example, there's another one where the female does all or most of the childrearing alone, with little or no help from her mate.

Either way, the female is almost always the primary one responsible for rearing the young. And when you're watching five little ducklings, it makes it hard to watch your own back as well, when the fox comes along. It's extra work finding food for all those ducklings. It takes extra body heat to keep them warm. Human childbirth and childrearing are undeniably draining and weakening activities, even in the best of circumstances.

Is that cultural? Or is it safe to say that childrearing devolving on the female of the species is a fairly universal pattern in nature? And is it also safe to assume that when we take on these responsibilities we are either going to be vulnerable or (in the case of pair-bonds) rather dependent?

I don't think it's cultural. I think it's biological.

That's why I think birth control is one of the real liberators of women. If we have control over our reproductive decisions we can take on much more social and cultural responsibility as a group -- and at times when we are the most physically and mentally powerful.

This is forcing men to compromise their former, patriarchal decisions. If men want children to be born, then they've got to do a little more than they did in the past to make it happen. Depositing some sperm, and then hauling home a hunk of raw meat every few days just isn't going to cut it. Women want to be assured that they will have some freedom of movement and thought before, during and after children are born. That might mean the man taking on a larger share of the parenting task. It might mean that a man has to prove that he's emotionally prepared to look at the woman as an equal partner in a relationship.

These changes are happening now because the biological imperative to procreate isn't so imperative any more. Sure, women got the vote long before they got the Pill, but at that point advances were rapidly being made in the area of birth control, and there was also a fairly universal trend towards literacy in the Western world. When women could read, they had a lot more power. Now with birth control, we have a WHOLE lot more.

Before you think it's cultural, tell me about any major society where the sexes shared power equally or where women were dominant. I can think of a few little ones, but I said major -- meaning it lasted and became prominent in Eastern or Western Civilization. Phooey -- the Japanese , the Chinese, the English and Spanish and I-don't-know-what-all -- ALL put women in a subordinate place for most of history. That was not an accident of culture.

It was a result of biology. Women get pregnant and men don't.

whimsicaldeb --

I don't know

Motive is everything

I'm still pondering. It's sort of like saying the end justifies the means (???) -- which I don't agree with, as a general principle.

I'm trying to think of a good example of a woman using "women's wiles" to achieve an end, where the means aren't right but the result is.

It'll come to me ....

[stilltrucking]

What do you want me to say? Oh yeah god screwed up, the creator gave women a bad deal. I tell you again that we are talking about culture here not biology. There is a second birth; we are born out of our mother's womb into an extro biological womb called culture. I know nothing about the human potential movement, but I like the sound of it. What I am sorry about is the damage a woman's resentment can cause her sons. But I think about the father's who have abused their daughters and I wonder who is to bless and who is to blame. It is an unbroken chain of sorrow we must break. Biological evolution is slow, but cultural evolution can happen in a generation, in a heartbeat. We got to change the culture.

Some human societies are better than others.
There is a tribe that I call the don't give a shit about you tribe. I can't remember where they are located. When a woman is pregnant everyone ignores her. When it is her time she goes off into the bushes and has the child by herself and she comes back to the tribe and life goes on.


If you think women are stuck with anything who am I to tell you that you are wrong. I can't debate this with you. Unless you can see yourself as equal to a man, I can't deal with it. I been there done that. My little sister born in 1953 lived through the changes of the sexual revolution. We would talk about these things forever. I guess I am talked out. Where the heck is perezoso when we need him.

The pill has its down side too. The biochemistry of a woman’s reproductive cycle is so complex why mess with it. Have you ever wondered why there is not a male pill? Yep, I think it is because men run the pharmaceutical companies. But anyway I think it is counter productive to see yourself as a victim. Self-pity almost killed me. In fact it may have, I do not know for sure what that thing in my lung is yet. Some people smoke for pleasure, I smoked for the same reason Kurt Vonnegut did. But he had better reasons. Speaking of Kurt He thinks the human species should pack it in and go the way of the dodo bird. I am pretty disgusted with the disease called man myself. But I have high hopes for womankind. WD and I have discussed this thing about matriarchy and patriarchy above somewhere. She has a positive take on it. There is a string about the Danish cartoons. I keep mentioning that it is testosterone poisoning that is the problem. All I see is a bunch of dick heads with beards raising Cain. Nobody seems interested in discussing that. All the posts are by men; only one woman has posted to the string maybe two. It is time for a change. I am looking for the American woman to save the world.

I can only say this; I pity the man without a sister



Not to change the subject but there is a theory that PMS killed Sylvia Plath. She had horrible periods; Ted Hughes use to say how fertile she was but there is a down side to every thing. I love Frieda Hughes' poetry. I have read a lot about Plath, I suppose you can say I have been in love with that Smith coed of hers for thirty years, I have read the bell jar ten times, maybe only nine, I forget. Frieda Hughes loved her father; she thinks he was a good man. He had two wives dead by their own hand, and one child murdered by her mother. Their lives are like a Greek Tragedy.

I have a bookshelf devoted to her,
She has helped me make it through a long lonely time.
I can't even begin to talk about what St Anne Of Sexton has done for me.

"If I can't have love, give me bitter fame."