Understanding sexism, racism and other isms in the progressive/liberal communities.
The full book title for those of you who have not already read it is "Sacred Pleasure: sex, myth, and the politics of the body" by Riane Eisler; who, some of you know, also wrote "The Chalice and the Blade."
It has been my experience that many feminists cringe when confronted with anything related to spirituality and/or religion; with good cause given what has been done against/to women in the name of god and/or religion. I believe and I have believed since beginning my feminist research and career that we avoid the spiritual realm to our own detriment. It has been such an effective tool against us, we must understand its workings in order to defeat its efficacy. I've spent much of my feminist career examining religions and comparing mythologies of the sacred feminine and how many of those myths define what it is to be human and to define what it is to be female; usually different and conflicting pictures. As a matter of fact, I realized recently, that my feminist consciousness came about due to the fact that I questioned many of the tenets within the religion of my childhood; the catholic church.
Since this may be a book which would be overlooked by feminists due to its spiritual theme, I felt I should post about it here. Quite frankly, I hope that I'm wrong and that my experiences within the feminist community are now quaint anachronisms of the feminist movement past. :D
The theme throughout both "Chalice" and "Sacred Pleasure" is that of dominator versus partnership societies. "Sacred Pleasure" begins where "Chalice" left off and shows the inter-connectedness of dominator ideals as they impact the "nuclear" family, economic realities, the political sphere, the role of religion and myth-making, the role of media to promote approved mythology, and the ever present need and erotization of "sacred" violence or threat of violence in order to maintain dominator (patriarchal) systems of oppression over those defined as less than, weaker, less worthy, less god-like, i.e., "feminine." Her theories say that sexism against women is the "linchpin" upon which all isms are modeled. Sexism is the "template" for all forms of discrimination and hatred toward "out groups."
Her theories about dominator versus partnership help to explain sexism, racism, homophobia, and other anti-"other" behaviors and comments many here experience within our own progressive/liberal movement; from men and women.
I highly recommend you investigate both "Chalice" and "Sacred Pleasure" with an eye toward defining that which continues to "defeat" us and separate us as we continue to re-define the world in which we live and to see those dominator ideals which we and "ours" continue to propagate within our work toward peace, partnership and equality rather than violence, hatred and power-over.
We may have come a long way, but we have a long way still to go.
Showing posts with label democratic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democratic. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Let's make up our mind, shall we?
In a world in which politics = attainment/retainment of power...
and power = authoritarian rule over others, in other words, politics = attainment/retainment of authoritarian rule over others...yes repubs are better as that is their reality, their game; they have home field advantage, if you will. And, they move the goal and change the rules when and as it benefits them.
As progressives, liberals, Democrats, our reality, our game, is (was?) more about distribution of, or sharing power with rather than over, something closer to an egalitarian structure rather than and authoritarian structure.
As the current political system/structure exists, we do not have home field advantage and we're uncomfortable with the rules of the game and we can't keep track of the goal as it's always moving.
As long as our political system is about "winning" at all costs, about attaining/retaining authoritarian power over, as long as repubs define what "winning" is, as long as we continue to embrace our ideals over winning strategies, we will continue to "lose."
As a movement, not just a party, those of us on the left must decide if we want to "win" the political game or if we are in this to improve, make better our world. Why are we in this? What is our goal?
If our goal is to "win" authoritarian power over, then we need to quite slamming ourselves and our representatives for selling off pieces of their souls and ideals in order to acquire votes and appear "mainstream." We have to quit hobbling our representatives with ideological standards that lose votes. We have to quit applying a double standard to "our" reps which weakens their ability to acquire money and power in order to play by "their" rules.
If our goal is to make better, improve our world, then we have to stick with our high ideals and we have to change the political system and the "accepted norms" which are anti-survival and antithetical to sharing power with. We have to provide "the people," on both ends of the "political" spectrum, with the knowledge and education that there are options, that there are other ways in which to exercise power and that there are other forms of power than authoritarian power over.
and power = authoritarian rule over others, in other words, politics = attainment/retainment of authoritarian rule over others...yes repubs are better as that is their reality, their game; they have home field advantage, if you will. And, they move the goal and change the rules when and as it benefits them.
As progressives, liberals, Democrats, our reality, our game, is (was?) more about distribution of, or sharing power with rather than over, something closer to an egalitarian structure rather than and authoritarian structure.
As the current political system/structure exists, we do not have home field advantage and we're uncomfortable with the rules of the game and we can't keep track of the goal as it's always moving.
As long as our political system is about "winning" at all costs, about attaining/retaining authoritarian power over, as long as repubs define what "winning" is, as long as we continue to embrace our ideals over winning strategies, we will continue to "lose."
As a movement, not just a party, those of us on the left must decide if we want to "win" the political game or if we are in this to improve, make better our world. Why are we in this? What is our goal?
If our goal is to "win" authoritarian power over, then we need to quite slamming ourselves and our representatives for selling off pieces of their souls and ideals in order to acquire votes and appear "mainstream." We have to quit hobbling our representatives with ideological standards that lose votes. We have to quit applying a double standard to "our" reps which weakens their ability to acquire money and power in order to play by "their" rules.
If our goal is to make better, improve our world, then we have to stick with our high ideals and we have to change the political system and the "accepted norms" which are anti-survival and antithetical to sharing power with. We have to provide "the people," on both ends of the "political" spectrum, with the knowledge and education that there are options, that there are other ways in which to exercise power and that there are other forms of power than authoritarian power over.
I'm an outcast in my own party
The Democratic Party I grew up in actually put great value in the intellect of its people. I can remember being proud that I was part of a party that recognized intellect and gifted individuals as people to be admired; education was valued and higher education and rewards for excellence were to be aspired to.
Remember all the talk about how Kerry was so great in the debates compared to shrub and his mumbling, stumbling and (possibly) prompted mutterings. The Democrats were the "thinking man's" (and later, the "thinking woman's") party. JFK, RFK, MLK and today RFK, Jr., Randi Rhodes, Janine Garofalo and so many others. So many talented and gifted writers and actors and artists and sports figures; many of whom have discussed the problems they've confronted in their lives trying to conform to the dominant society's definition of normal.
The repubs were always labeling us "elitist" and "snobs" and "arrogant" because we value our gifts and the gifts of our members when all we were doing was trying to debate issues which included the nuanced and subtle language required to fully understand an issue rather than 30 second sound-bites of "black and white" pablum.
And now, because a group of those very same people within our party and on this board want to come together to discuss how those very same attacks and ideas influenced their lives, for good and ill, and I read with amazement the same words, "elitist," "snob" and "arrogant."
Well, okay, then...welcome to shrub's amerika. I'm so proud.
Remember all the talk about how Kerry was so great in the debates compared to shrub and his mumbling, stumbling and (possibly) prompted mutterings. The Democrats were the "thinking man's" (and later, the "thinking woman's") party. JFK, RFK, MLK and today RFK, Jr., Randi Rhodes, Janine Garofalo and so many others. So many talented and gifted writers and actors and artists and sports figures; many of whom have discussed the problems they've confronted in their lives trying to conform to the dominant society's definition of normal.
The repubs were always labeling us "elitist" and "snobs" and "arrogant" because we value our gifts and the gifts of our members when all we were doing was trying to debate issues which included the nuanced and subtle language required to fully understand an issue rather than 30 second sound-bites of "black and white" pablum.
And now, because a group of those very same people within our party and on this board want to come together to discuss how those very same attacks and ideas influenced their lives, for good and ill, and I read with amazement the same words, "elitist," "snob" and "arrogant."
Well, okay, then...welcome to shrub's amerika. I'm so proud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
