[MD] Social level for humans only

[MarshaV]

John,

Men do not experience what is like to be a woman(mother) from a biological point-of-view, nor do they know the experience of being socialized as a woman(mother).  It seems to me that restricted intellectual patterns have been built to define 'women' and than believed to be true.  I sense it as psychological foot-binding.

What would women be like if their native intelligence was allowed to develop freely?  I don't know.  I don't blame "men", but suggest that the Church of Religion and the Church of Reason, both based on masculine principles/power, have been responsible for the distortion.  Why?  Maybe fear, or power, or who knows?   

My question might be how do women recover what is their unique power?  See this is where my inquiry remains open.  I have no easy solution and resent being tossed easy and distorted cliches.  This may not represent something that is a pressing issue for you.  It is for me, and maybe like I understand the MoQ to be a bridge between the East and West, I wonder if the MoQ might also be a bridge between the masculine and the feminine.  I don't see them as the same; women haven't fared better in the East.  


Marsha   








On Aug 23, 2010, at 3:51 PM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> John,  
> 
> I'm not talking about what was said while quilting in a group, and I 
> not talking about your psychological gender nonsense either.
> I'm talking about the power men used through the Church of Religion 
> and the Church of Reason to define woman, and their place within 
> society.  Women were not even permitted to vote until the last 
> century.  Women can project valuable and interesting ideas too if 
> they were not for centuries prohibited from doing so on threat of 
> death.
> 
> Your crack about 'neti, neti' is pure foolishness.  It represents more 
> than you understand, but of course, I get only what you project a
> woman might think.   Probed and understood?  Fuck probed and 
> understood.  Probe and understand your own illusions instead 
> of erecting a tower of babel.  
> 
> 
> Marsha  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 23, 2010, at 2:49 PM, John Carl wrote:
> 
>> Marsha said,
>> 
>> 
>>> Agree, but I don't know that women are privileged to be in the position to
>>> intellectualize (define) what men are like.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From the dawn of time, women have sat in circles and done exactly that,
>> Marsha.  And they probably get a lot closer to the truth of the matter than
>> men would find comfortable.
>> 
>> While men, when they get together, freely admit they don't understand women.
>> So undoubtedly there's differing approaches.
>> 
>> For one example, it seems that men try much harder to put themselves out
>> there.  Men are outwardly projectionistic, thrusting their ideas and
>> thoughts out at the world.  Whereas women seem to relish being inward and
>> secretive and mysterious, going all "not this, not that" or "fuck your
>> questions" to avoid being probed and understood.
>> 
>> Dan Bern's question, "do you like me, or are you ignoring me?" is a question
>> that takes balls to ask.
>> 
>> Big balls.
>> 
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5t2Qr0q80
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___