What Should We Do To Effect Change?

[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*