Where goes?

And why would this be good for the Q4 funding project group?

Actually, now that Brian started this thread: I can't wait 'til this stupid voting process is over so we can start talking about it... -- but I guess I'll have to (is that off topic? did I at least get the group right? ;)

Is there something going on with the funding process that I am unaware of and relates to hated heroines?

I dunno -- What's going on with the hated heroines?

why does funding have to do with everything--Joan???

Is Joan one of the hated Heroines?

it may be we are in the wrong apartment

there are some guys in green eyeshades

and some serious committees convening,

and here we are giggling over heroines

??¿¿

Funding doesn't have to do with everything, but it looks like it when you put a thread like this into a funding group. Where did you learn about organization? Is this some new fangled idea of chaos and order?

What about trying:

• http://www.omidyar.net/group/bookclub/
• http://www.omidyar.net/group/coffee/
• http://www.omidyar.net/group/smartwomen/

or some groups like that?

Ornery Jean

And why am I the only girl here so far? You aren't going to vilify me, are you?

Speaking of vilification, maybe it would also fit in at the http://www.omidyar.net/group/luni/ bin?

;D nmw

the most maligned of all the world's heroines are the mexicanas;

in a world that is so corrupt and so perverse that one might just

stick a pitchfork in it, ...and say it were done. In such a world

so devoid of love, light, nature, and reason, The Mexican woman

has been passing unnoticed through the past 500 years of history.

And, of all the problems, catastrophes, and disgraces in this

our benighted world, NOT a one of them has she been the cause of!

Since there are tens of millions of Mexicanas all over Mexico

and the United States as well, it seems to me impossible to believe

the mexicanas are not being ignored on purpose, since they are the

vessels of virtue and beauty and grace, also of cultural traditions.

Those organs of mass-media opinion and favor are the hoary villains

in my book would relegate the Toltec daughters for another 500 years,

in favor of terror and violence, of rap artists and of virtual rape.

Well, I'm new here, so please forgive me if I miss the boat. It seems to me that there is a connection between human trafficking work (whether that directly involves funding or not) and this theory of historical hatred toward heroines. That hatred probably comes from some desire to dissempower, and I would propose that, likewise, sexual and economic exploitation of women (and children and girls but for the moment we're talking about women) comes from some desire to dissempower (we're talking about very deep roots here). Therefore, I think the historical relationship could be useful to the bredth of the discussion. Any deeping of the discussion, or education on these matters, will surely in some form or another reverberate out to positively effect funding matters, yes?

Personally, it's a subject I've looked at a little bit and found very interesting. I would like to be part of it, if it happens. Thanks!

Hi Margaret--you certainly are a part of it--

Anyway, Jean--I thought I was posting this "new discussion" as a new discussion and not a part of funding--but, like indicated in the previous post, perhaps...

ah, you must pick the group to post to, my friend.

I have long believed that men are deeply threatened by the inherent power of the female to reproduce. Seems like some sort of biological thing to contain women in order to be sure that any child born to her would be definitely of his making and not some other bloke. Why women have allowed this, I am not sure. Why it matters to the species as a whole, I am not sure. Perhaps it is part of the construction of ego?

What I do know is that stories shape our view of the world. So the vilification of "strong" women and the heroicizing (did I make that up?) of "strong" men plays a significant part in the cultural constructions of our identities, thereby limiting the beliefs both men and women have of the possibilities for either and both sexes.

So--should I delete this and post the topic in the community grouping???

Or is there another way in which to get this entire discussion moved in mass?

Come on ladies--help me out...please!

Well, I'm no lady -- and all of this is beginning to sound dangerous to me. Good luck, Brian!

;D nmw

The capitalist mode of production has penetrated farther and deeper than any other form of production. Geographically it has extended its technology in search of markets; politically it has devised the most ingenious methods of control in its own interests; economically it has created means of production, which are wonderful in their productive capacity and terrifying in their devastation. Its industry has devoured human labor power and human intelligence. In its search for raw materials it has laid waste the land and is beginning to exhaust even the sea. Worse, its version of itself has entered the souls and spirits of millions of men and women, so we no longer know what is our own and what is alienated to capital.

The antagonisms it generates produce the shifts and fissures that make the growth of new movements possible. In quiet times the hope of liberation grows lichenlike on inhospitable rock. In times of upheaval new growths can take root. In order to change capitalism we have to understand how it is made, how it moves, and how it came into being. We have to see how it is different from, or related to, other forms of production, how it is hinged together. It is a foxy old thing, wily at dealing with the opposition it brings into being, whether its opponent is the working class or movements for black or women’s liberation.

The predicament of being born a woman in capitalism is specific. The social situation of women and the way in which we learn to be feminine is peculiar to us. Men do not share it, consequently we cannot be simply included under the general heading of “mankind.” The only claim that this word has to be general comes from the dominance of men in society. As the rulers they presume to define others by their own criteria.

Women are not the same as other oppressed groups. Unlike the working class which has no need for the capitalist under socialism, the liberation of women does not mean that men will be eliminated. Sex and class are not the same. Similarly people from oppressed races have a memory of a cultural alternative somewhere in the past. Women have only myths made by men. We have to recognize our biological distinctness but this does not mean that we should become involved in an illusory hunt for our lost “nature.”

The oppression of women differs too from class and race because it has not come out of capitalism and imperialism. The sexual division of labor and the possession of women by men predates capitalism. Patriarchal authority is based on male control over the woman’s productive capacity, and over her person. This control existed before the development of capitalist commodity production. It belonged to a society in which the persons of human beings were owned by others. Patriarchy, however, is contradicted by the dominant mode of production in capitalism because in capitalism the owner of capital owns and controls the labor power but not the persons of his laborers....... Brian Lewis said:

Well--I am probably jumping into this topic and may get blasted but...

Anyway, I have been reading a book titled "The Expected One" which provides some provocative ideas about such historical female personalities as Joan d'Arc, Lucreita Borgia, Mary Magdalene and others.

To make a long story short--it seems that we men have created myths and legends that support our male dominance at the expense and degradation of our female partners on this planet--

Anyway--here goes...

Emancipation has brought woman economic equality with man; that is, she can choose her own profession and trade; but as her past and present physical training has not equipped her with the necessary strength to compete with man, she is often compelled to exhaust all her energy, use up her vitality, and strain every nerve in order to reach the market value. Very few ever succeed, for it is a fact that women teachers, doctors, lawyers, architects, and engineers are neither met with the same confidence as their male colleagues, nor receive equal remuneration. And those that do reach that enticing equality, generally do so at the expense of their physical and psychical well-being. As to the great mass of working girls and women, how much independence is gained if the narrowness and lack of freedom of the home is exchanged for the narrowness and lack of freedom of the factory, sweat-shop, department store, or office? In addition is the burden which is laid on many women of looking after a "home, sweet home" --cold, dreary, disorderly, uninviting--after a day's hard work. Glorious independence! No wonder that hundreds of girls are so willing to accept the first offer of marriage, sick and tired of their "independence" behind the counter, at the sewing or typewriting machine. They are just as ready to marry as girls of the middle class, who long to throw off the yoke of parental supremacy. A so-called independence which 1eads only to earning the merest subsistence is not so enticing, not so ideal, that one could expect woman to sacrifice everything for it. Our highly praised independence is, after all, but a slow process of dulling and stifling woman's nature, her love instinct, and her mother instinct.

Does religion play a part in this lack of equality, Irena? And, if so, is there a difference between the religions of Abraham as compared to the religions of Krishna or Buddha?

Brian observed:

It seems that we men have created myths and legends that support our male dominance at the expense and degradation of our female partners on this planet.

Well, you got that right. To generalize: men tend to seek total power, women perhaps are more comfortable sharing power? In the critique of reproduction, neither s@x has complete control of the act, though women its consequences. Men, undoubtedly, are caused psychic grief by this situation and find themselves beggared for it. Hence, rape and the other vile predations of men.

That said, it is extraordinary what women like Jehanne la Pucelle accomplished in their age.

I agree with Elena, that many ages have wrestled with this tension. The pre-Christian nations of the northern mediterranean seemed to have it right (giving of release to this tension) with their fertility cults, which transfered to women the spiritual charge for this balance. The modern Church, with its excesses of control over the woman, has this tension precisely knotted up, the equation exactly backward you might say.

the persons of human beings were owned by others

What does "ownership" mean in this context. I mean, I can say I own something, and others could disagree, like the Native Americans disagreed that the white man could own the land. Do we really own the land? What's the test for ownership? Is it really possible to own a slave? Do prisons own their prisoners? Do the sweat-shop and brothel owners own their workers? Does a drug dealer own the illegal drugs he possesses? Do you own the fly on your wall that you're about to smush?

B Did not the same Apostle say that : "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3, 28). With these amazingly simple words the Apostle refutes not only the wearisome squabbling regarding freedom, nationality and chosenness, but also explains the essence of true equality of men and women.

I encountered a very provocative, at least to me and I think it will be to some if not many of you, scripture from the Apostle Paul--

"Women should be silent during church meetings. they are not to take part in the discussion, for they are subordinate to men as the Scriptures also declare. If they have any questions to ask, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to express their opinions in church meetings." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

And then again, Paul writes:

"I never let women teach men or lord it over them. Let them be silent in your church meetings. Why? Because God made Adam first, and afterwards he made Eve. And it was not Adam who was fooled by Satan, but Eve, and sin was the result." 1 Timothy 2:12-14

If these are the words and teachings of, at least for most Protestant church members the most important Apostle--namely Paul--then must we conclude that women are bad or should we conclude that something ain't kosher in Paul's thinking?

Well women are clearly not bad, thus it must be something that ain't "kosher" in Paul's thinking. (Is Paul in both Jewish and Christian sciptures? I have zilch religious training.)

well we need to read between the lines..so when first time I encounter the senteces which are describing following: I never let woman teach men or lord is over them. let them be silent in your churches meetings...and some other parts I felt that I disagree, But as I grew up I find out the different dimension which lays beyond this words...So I understand the we can locate a various paradoxes in the religion but Christianity is not discriminating woman but oposite.Let us look at the general reaction among Orthodox thinkers to the modern discussion of the role of women in the Church. On the one hand, we have the very "traditional" view, expressing a conservative attitude toward the social role of women in general. I have often read of, and heard expressed, images of women that are in almost total concord with the old German expression, "Kinder und Kuche"—women are essentially for child-bearing and for cooking. from this point of view, that women have an essential "nature" such that they appropriately belong to the home. The things of the home are fundamentally and somehow appropriately suited to the female gender. One senses, in the more extreme advocates of this view, the notion that the social roles of females are perhaps dogmatic, that women are universally relegated, by a God-given command, to the home and its concerns.

On the other hand, we find ample evidence, in all of the media in American society, that women are willing to sacrifice every notion of their separate and unique identity in order to break the bonds of the presumably man-made social roles which constrain them in their actions and behaviors. It is not unusual for women to deny even their physiological distinctions from the male and to advocate the most extreme form of "sexual equality." In the frenzy of this denial process, they paradoxically often claim for themselves the right to the same abusive characteristics which men have ostensibly exhibited in exercising their prejudicial authority over women. And often, from the psychological standpoint, the intemperance of these women leads them to crises in sexual identity, further resulting in behavior of such an abominable kind that it bears little protracted comment.