Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00338)

Richard wrote:

>I need a clarification.  As a result of a previous series of postings, I came
>away with the distinct impression that it was the general opinion of Kym and
>the majority of the other women on the list that making broad gender
>associations was not such a good thing.

It ain't.


>The reason for this, I thought Kym
>was pointing out, was because these associations are often just
>historical/cultural/social/mythological etc. overlays which are not really
>based on any valid, fundamental differences between men and women.


Too true.


>For
>example, Kym objected strongly and immediately when she mistakenly thought I
>subscribed to the old notion that the principle of "pattern-following" could
>somehow be associated with the feminine.


Mistakenly?   Did we ever resolve that?


>Thus, I was somewhat surprised to see no objection from Kym or anyone else
>when  ~community~ and ~cooperation~ suddenly showed up as "feminine" terms.


Me, too.  I am horrified. (seriously)



>(Also, I was sort of thinking that ~masculine~ rather than ~patriarchal~ was
>the intended association with ~hierarchy~ and ~power~, since ~matriarchal~
>and not ~feminine~ would have been the conventional pairing).

Patriarchal is akin to hierarchy and power - as the term is applied to group
situations.  Masculine does not mean the same as patriarchal.  Feminine does
not mean matriarchal. 


>What's the story here?  I can easily see why women would object to someone
>asserting that ~initiative~, for example, is one of the "masculine
>principles"; however, I do not understand why the same objection is not made
>about ~cooperation~ being naturally associated with the feminine.

Richard, at the risk of being taunted with "liar, liar, pants on fire" - I
honestly never saw TTT's post.  I don't receive about a fourth of my e-mail
due to recurrent server problems.  I really don't even know what we're
talking about here, but how could I resist not answering a post entitled
"Silence of the Kyms?"  It's clearly a 'double dog dare you' post.  I love
those.

I think, though, Richard, there is only one Kym.  There is a Kim (spelled
with an 'i'), but there is only one Kym, as far as I know.  Surely you're
not doing the unthinkable - grouping all women into one and calling them
Kyms, are you?  You may not be seeing us as individuals.  Say it isn't so,
Richard!

HOWEVER!  It warms my oh-so-hardened heart to know that you have been alert
to any gender jumblings.  I surely do hope a few other fellas will follow
your lead.


>Tell me how I should be thinking about these things and I will undoubtedly
>cooperate (I've been married). . . .

I look forward to your cooperation.  

I look forward to your future postings.


Kym