These are times that try women's souls. We are well into the 2008 presidential sprint, in this the twenty-first century, with a historical opportunity to level the playing field. So far the most important issue of the campaign is man v. woman. It is a point looming large with Hillary Clinton eyeing male- ruled precincts of the White House West Wing. Endless chatter and numbing debates can't obscure the facts; the paramount proposition forwarded is man...woman, separate and unequal.
This piqued my feminist curiosity; going back in history, research reveals that little has changed since records declared men were, and are, the accepted dominant force in most every organized society. Those sentiments were fully aired during the wide-open era we call the decadent sixties.
Eras are cyclical, progressive change following conservative stalemates as politcal processes create tensions that pull a society back to the center for its own good. Then comes wise men and women who look beyond the obvious and proffer new ideas. Such a women is cultural historian, Riane Eisler, author of Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth and the Politics of the Body. She borrows from universal women's laments merging those issues with an original synthesis regard human sexuality and how it has impacted world history. Or as she explains it: "...humanity's 5000 year detour into endemic social violence, cruelty, and pain." Thus, she frames the seeds of history's male sexism.
Eisler dismisses the theory that men are innately violent and women's servitude the norm. She also rejects a corollary thesis that gender differences naturally result in conflict. She views culturally-imposed evolution as the major determinant force molding social patterns. In early societies, sex--our most intimate interpersonal relationship--was practiced with great joy, minus any hint of sin or shame later associated with copulation.
At that time, the sex act induced a spiritual element organically tranmitted into community life. This nurtured the concept we call love. "Love is the highest expression of evolution on the planet," Riane Eisler instructs.
She believes that human love was fostered by rearing children. The human infant requires a lengthy period of maturation. The act of child care created great pleasure that transcended the physical, infusing an emotional component, spreading its own life force through the greater tribal society. Eisler cites sex therapists, Masters and Johnson, on their idea of the "pleasure bond." As an evolutionary process, the bond begins with human reproduction in the union of man and woman.
Further, Eisler states that the theory of a human "selfish gene" is only theory; she coined the phrase "the dominator model," to explain her thesis. Inherent selfishness on the part of Man is propagated by many professionals in the field of social studies. They use that model to define all human relationships, connecting it to the neo-Darwin school in which males are ranked above females, leading to a stiffling hierarchical social order. This, in turn, is tangential to an institutionalized sexist system, marked by sexual coercion.
Throughout the centuries, women have been victims of sexual machinations to enhance men's physical pleasure. In ancient Greece, women were considered demons, the highest expression of love being homosexual bonding. Ancient Romans reluctantly gave women incremental freedom but never fully released them from patriarchical power, though they did honor marriage and felt that heterosexual love was the highest form of affection.
The Chinese bound young girl's feet for centuries, seeing in the "three-inch Lotus foot," a bizarre ideal of beauty. Even when foot-binding was outlawed during subsequent regimes, women continued to suffer, breaking bones and binding their own feet--believing it improved chances at a more propitious marriage. Sex, as noted, does present us with some fairly pathological fettishes. In these societies, the dominator model was the standard. The modern trafficking in sex slavery proves our social advances do not keep apace with technological leaps.
Returning to Riane Eisler's hypotheses, she states that the concept of altruism is missing from the dominator model. And wonders why, the "kin" doctrine (humankind's only raison d'etre to protect its own gene pool) did not apply when Germans rescued Jewish familes during Hitler's purges at great peril to themselves, their kin, and friends. "What we're really talking about is empathy--empathic love," she affirms, debunking the popular view of Man-as-animal.
She sees echoes of the dominator system employed during military training and in child rearing in many modern societies. Such environments are engineered to routinely humiliate the charge, who, in order to be accepted, must obey and submit to a higher authority without question.
Eisler cites both Italian biologist, Humberto Maturana, and Charles Darwin, to emphasize her thesis; Maturana expanded on the Masters and Johnson pleasure bond idea. Eisler follows his lead: "The sexual bond produces neuropeptides that reward, us with enormous sensations of pleasure, as happens not only when we receive love but when we give love, caring and pleasure."
She paraphrases Darwin in his The Descent of Man: "...he very explicitly said that natural selection, the survival of the fittest, simply do not apply as the only factors, and certainly not as the primary factors, when it comes to human evolution. There is the very important factor that he called, 'the moral sense.'"
Is it time to return to our humble, primal beginnings as co-partners in a dangerous world? Gender separation lies in the perception, not the reality. Our human brain is flexible and can be reprogrammed to accept shared experience. Men and women are unique in physical differences rather than in any profound emotional way.
(This discussion is based on a Q and A session, "Sex, Spirituality, and Evolution: Are We Victims to the Beast Within?" by Mark Harris for Conscious Choice February, 1999, and is available online.)
I do have writing credits in a major newspaper--long ago.
Currently, I write for online political boards with a
definite liberal bias. Proud parent, grandparent and
aspiring poet and novelist. I never stopped aspiring.
Finally managed to earn a BA degree in communications/ American lit. Love romantic fiction that also stretches
the intellectual muscles. And am mad about romantic
Russian composers. I take life seriously but tend to
look at it with a healthy skepticism which sometimes
translates into satire. Satire is usually the only
genre that captures faithfully our theater of the absurd.
The biggest divide between the sexes is that we are difference from each other and the movement to create a nation of “one gender” has destroyed the plan laid down by God, mother nature or what ever you believe.
Does this mean that women should not get paid the same, have the same access to education and advancement, absolutely not.Should men not be “Mr. Moms” and raise children, absolutely not.But what happens when all of this happens in our lives and our reaction to it is why there are so many problems between the sexes.I have a couple of friends that are “Mr. Moms” and the relationships were great right to the point that the “man” his wife felt a failure because she was not home raising her children and took those failures out on her husband as his fault he was not the supporter of his family.
First and foremost, when the feminist movement started it started with the premise of equal rights for all.I support that.The problem is that agenda has been twisted into favoritism. Women were first told that they are a good as men, which is true, but then it became Women are better than men when it comes to family and children, this is not true.This intentional deception of the women of this nation has brought us to what I call a nation of very few men, and a lot of he/she’s, men that are gender confused.I am not talking about gay men, but men who do not know if what they “feel” is real or implanted by society.This lack of real men has created generations of children that are ripping this countries family fabric to shreds in an attempt to “one up” the opposite gender.
This is especially true when relationships fail and end up in family court with children involved.In Pennsylvania where I live, the only way I would have any rights to my children is if I can prove that my ex is a total nut case and might kill the children.Other than that proof, I have no chance of having equal or custody of my children.I will get every other weekend.So where is the equality there?
Another thing the family court system has created is a situation now that white males with societal potential, i.e. College and a great career, have made commitment to never have a wife or family.This is their answer to the destruction they witnessed done to their lives via their parents.What’s the funny thing here?
The truth is most of the men I know who I would consider real men have always treated women with the respect and love that God intended.They looked at them as equals and partners and when that partner was twisted by OTHER WOMEN who said what they were doing was degrading, they turned around and destroyed the person who loved them.I never knew being an equal was degrading.
by
Michael Morris (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 294 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 10:29:18 AM
Thanks, Michael...I agree, like most social experiments where humans are involved, things tend to go awry. The women's movement (bra burning, vandalism, emasculation of men, etc.) did have its dark moments. But the problem lies more with individual failure than faulty concept, in my opinion--the inability to truly comprehend the message. If I can use a medical metaphor, a patient who does not take the prescribed dosage will not avail him/herself to best of treatment. Many tend to overdose on a good thing or ignore a regimen which renders a cure unlikely. Equality in the social, economic and sexual spheres was the original tenet of the feminist manifesto.
Your points are well taken. But for every example you site of misuse or abuse, or plain old self-conceit, I can give you several in the area of family abandonment by bad fathers who have taken on a new wife, sometimes her children, too, and ducked the responsibilities of both child support and quality time with his own children. As far as family court judgements go, the judges handing down decisions are usually over-worked and pass the buck on fair assessment. One size doen't fit all. I know men are enraged by the system; however, it is set up with children's best interest in mind.
I would like to see divorce and child custody hearings conducted by a panel convened only for that purpose under state jurisdiction. It would decrease much bitter resentment in the process, which only leads to further alienation. In divorce, children are the walking wounded.
The "cure" will only work in social dilemmas if all parties come to the table with a mature mindset and an open heart; some men and women are incapable of either, unwilling to accept responsibility. Our culture, with its accent on personal gratification, is not conducive to stable family life.
Residual feminism is only one element of the problem. What we see evolving from a woman's need for choices beyond societal-imposed norms is a whole new set of criteria. There is always displacement and winners or losers with change, unfortunately. Family planning, home economy, the importance of shared responsibilities, should be taught in public schools. Perhaps we can salvage the next generation. And wouldn't that be novel?
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 5:03:04 PM
Every man becomes a man and matures through making his own, independent decisions. Those are the only sources of the man's satisfaction in life. Those decisions can be of different nature but they are to be life decisions and such things as repairs in the house, child rearing ( though important), etc. are not qualified, sorry. Those are just chores. If a man does not exercise such decisions ( and those qualified are: getting a handling a job, changing careers, making things, picking up a wife, family planning together with his wife, protecting the people, making friends and enemies, teaching children the life lessons, investing, in all cases - facing challenges and getting tangible results) such person cannot become a mature male adult.
Now, a female can be a mature adult even if none of the decisions above ever challenged her if she bears and rises children in the everyday chores. I do not mean a disrespect to women- this is just an inevitable. As such women cannot understand the man's dissatisfaction with the status quo- they are ( women) a personified status quo. They are the stabilization factor and if they abandone that function NOTHING can replace it in the man's life. NOTHING.
It would be very much desirable if people stop making noises about equality or inequality ( it never happens that people are truly equal in everything) but acknowledge that both parts need SUPPORT from the other party in facing their challenges in life. And also, that SUPPORT means constant communication which is not easy at all. Otherwise we will kill each other. And then who will have children?
by
Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3268 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 1:45:17 PM
Mark, I think that's what you are getting at--the natural divisions of labor based on gender. I don't think Riane Eisler discounts that overarching social fact. A man wants to be in charge of his own destiny and is much more flexible in his choices of labor than is a woman who is limited by child bearing and homemaking. And you feel equality is overrated as it cannot apply generally, even among individuals of similar backgrounds or education. Yes, you are right. However, Eisler is attempting to bring a focus back to the important issues that confront modern societies.
She isn't suggesting we return to pre-history and exercise flabby domestic muscles. She wants us to use the collective knowledge of evolution to bring balance back to the human equation. Men need latitude to flex their individualism, which is good; but so do women. Child care is a very fulfilling end, however, there is, in this modern world, more to life than that aspect. We have evolved beyond the simple virtues of tribal societies and demand more of existance than existing.
Eisler's "dominant model" theory, which tends to degrade personal life and puts females at risk is open to scruitiny. If an institution holds itself sacred from analysis, seems all the more reason to question its authenticity. We get so wrapped up in our own worlds, we fail to see the wider implications. While you may attach no great importance to the idea of "equality," being without that protection in many areas globally can mean a death sentence.
Equality isn't an abstraction if it is absent from your daily life. When we get comfortable with ourselves, those ideas are put aside, left to philosophers. This isn't to discount your comments, it's just me trying to comprehend your own understanding. We all wrestle with issues of altruism and the moral imperatve. And we all have to work within that frame of reference to reach final conclusions.
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 6:01:25 PM
This is a fascinating topic, but I beg to differ as to whether man vs. woman is the most important issue. Rather, the issue is majority rule vs rule of the rich. Hillary and McCain, to differing degrees, represent rule of the corporations with their "American Interests (overseas)". Obama is perceived as a the candidate of the people, whether it is true or not.
Should the slow fall into facism continue in this country, there will come a day when even discussing man vs. woman will put one in danger. So it is old money facism vs new energy populism, not man vs. woman
by
GitarChris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 2:37:11 PM
Chris, thanks for responding; shows you are engaged. Yes, the issues of this campaign should be about economic equality and all that entails. But have you noticed that a lot of the media and online chatter is taken up with Hillary's inelectibility, her "phony" laugh, her hair, and on one occasion her decolletage? This points to gender, in my opinion. Down on the list of things to discuss are health care, ending the Iraq War, illegal immigration, loss of American jobs to China, etc.--all very vital to our success as a nation.
Shirlely Chisholm, a black candidate for president back in the early 1970s said she received more grief because she was a woman than because she was black. A young black man heard on a talk show recently called to observe that Hillary's campaign was more at risk from white mysogyny than from black racism. Both stories are typical of what we refer to as male sexist attitudes.
In this race, more than ever, gender is a deciding factor. Men, who rarely care deeply about politics, declared they will vote for Obama in the primaries (and have) and John McCain in the general before they will endorse Hillary Clinton. She hasn't that much baggage in her career to engender such visceral dislike. So what is the real bone of contention? Methinks it is her strong, self-asserting personality that threatens many a good man. It is based on her sex. Pure and simple.
Media circus clowns (I don't have to name them; you are an astute political watcher) are playing the Hillary theme like a soccer ball, seeing how far they can kick it or bounce it off their heads. It is like a virus, spreading and mutating and taking on a life of its own. We live in strange times.
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 7:09:31 PM
Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, the health care reform debacle of 92-94, nearly executing Peter Paul in South America and bankrupting Stan Lee, The Iraq War!!!, helping Bush and Cheney justify an invasion of IRAN by voting to label its military a terrorist organization, all of these things add up to not "much baggage"??? Even if you dispute the validity of all of these charges, you still have to acknowledge that this is a lengthy list of complaints out there against her. And these are just the things that bother me personally. I know that Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky did not have sexual relations with Hillary. That's not my point in mentioning them. Call me old-fashionably naive, but her "Stand By Your Man" response to her husband's affairs is what bothers me.
Which reminds me that I still haven't yet mentioned by name the elephant in this room: Bill Clinton. The former president himself is incredible baggage for many, many different things he did and did not do (like ending welfare as we knew it and the no-brainer peacekeeping mission to Rwanda that never happened). Just as Republicans hated Bill for being too likely to be influenced by Hillary in '96, many of us dyed in the wool Liberals today have a closet problem with Hillary for the possibility that she could be influenced by Bill.
Please, I supported Pat Schroeder when she ran, remember her? I would have supported Shirley Chisholm if I'd been older than 5 years old. I still treasure several of her quotations. And I'm seriously considering voting for Cynthia McKinney on the Green ticket in November. So it's not because Hillary Clinton is a woman that I have problems with her candidacy. In my opinion, her baggage has far more depth than any other candidate who was in the race at the beginning of this year.
by
Petercapecod (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 8:15:27 PM
Peter, most every negative you cite can be attributed to Bill Clinton, not Hillary. She was not on his cabinet; she was not on the Joint Chiefs of Staff; not in Congress and had no votes. If you think she had more sway over Bill than the above mentioned power brokers, then you are blinded by your own biases.
You seem fair-minded and not a complete sexist, to your credit. But we are talking politics, the art of pesuasioin; the craft of compromise, not Sunday School lessons. Bill Clinton, like any president walked a fine tightrope. On one side were his political competitors--both 'friends' and foe and on the other side. the yapping purists nipping at his heels demanding their own agendas be forwarded.
Far be it from me to condone NAFTA, the Balkan War, the legislation that, shall we say, "improved" the welfare programs, but compared to what we have going down now, they were blips on the radar. Now we are seeing the destruction of the Constitution, collapse of the American economy and an integrated, illegal union of our country with Canada and Mexico. Do you really think one man is responsible for all these debacles?
Hillary said it takes a village to raise a child. She was scoffed at for all her forays into social improvements, including health care management. But at least give her credit for trying; it's more than most men have attempted in decades. Men control all branches of the federal government and I see no appreciable advances in our social order. Give her a chance, if it's not already too late because of her bad press and savvy manipulation of the process by both the right and left. They are afraid of a strong, well-organized woman. Makes them look shabby. Her fight on behalf of women and children globally is recognized by the oppressed. Aren't children the very reason for which we fight and die and plan and save?
If you have a problem with Bill Clinton, just set aside your worries and consider this; hasn't she managed him thus far, in so far as she has had the power to do so? She isn't a saint or miracle worker. She will, however, give it her best shot and won't be weighted with issues of ego. That will be a vast improvement over what we have now. If she gets the nomination and you throw your vote away on Ralph Nader of Ron Paul, I can only hope some thinking voter will cancel out your wasted ballot. We can't afford another election thrown by those who want to protest and walk away from a golden opportunity.
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 8:57:49 AM
Marilyn, I put 3 exclamation points after the one thing that bothers me most about Hillary Clinton. She voted for the war.
I know, I know, so did nearly every other Democrat in Congress. They had their reasons - none of which I agree with. And she has said that if she only knew then what she knows now, her vote would've been different.
And I can respect the argument that Obama was not in Congress when it came up for a vote so we don't really know how he would have voted on it. But I disagree with any argument that these things make her vote to go to war tolerable. Yes, you can say that that was not really what the vote was, but I certainly knew at that time that that was a vote to go to war. And a lot of others did, too. I can't claim to have known how things would turn out since then, but that's not the point. The point is we invaded a country that was not attacking us as a direct result of that vote. Sure, America's done that before. Sure, continuing now to condemn the war may seem very naively quaint. But that vote for me carries more baggage than all of Bill Clinton's eight years in office ever will.
The next president's term will be carried out in real time. Hindsights based on future levels of knowledge that we don't have yet will not be helpful. I'd rather vote for someone who opposed the war from the beginning.
Cynthia McKinney is the best woman running. And that has nothing to do with the fact that she's black.
by
Petercapecod (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 8:19:33 PM
Men reached prominence as we began cycling through the Yang. However, the seed of Yin has developed and will soon flourish brightly.
The apparent opposites of "men" and "women" are just part of the Yin and Yang. But we are all one; the distinctions we draw in these dimensions are irrelevant. We are bound by Brahma, Tao, or God (however you prefer to think about it).
The male and the female are both inside of every one of us, but the feminine has just been consciously ignored, perverted, and subverted for the past few thousand years.
Embrace the feminity and it, along with we, will flourish. But this does not mean rejecting the male, but accepting all as one.
When men and women stop relying on each other for completeness, becoming co-dependant and wasting precious energy in drama, we can attain wholeness and happiness.
by
Ferdinand (16 articles, 1 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 160 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 5:25:12 PM
My experience has always been that the very best of us is when we recognize our male and female selves. I have never enjoyed parodies of masculine or femine behavior. Too often people model themselves off of some idiotic version that comes from madison avenue. Acheiving some kind of personhood seems right to me. I have always seen it as more important to perfect our humanity than our maleness or femaleness. It is just another divide and conquer strategy. I have always dateded hemathrodites for that reason.
by
robert braunstein (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 50 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 5:54:52 PM
My experience has always been that the very best of us is when we recognize our male and female selves. I have never enjoyed parodies of masculine or femine behavior. Too often people model themselves off of some idiotic version that comes from madison avenue. Acheiving some kind of personhood seems right to me. I have always seen it as more important to perfect our humanity than our maleness or femaleness. It is just another divide and conquer idiocy. I have always dateded hemathrodites for that reason.
by
robert braunstein (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 50 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 5:56:51 PM
The past few decades have produced many theories that place all or most of the blame on males for the lack of harmony in heterosexual relationships. Many men may fall under the category of a complete asshole but one must be fair and objective here. Many women also fall under the category of a complete asshole. My opinion is that total selfishness is a trait shared equally among the sexes.
by
Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 197 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 7:28:22 PM
''The women's movement (bra burning, vandalism, emasculation of men, etc.) did have its dark moments''.
Could you tell me when and where these legendary bras were burnt? This is the question I ask when people refer to these often quoted ''excesses of feminism''. of course, they can't give me any details; hardly surprising since these stories are essentially myths fabricated and propagated by msm medias.
And even if bras were really burnt, what's so bad about it? Did it kill or harm anyone? Is it comparable in gravity to hundreds of women still killed every year by their partners in the US as a result of domestic violence?
Males being castrated? Names and places, please? Such cases are extremely rare--and as a result, when it happens, it's all over the medias--remember the Bobbitt case. And Lorena Bobbitt was NOT a feminist by any means, just an angry confused female. In fact, if she had been a feminist, she would have had other, less drastic means at her disposal to express her anger.
I found it particularly distressing when it's women who recycle mindlessly these ridiculous anti-feminist fantasies. Feminism has had it's dumb moments, but it never killed ANYONE, whereas male chauvinism/sexism kills everyday--hundreds of women the world over
That's why I was rather shocked when I saw on this site an article including matter of factly the expression ''feminazi'', as it was an indisputable evidence that some feminists were as harmful as the nazis.
First,''feminazi'' is an expression created by Rush Limbaugh, and I strongly object when I see authors recirculating Limbaugh's expressions, reactionnary ideas and hate-mongering on a progressive site like OpEd.
Second, it's idiotic and downright obscene to compare feminists to nazis. Where are the gas chambers, the wars, the dictatorships? Did feminists kill millions of males?
The only murder that could possibly/remotely be attributed to feminism is Valerie Solanas trying to kill Andy Warhol, and she missed him, for God's sake!
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 200 comments)
on Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 9:09:56 AM
Hi, Francine, You make some very valid points. But I must clarify one of your mistatements: to emasculate is not necessarily to castrate the male. In this context it means to demean him psychologically; and women do indulge in that practice with a vengeance and routinely. Unfortunately, it is one very useful weapon we have to counter the physical force-- often violent--men exert over smaller, vulnerable wifes or significant others.
Bra burning. I would have to do some research online but I'm sure there were examples of women using it to make a political point. Maybe you are too young to recall personally all the tensions that came from the feminist movement of the 60s, 70s. It got very silly at times. I recall one gal lay on her back with a tape measure and asked a man to let her measure his penis, as they measured women's breasts, hips and waists during a Miss America pageant. She meant to educate the public on how demeaning the pageant was to woman, as a sex. Very graphic illustration.
And you have a point about Rush Limbaugh. Anyone with any sensibility knows he is a wash as far as civil society is concerned. He is useful to the far-right spectrum; he both entertains and incites men, in particular, to reject social progress. They are threatened by the erosion of the "dominator model" Riane Eisler presents for our education. His "femnazi" lable is just part of his shtick, another hook to rile up his ditto-headed audience. He gets big bucks for that; it says more about where we are as a culture than it says about his own lack of self respect. He is an oafish sociopath; what does that imply about the millions who follow him?
Go back and read the my original post top of page and see what Doctor Eisler recommends to parry the sexual divide that threatens our society. She has a lot of good ideas. Putting them into play is a whole other exercise, however. Resistance to change seems, also, to be part of human DNA.
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 1:52:14 PM
As soon as women 'protect themselves from men domination' they are doomed: they undermine the only allies they have.
As soom as men 'protect themselves from the women taking over' they are doomed: they undermine their own manliness and their support.
Either men and women realize that there are no specific purely female or purely male societal issues but there are people's issues to resolve or WE ALL will become ' state children' because if parents abandone their duties the Devil adopts the children. You, folks be prepared for the Rosemary's baby if you do not revive Love as the primary criteria in the relationship between men and women. Love is an ultimate equalizer and and nothing can replace it. Where is Love in your chromium- blood discussions? I don't see it.
by
Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3268 comments)
on Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 9:19:36 AM
Can't agree with you more. That is what Doctor Eisler was trying to tell us. She wrote her book ten years ago. Has anyone taken it seriously? I can't say but it would be a much different world if we would. I am not laying blame at the door of men; I am trying to open that door to all the possibilities that we could achieve and love we might enjoy.
Make love not war; true decades ago and imperative now.
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 2:01:23 PM
