Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [gaiapc] Genesis 3:16 and evolution

Expand Messages
  • Richard Balfour
    Luis further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not; Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain. How Women s Sexuality Shaped
    Message 1 of 17 , Jan 1 2:35 PM
      Luis
      further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

      Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
      r

      On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc] wrote:

       

      luis

      have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title.
      Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

      r
      On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] wrote:

       

      Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

      Luis

      On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
       

      Luis,

      Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

      Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

      But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

      Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

      It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

      I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights. You finish them." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.

      This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery.' 

      Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.

      Jada



      On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


       
      Did you read the article to the end?  Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological.  This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.  So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin."  I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture.  Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall."  Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!

      Luis

      On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
       
      Luis -- Regarding:

      Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world...
      John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017

      Back in the 1980's I challenged a leader of our Feminist Movement with this same fact.  I asked her who she would rather mate with -- Woody Allen or John Wayne.  Knowing she was caught, she replied: "Why can't I have Robert Redford"?

      STAN 

      On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
       
      Fascinating, see Genesis 3:16.  I think that this cultural disorder, which was latent but became exacerbated by the energy surplus of fossil fuels, is the primary root of the ecological crisis:

      Do Women Want to be Oppressed?
      Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.
      John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017
      https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/cross-check/do-women-wa nt-to-be-oppressed/

      Luis








      Richard Balfour  
      Strategic Planner
      • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

      7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
      Balfour Strategic Planning
      www.plancanada.com

      • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

      balfourarch@...













      Richard Balfour  
      Strategic Planner
      • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

      7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
      Balfour Strategic Planning
      www.plancanada.com

      • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

      balfourarch@...











    • Luis Gutierrez
      Thanks for the reference. I don t remember reading the book, but I do remember hearing about this theory of sexual human evolution at the Smithsonian, so it
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 1 9:39 PM
        Thanks for the reference.  I don't remember reading the book, but I do remember hearing about this theory of sexual human evolution at the Smithsonian, so it must have some credibility in the scientific community.

        Luis

        On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
         

        Luis

        further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

        Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
        r

        On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc] wrote:

         

        luis

        have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title.
        Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

        r
        On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] wrote:

         

        Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

        Luis

        On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
         

        Luis,

        Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

        Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

        But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

        Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

        It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

        I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights. You finish them." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.

        This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery.' 

        Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.

        Jada



        On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


         
        Did you read the article to the end?  Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological.  This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.  So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin."  I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture.  Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall."  Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!

        Luis

        On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
         
        Luis -- Regarding:

        Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world....
        John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017

        Back in the 1980's I challenged a leader of our Feminist Movement with this same fact.  I asked her who she would rather mate with -- Woody Allen or John Wayne.  Knowing she was caught, she replied: "Why can't I have Robert Redford"?

        STAN 

        On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
         
        Fascinating, see Genesis 3:16.  I think that this cultural disorder, which was latent but became exacerbated by the energy surplus of fossil fuels, is the primary root of the ecological crisis:

        Do Women Want to be Oppressed?
        Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.
        John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017
        https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/cross-check/do-women-wa nt-to-be-oppressed/

        Luis








        Richard Balfour  
        Strategic Planner
        • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

        7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
        Balfour Strategic Planning
        www.plancanada.com

        • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

        balfourarch@...













        Richard Balfour  
        Strategic Planner
        • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

        7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
        Balfour Strategic Planning
        www.plancanada.com

        • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

        balfourarch@...












      • Jada Thacker
        Luis, On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 2 2:15 PM
          Luis,

          On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

          All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

          But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

          We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

          So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

          But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

          Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

          When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly: "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

          Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

          Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

          As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

          The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

          Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

          Jada  









          On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


           
          Luis
          further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

          Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
          r

          On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc] wrote:

           
          luis
          have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title.
          Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

          r
          On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] wrote:

           

          Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

          Luis

          On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
           

          Luis,

          Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

          Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

          But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

          Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

          It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

          I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights. You finish them." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.

          This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery.' 

          Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.

          Jada



          On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


           
          Did you read the article to the end?  Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological.  This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.  So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin."  I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture.  Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall."  Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!

          Luis

          On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
           
          Luis -- Regarding:

          Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world....
          John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017

          Back in the 1980's I challenged a leader of our Feminist Movement with this same fact.  I asked her who she would rather mate with -- Woody Allen or John Wayne.  Knowing she was caught, she replied: "Why can't I have Robert Redford"?

          STAN 

          On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
           
          Fascinating, see Genesis 3:16.  I think that this cultural disorder, which was latent but became exacerbated by the energy surplus of fossil fuels, is the primary root of the ecological crisis:

          Do Women Want to be Oppressed?
          Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.
          John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017
          https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/cross-check/do-women-wa nt-to-be-oppressed/

          Luis








          Richard Balfour  
          Strategic Planner
          • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

          7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
          Balfour Strategic Planning
          www.plancanada.com

          • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

          balfourarch@...













          Richard Balfour  
          Strategic Planner
          • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

          7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
          Balfour Strategic Planning
          www.plancanada.com

          • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

          balfourarch@...













        • Luis Gutierrez
          Jada There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1. Keep
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 2 4:20 PM
            Jada

            There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

            Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted.

            See Genesis 2:15.  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

            On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

            The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

            So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

            My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

            I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

            Luis


            On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
             

            Luis,

            On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

            All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

            But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

            We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

            So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

            But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

            Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

            When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly: "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

            Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

            Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

            As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

            The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

            Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

            Jada  









            On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


             
            Luis
            further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

            Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
            r

            On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc] wrote:

             
            luis
            have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title.
            Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

            r
            On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] wrote:

             

            Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

            Luis

            On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
             

            Luis,

            Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

            Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

            But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

            Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

            It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

            I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights. You finish them." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.

            This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery.' 

            Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.

            Jada



            On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


             
            Did you read the article to the end?  Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological.  This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.  So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin."  I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture.  Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall."  Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!

            Luis

            On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
             
            Luis -- Regarding:

            Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.....
            John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017

            Back in the 1980's I challenged a leader of our Feminist Movement with this same fact.  I asked her who she would rather mate with -- Woody Allen or John Wayne..  Knowing she was caught, she replied: "Why can't I have Robert Redford"?

            STAN 

            On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
             
            Fascinating, see Genesis 3:16.  I think that this cultural disorder, which was latent but became exacerbated by the energy surplus of fossil fuels, is the primary root of the ecological crisis:

            Do Women Want to be Oppressed?
            Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.
            John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017
            https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/cross-check/do-women-wa nt-to-be-oppressed/

            Luis








            Richard Balfour  
            Strategic Planner
            • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

            7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
            Balfour Strategic Planning
            www.plancanada.com

            • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

            balfourarch@...













            Richard Balfour  
            Strategic Planner
            • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

            7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
            Balfour Strategic Planning
            www.plancanada.com

            • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

            balfourarch@...














          • Jada Thacker
            Luis, To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a cultural disorder and a cultural aberration that was relatively latent
            Message 5 of 17 , Jan 3 10:36 AM
              Luis,

              To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a "cultural disorder" and a "cultural aberration" that was "relatively latent until the 1800's" suggests everything was pretty much hunky-dory with the concept of civilization until just recently. I would rather point out, once again, that every known civilization prior to our present industrialized civilization collapsed and either went extinct or were assimilated into yet another doomed civilization. 

              Although I have commented critically here at some length on the extreme cultural and ecological differences between pre-civilized and civilized human societies, I cannot share your conclusion that "the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue." The current "ecological crisis" is an energy issue, just as all the previous "ecological crises" and civilizational collapses have also been energy issues. 

              Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life on a finite world.

              Jada




              On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:27 PM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


               
              Jada

              There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

              Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted..

              See Genesis 2:15.  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

              On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

              The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

              So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

              My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

              I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

              Luis


              On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
               
              Luis,

              On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

              All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

              But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

              We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

              So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

              But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

              Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

              When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly: "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

              Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

              Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

              As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

              The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

              Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

              Jada  









              On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


               
              Luis
              further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

              Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
              r

              On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc] wrote:

               
              luis
              have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title..
              Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

              r
              On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] wrote:

               

              Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

              Luis

              On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
               

              Luis,

              Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

              Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

              But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

              Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

              It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

              I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights. You finish them." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.

              This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery.' 

              Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.

              Jada



              On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


               
              Did you read the article to the end?  Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological.  This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.  So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin."  I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture.  Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall."  Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!

              Luis

              On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
               
              Luis -- Regarding:

              Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world......
              John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017

              Back in the 1980's I challenged a leader of our Feminist Movement with this same fact.  I asked her who she would rather mate with -- Woody Allen or John Wayne..  Knowing she was caught, she replied: "Why can't I have Robert Redford"?

              STAN 

              On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
               
              Fascinating, see Genesis 3:16.  I think that this cultural disorder, which was latent but became exacerbated by the energy surplus of fossil fuels, is the primary root of the ecological crisis:

              Do Women Want to be Oppressed?
              Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.
              John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017
              https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/cross-check/do-women-wa nt-to-be-oppressed/

              Luis








              Richard Balfour  
              Strategic Planner
              • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

              7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
              Balfour Strategic Planning
              www.plancanada.com

              • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

              balfourarch@...













              Richard Balfour  
              Strategic Planner
              • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

              7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
              Balfour Strategic Planning
              www.plancanada.com

              • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

              balfourarch@...
















            • Steve Kurtz
              I agree with Jada on this. Steve Sent from my iPhone ... I agree with Jada on this. Steve Sent from my iPhone On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Jada Thacker
              Message 6 of 17 , Jan 3 11:22 AM
                I agree with Jada on this.

                Steve

                Sent from my iPhone

                On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                 

                Luis,

                To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a "cultural disorder" and a "cultural aberration" that was "relatively latent until the 1800's" suggests everything was pretty much hunky-dory with the concept of civilization until just recently. I would rather point out, once again, that every known civilization prior to our present industrialized civilization collapsed and either went extinct or were assimilated into yet another doomed civilization. 

                Although I have commented critically here at some length on the extreme cultural and ecological differences between pre-civilized and civilized human societies, I cannot share your conclusion that "the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue." The current "ecological crisis" is an energy issue, just as all the previous "ecological crises" and civilizational collapses have also been energy issues. 

                Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life on a finite world.

                Jada




                On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:27 PM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                 
                Jada

                There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

                Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted..

                See Genesis 2:15..  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

                On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

                The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

                So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

                My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

                I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

                Luis


                On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                 
                Luis,

                On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

                All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

                But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

                We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

                So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

                But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

                Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

                When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly: "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

                Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

                Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

                As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

                The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

                Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

                Jada  









                On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                 
                Luis
                further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

                Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
                r

                On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc] wrote:

                 
                luis
                have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title..
                Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

                r
                On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] wrote:

                 

                Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

                Luis

                On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                 

                Luis,

                Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

                Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

                But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

                Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

                It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

                I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights. You finish them." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.

                This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery.' 

                Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.

                Jada



                On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                 
                Did you read the article to the end?  Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological.  This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.  So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin."  I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture.  Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall."  Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!

                Luis

                On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                 
                Luis -- Regarding:

                Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.......
                John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017

                Back in the 1980's I challenged a leader of our Feminist Movement with this same fact.  I asked her who she would rather mate with -- Woody Allen or John Wayne..  Knowing she was caught, she replied: "Why can't I have Robert Redford"?

                STAN 

                On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                 
                Fascinating, see Genesis 3:16.  I think that this cultural disorder, which was latent but became exacerbated by the energy surplus of fossil fuels, is the primary root of the ecological crisis:

                Do Women Want to be Oppressed?
                Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.
                John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017
                https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/cross-check/do-women-wa nt-to-be-oppressed/

                Luis








                Richard Balfour  
                Strategic Planner
                • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                Balfour Strategic Planning
                www.plancanada.com

                • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

                balfourarch@...













                Richard Balfour  
                Strategic Planner
                • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                Balfour Strategic Planning
                www.plancanada.com

                • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

                balfourarch@...
















              • Luis Gutierrez
                I certainly agree that, in the biophysical dimension, energy is the fundamental factor. But it seems to me that, in the human-driven social dimension, culture
                Message 7 of 17 , Jan 3 11:26 AM
                  I certainly agree that, in the biophysical dimension, energy is the fundamental factor.  But it seems to me that, in the human-driven social dimension, culture is the crucial factor.

                  By "relatively latent" I meant that, in the past, abuses and collapses were relatively minor and local, or at most regional.  Now, with abuses energized by fossil fuels in a globalized world, we are confronting a predicament the magnitude of which has no historical precedent.

                  The "garden of Eden" is now the entire planet.  Energy is the "apple."  But the apple was fine until Adam and Eve ate it to become god-like.  Likewise, energy is energy; it is humans who are misusing the cheap energy and indulging in delusions of grandeur.

                  Perhaps we should refer to the intersection of culture and energy as "ground zero" for the ecological crisis?

                  Luis

                  On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                   

                  Luis,

                  To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a "cultural disorder" and a "cultural aberration" that was "relatively latent until the 1800's" suggests everything was pretty much hunky-dory with the concept of civilization until just recently. I would rather point out, once again, that every known civilization prior to our present industrialized civilization collapsed and either went extinct or were assimilated into yet another doomed civilization. 

                  Although I have commented critically here at some length on the extreme cultural and ecological differences between pre-civilized and civilized human societies, I cannot share your conclusion that "the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue." The current "ecological crisis" is an energy issue, just as all the previous "ecological crises" and civilizational collapses have also been energy issues. 

                  Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life on a finite world.

                  Jada




                  On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:27 PM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                   
                  Jada

                  There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

                  Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted..

                  See Genesis 2:15..  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

                  On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

                  The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

                  So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

                  My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

                  I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

                  Luis


                  On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                   
                  Luis,

                  On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

                  All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

                  But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

                  We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

                  So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

                  But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

                  Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

                  When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly: "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

                  Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

                  Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

                  As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

                  The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

                  Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

                  Jada  









                  On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                   
                  Luis
                  further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

                  Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
                  r

                  On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc] wrote:

                   
                  luis
                  have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title..
                  Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

                  r
                  On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] wrote:

                   

                  Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

                  Luis

                  On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                   

                  Luis,

                  Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

                  Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

                  But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

                  Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

                  It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

                  I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights. You finish them." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.

                  This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery.' 

                  Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.

                  Jada



                  On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                   
                  Did you read the article to the end?  Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological.  This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.  So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin."  I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture.  Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall."  Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!

                  Luis

                  On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                   
                  Luis -- Regarding:

                  Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.......
                  John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017

                  Back in the 1980's I challenged a leader of our Feminist Movement with this same fact.  I asked her who she would rather mate with -- Woody Allen or John Wayne..  Knowing she was caught, she replied: "Why can't I have Robert Redford"?

                  STAN 

                  On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                   
                  Fascinating, see Genesis 3:16.  I think that this cultural disorder, which was latent but became exacerbated by the energy surplus of fossil fuels, is the primary root of the ecological crisis:

                  Do Women Want to be Oppressed?
                  Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.
                  John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017
                  https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/cross-check/do-women-wa nt-to-be-oppressed/

                  Luis








                  Richard Balfour  
                  Strategic Planner
                  • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                  7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                  Balfour Strategic Planning
                  www.plancanada.com

                  • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

                  balfourarch@...













                  Richard Balfour  
                  Strategic Planner
                  • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                  7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                  Balfour Strategic Planning
                  www.plancanada.com

                  • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

                  balfourarch@...

















                • Luis Gutierrez
                  See my response to Jada. The social and biophysical dimensions do intersect, but it is humans who are in the driver s seat. Luis On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:22
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jan 3 11:39 AM
                    See my response to Jada.  The social and biophysical dimensions do intersect, but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.

                    Luis

                    On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                     

                    I agree with Jada on this.


                    Steve

                    Sent from my iPhone

                    On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                     

                    Luis,

                    To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a "cultural disorder" and a "cultural aberration" that was "relatively latent until the 1800's" suggests everything was pretty much hunky-dory with the concept of civilization until just recently. I would rather point out, once again, that every known civilization prior to our present industrialized civilization collapsed and either went extinct or were assimilated into yet another doomed civilization. 

                    Although I have commented critically here at some length on the extreme cultural and ecological differences between pre-civilized and civilized human societies, I cannot share your conclusion that "the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue." The current "ecological crisis" is an energy issue, just as all the previous "ecological crises" and civilizational collapses have also been energy issues. 

                    Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life on a finite world.

                    Jada




                    On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:27 PM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                     
                    Jada

                    There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

                    Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted..

                    See Genesis 2:15...  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

                    On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

                    The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

                    So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

                    My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

                    I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

                    Luis


                    On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                     
                    Luis,

                    On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

                    All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

                    But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

                    We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

                    So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

                    But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

                    Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

                    When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly: "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

                    Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

                    Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

                    As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

                    The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

                    Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

                    Jada  









                    On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                     
                    Luis
                    further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

                    Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
                    r

                    On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc] wrote:

                     
                    luis
                    have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title..
                    Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

                    r
                    On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] wrote:

                     

                    Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

                    Luis

                    On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal...net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                     

                    Luis,

                    Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

                    Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

                    But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

                    Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

                    It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

                    I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights. You finish them." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.

                    This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery.' 

                    Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.

                    Jada



                    On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                     
                    Did you read the article to the end?  Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological.  This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.  So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin."  I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture.  Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall."  Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!

                    Luis

                    On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                     
                    Luis -- Regarding:

                    Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world........
                    John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017

                    Back in the 1980's I challenged a leader of our Feminist Movement with this same fact.  I asked her who she would rather mate with -- Woody Allen or John Wayne..  Knowing she was caught, she replied: "Why can't I have Robert Redford"?

                    STAN 

                    On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                     
                    Fascinating, see Genesis 3:16.  I think that this cultural disorder, which was latent but became exacerbated by the energy surplus of fossil fuels, is the primary root of the ecological crisis:

                    Do Women Want to be Oppressed?
                    Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.
                    John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017
                    https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/cross-check/do-women-wa nt-to-be-oppressed/

                    Luis








                    Richard Balfour  
                    Strategic Planner
                    • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                    7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                    Balfour Strategic Planning
                    www.plancanada.com

                    • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

                    balfourarch@...













                    Richard Balfour  
                    Strategic Planner
                    • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                    7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                    Balfour Strategic Planning
                    www.plancanada.com

                    • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

                    balfourarch@...

















                  • Steve Kurtz
                    ... Oh, I thought your diety was all powerful…;-) ... ————————————— Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jan 3 1:44 PM
                      Re:
                      but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.


                      Oh, I thought your diety was all powerful…;-)



                      On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:39 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                      See my response to Jada.  The social and biophysical dimensions do intersect, but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.

                      Luis

                      On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                       

                      I agree with Jada on this.


                      Steve

                      Sent from my iPhone

                      On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                       

                      Luis,

                      To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a "cultural disorder" and a "cultural aberration" that was "relatively latent until the 1800's" suggests everything was pretty much hunky-dory with the concept of civilization until just recently. I would rather point out, once again, that every known civilization prior to our present industrialized civilization collapsed and either went extinct or were assimilated into yet another doomed civilization. 

                      Although I have commented critically here at some length on the extreme cultural and ecological differences between pre-civilized and civilized human societies, I cannot share your conclusion that "the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue." The current "ecological crisis" is an energy issue, just as all the previous "ecological crises" and civilizational collapses have also been energy issues. 

                      Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life on a finite world.

                      Jada




                      On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:27 PM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                       
                      Jada

                      There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

                      Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted..

                      See Genesis 2:15...  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

                      On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

                      The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

                      So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

                      My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

                      I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

                      Luis


                      On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                       
                      Luis,

                      On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

                      All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

                      But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

                      We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

                      So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

                      But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

                      Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

                      When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly:"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

                      Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

                      Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

                      As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

                      The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

                      Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

                      Jada  









                      On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                       
                      Luis
                      further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

                      Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
                      r

                      On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc] wrote:

                       
                      luis
                      have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title..
                      Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

                      r
                      On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] wrote:

                       

                      Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

                      Luis

                      On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal...net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                       

                      Luis,

                      Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

                      Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

                      But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

                      Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

                      It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

                      I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights. You finish them." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.

                      This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery.' 

                      Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.

                      Jada



                      On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                       
                      Did you read the article to the end?  Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological.  This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.  So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin."  I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture.  Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall."  Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!

                      Luis

                      On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                       
                      Luis -- Regarding:

                      Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.........
                      John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017

                      Back in the 1980's I challenged a leader of our Feminist Movement with this same fact.  I asked her who she would rather mate with -- Woody Allen or John Wayne..  Knowing she was caught, she replied: "Why can't I have Robert Redford"?

                      STAN 

                      On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                       
                      Fascinating, see Genesis 3:16.  I think that this cultural disorder, which was latent but became exacerbated by the energy surplus of fossil fuels, is the primary root of the ecological crisis:

                    • Luis Gutierrez
                      God allows humans to exercise free will... Luis On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@ncf.ca [gaiapc]
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jan 3 2:30 PM
                        God allows humans to exercise free will...

                        Luis

                        On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                         

                        Re:
                        but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.


                        Oh, I thought your diety was all powerful…;-)



                        On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:39 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                        See my response to Jada.  The social and biophysical dimensions do intersect, but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.

                        Luis

                        On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                         

                        I agree with Jada on this.


                        Steve

                        Sent from my iPhone

                        On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                         

                        Luis,

                        To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a "cultural disorder" and a "cultural aberration" that was "relatively latent until the 1800's" suggests everything was pretty much hunky-dory with the concept of civilization until just recently. I would rather point out, once again, that every known civilization prior to our present industrialized civilization collapsed and either went extinct or were assimilated into yet another doomed civilization. 

                        Although I have commented critically here at some length on the extreme cultural and ecological differences between pre-civilized and civilized human societies, I cannot share your conclusion that "the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue." The current "ecological crisis" is an energy issue, just as all the previous "ecological crises" and civilizational collapses have also been energy issues. 

                        Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life on a finite world.

                        Jada




                        On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:27 PM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                         
                        Jada

                        There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

                        Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted..

                        See Genesis 2:15...  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

                        On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

                        The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

                        So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

                        My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

                        I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

                        Luis


                        On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups.ca> wrote:
                         
                        Luis,

                        On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

                        All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

                        But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

                        We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

                        So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

                        But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

                        Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

                        When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly:"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

                        Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

                        Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

                        As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

                        The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

                        Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

                        Jada  









                        On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                         
                        Luis
                        further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

                        Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
                        r

                        On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc] wrote:

                         
                        luis
                        have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title..
                        Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

                        r
                        On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] wrote:

                         

                        Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

                        Luis

                        On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. ..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups.ca> wrote:
                         

                        Luis,

                        Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

                        Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

                        But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

                        Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

                        It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

                        I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights. You finish them.." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.

                        This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery.' 

                        Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.

                        Jada



                        On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                         
                        Did you read the article to the end?  Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological.  This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.  So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin."  I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture.  Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall."  Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!

                        Luis

                        On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@...  [gaiapc] <gaiapc@yahoogroups. ca> wrote:
                         
                        Luis -- Regarding:

                        Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.........
                        John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017

                        Back in the 1980's I challenged a leader of our Feminist Movement with this same fact.  I asked her who she would rather mate with -- Woody Allen or John Wayne..  Knowing she was caught, she replied: "Why can't I have Robert Redford"?

                        STAN 

                        On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] <gaiapc@... > wrote:
                         
                        Fascinating, see Genesis 3:16.  I think that this cultural disorder, which was latent but became exacerbated by the energy surplus of fossil fuels, is the primary root of the ecological crisis:

                        Do Women Want to be Oppressed?
                        Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.
                        John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017
                        https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/cross-check/do-women-wa nt-to-be-oppressed/

                        Luis








                        Richard Balfour  
                        Strategic Planner
                        • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                        7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                        Balfour Strategic Planning
                        www.plancanada.com

                        • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

                        balfourarch@...













                        Richard Balfour  
                        Strategic Planner
                        • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                        7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                        Balfour Strategic Planning
                        www.plancanada.com

                        • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

                        balfourarch@...





















                        —————————————
                        Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                        Voltaire (1770)


                      • Steve Kurtz
                        That’s so nice of her! Sent from my iPhone ... That’s so nice of her! Sent from my iPhone On Jan 3, 2018, at 5:30 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@gmail.com
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jan 3 5:11 PM
                          That’s so nice of her!

                          Sent from my iPhone

                          On Jan 3, 2018, at 5:30 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                           

                          God allows humans to exercise free will...

                          Luis

                          On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                           

                          Re:
                          but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.


                          Oh, I thought your diety was all powerful…;-)



                          On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:39 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                          See my response to Jada.  The social and biophysical dimensions do intersect, but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.

                          Luis

                          On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                           

                          I agree with Jada on this.


                          Steve

                          Sent from my iPhone

                          On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                           

                          Luis,

                          To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a "cultural disorder" and a "cultural aberration" that was "relatively latent until the 1800's" suggests everything was pretty much hunky-dory with the concept of civilization until just recently. I would rather point out, once again, that every known civilization prior to our present industrialized civilization collapsed and either went extinct or were assimilated into yet another doomed civilization. 

                          Although I have commented critically here at some length on the extreme cultural and ecological differences between pre-civilized and civilized human societies, I cannot share your conclusion that "the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue." The current "ecological crisis" is an energy issue, just as all the previous "ecological crises" and civilizational collapses have also been energy issues. 

                          Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life on a finite world.

                          Jada




                          On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:27 PM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                           
                          Jada

                          There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

                          Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted..

                          See Genesis 2:15...  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

                          On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

                          The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

                          So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

                          My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

                          I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

                          Luis


                          On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups.ca> wrote:
                           
                          Luis,

                          On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

                          All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

                          But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

                          We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

                          So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

                          But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

                          Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

                          When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly:"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

                          Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

                          Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

                          As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

                          The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

                          Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

                          Jada  









                          On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                           
                          Luis
                          further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

                          Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
                          r

                          On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc] wrote:

                           
                          luis
                          have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title..
                          Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

                          r
                          On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] wrote:

                           

                          Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

                          Luis

                          On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. ..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups.ca> wrote:
                           

                          Luis,

                          Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

                          Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

                          But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

                          Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

                          It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

                          I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights.. You finish them.." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.

                          This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery.' 

                          Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.

                          Jada



                          On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                           
                          Did you read the article to the end?  Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological.  This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.  So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin."  I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture.  Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall."  Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!

                          Luis

                          On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@...  [gaiapc] <gaiapc@yahoogroups. ca> wrote:
                           
                          Luis -- Regarding:

                          Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.........
                          John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017

                          Back in the 1980's I challenged a leader of our Feminist Movement with this same fact.  I asked her who she would rather mate with -- Woody Allen or John Wayne..  Knowing she was caught, she replied: "Why can't I have Robert Redford"?

                          STAN 

                          On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] <gaiapc@... > wrote:
                           
                          Fascinating, see Genesis 3:16.  I think that this cultural disorder, which was latent but became exacerbated by the energy surplus of fossil fuels, is the primary root of the ecological crisis:

                          Do Women Want to be Oppressed?
                          Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.
                          John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017
                          https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/cross-check/do-women-wa nt-to-be-oppressed/

                          Luis








                          Richard Balfour  
                          Strategic Planner
                          • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                          7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                          Balfour Strategic Planning
                          www.plancanada.com

                          • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

                          balfourarch@...













                          Richard Balfour  
                          Strategic Planner
                          • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                          7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                          Balfour Strategic Planning
                          www.plancanada.com

                          • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www. vancouverpeakoil.org

                          balfourarch@...





















                          —————————————
                          Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                          Voltaire (1770)


                        • Jada Thacker
                          Luis, I am sincerely not interested in provoking any sort of theological debate with you, as I am not a theologian. But it takes no theologian to consider that
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jan 3 7:35 PM
                            Luis,

                            I am sincerely not interested in provoking any sort of theological debate with you, as I am not a theologian. But it takes no theologian to consider that your statement, "God allows humans to use free will" is astonishingly contradictory to Biblical scripture, which you apparently hold as authoritative.

                            Consider the curse put upon Adam and Eve (and all humanity) and their subsequent expulsion from Eden; the many commandments issued to the Israelites; the inundation of the entire world by flood; the destruction of the Tower of Babel; the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah; the prophecy of Armagedon, and even the ordained sacrifice of Jesus -- is this the behavior of a supreme being who "allows" the humans it created to "do their own thing?" 

                            Given that the Biblical God has been universally identified as a male entity (Said Jesus: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Luke 23:46) I find it inexplicable that you seek to hold human patriarchy primarily responsible for our civilization's current ecological predicament. Your own Biblical authority clearly reveals that the most destructive threat to the planet and all its inhabitants has been supernatural patriarchy, the divine perpetrator of which had no qualms about rewarding human "free will" with instant extinction.

                            Jada

                             
                             


                            On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 7:12 PM, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                             
                            That’s so nice of her!

                            Sent from my iPhone

                            On Jan 3, 2018, at 5:30 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                             
                            God allows humans to exercise free will...

                            Luis

                            On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                             
                            Re:
                            but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.


                            Oh, I thought your diety was all powerful…;-)



                            On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:39 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                            See my response to Jada.  The social and biophysical dimensions do intersect, but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.

                            Luis

                            On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                             
                            I agree with Jada on this.

                            Steve

                            Sent from my iPhone

                            On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                             

                            Luis,

                            To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a "cultural disorder" and a "cultural aberration" that was "relatively latent until the 1800's" suggests everything was pretty much hunky-dory with the concept of civilization until just recently. I would rather point out, once again, that every known civilization prior to our present industrialized civilization collapsed and either went extinct or were assimilated into yet another doomed civilization. 

                            Although I have commented critically here at some length on the extreme cultural and ecological differences between pre-civilized and civilized human societies, I cannot share your conclusion that "the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue." The current "ecological crisis" is an energy issue, just as all the previous "ecological crises" and civilizational collapses have also been energy issues. 

                            Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life on a finite world.

                            Jada




                            On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:27 PM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                             
                            Jada

                            There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

                            Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted..

                            See Genesis 2:15...  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

                            On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

                            The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

                            So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

                            My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

                            I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

                            Luis


                            On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups.ca> wrote:
                             
                            Luis,

                            On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

                            All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

                            But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

                            We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

                            So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

                            But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

                            Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

                            When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly:"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

                            Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

                            Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

                            As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

                            The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

                            Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

                            Jada  









                            On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                             
                            Luis
                            further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

                            Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
                            r

                            On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc] wrote:

                             
                            luis
                            have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title...
                            Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

                            r
                            On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] wrote:

                             

                            Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

                            Luis

                            On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. ..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups..ca> wrote:
                             

                            Luis,

                            Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

                            Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

                            But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

                            Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

                            It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

                            I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights.. You finish them.." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside.. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two.. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.

                            This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery.' 

                            Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.

                            Jada



                            On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                             
                            Did you read the article to the end?  Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological.  This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.  So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin."  I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture.  Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall."  Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!

                            Luis

                            On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@...  [gaiapc] <gaiapc@yahoogroups. ca> wrote:
                             
                            Luis -- Regarding:

                            Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.........
                            John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017

                            Back in the 1980's I challenged a leader of our Feminist Movement with this same fact.  I asked her who she would rather mate with -- Woody Allen or John Wayne..  Knowing she was caught, she replied: "Why can't I have Robert Redford"?

                            STAN 

                            On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] <gaiapc@... > wrote:
                             
                            Fascinating, see Genesis 3:16.  I think that this cultural disorder, which was latent but became exacerbated by the energy surplus of fossil fuels, is the primary root of the ecological crisis:

                            Do Women Want to be Oppressed?
                            Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.
                            John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017
                            https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/cross-check/do-women-wa nt-to-be-oppressed/

                            Luis








                          • Luis Gutierrez
                            Jada, I am no theologian either, but we should not confuse words with the realities they represent. The *Catechism of the Catholic Church* clearly explains
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jan 3 9:48 PM
                              Jada,

                              I am no theologian either, but we should not confuse words with the realities they represent.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly explains that God is pure spirit, "God the Father" is not a male, "God the Son" was not a male before the incarnation, and "God the Holy Spirit" is of course not a male.  For example, see the following:

                              CCC 239

                              ​CCC 370

                              CCC 2779
                              http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s2a2.htm

                              ​I believe the Bible was inspired but was written by human hands in a culture where patriarchy was taken for granted as divine law, and therefore the language is patriarchal, but divine nature cannot be reduced by human nature.  
                              So it has to be carefully interpreted, and fundamentalist literalism is dangerous, because it can be used to "prove" that anything we want is the divine plan for humanity and the entire community of creation.

                              Indeed, we Catholics believe that God is omnipotent but allows humans to exercise free will.  We have the 10 commandments, and few people obey them, but it does not follow that God wants the commandments to be disobeyed.  We believe that God became human in Jesus of Nazareth, and he was crucified, but it does not follow that God wanted Jesus to be crucified. Humans crucified Jesus, not God.  It is paradoxical, this is why for us these are "mysteries of the faith"... God loves us, but humans are free to love or not love in return.

                              With regard to the root cause of the ecological crisis, my hypothesis is just something I am offering for consideration.  The ecological crisis is so universal, and so related to all dimensions of human life, that we may have to go back all the way to "the beginning" of human history, deconstruct the patriarchal civilization that emerged 10000 years or so ago, based on domination and rivalry (cf. Genesis 3:16), and reconstruct civilization along the lines of solidarity among all people, starting at the most basic level, between both halves of the human species, and within the constraints of energy and other ecological limits. 

                              It is just a hypothesis, perhaps it is just a fantasy... if it doesn't make sense to you, that's fine with me, OK?

                              Luis

                              On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                               

                              Luis,

                              I am sincerely not interested in provoking any sort of theological debate with you, as I am not a theologian. But it takes no theologian to consider that your statement, "God allows humans to use free will" is astonishingly contradictory to Biblical scripture, which you apparently hold as authoritative.

                              Consider the curse put upon Adam and Eve (and all humanity) and their subsequent expulsion from Eden; the many commandments issued to the Israelites; the inundation of the entire world by flood; the destruction of the Tower of Babel; the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah; the prophecy of Armagedon, and even the ordained sacrifice of Jesus -- is this the behavior of a supreme being who "allows" the humans it created to "do their own thing?" 

                              Given that the Biblical God has been universally identified as a male entity (Said Jesus: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Luke 23:46) I find it inexplicable that you seek to hold human patriarchy primarily responsible for our civilization's current ecological predicament. Your own Biblical authority clearly reveals that the most destructive threat to the planet and all its inhabitants has been supernatural patriarchy, the divine perpetrator of which had no qualms about rewarding human "free will" with instant extinction.

                              Jada

                               
                               


                              On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 7:12 PM, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                               
                              That’s so nice of her!

                              Sent from my iPhone

                              On Jan 3, 2018, at 5:30 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                               
                              God allows humans to exercise free will...

                              Luis

                              On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                               
                              Re:
                              but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.


                              Oh, I thought your diety was all powerful…;-)



                              On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:39 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                              See my response to Jada.  The social and biophysical dimensions do intersect, but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.

                              Luis

                              On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                               
                              I agree with Jada on this.

                              Steve

                              Sent from my iPhone

                              On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                               

                              Luis,

                              To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a "cultural disorder" and a "cultural aberration" that was "relatively latent until the 1800's" suggests everything was pretty much hunky-dory with the concept of civilization until just recently. I would rather point out, once again, that every known civilization prior to our present industrialized civilization collapsed and either went extinct or were assimilated into yet another doomed civilization. 

                              Although I have commented critically here at some length on the extreme cultural and ecological differences between pre-civilized and civilized human societies, I cannot share your conclusion that "the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue." The current "ecological crisis" is an energy issue, just as all the previous "ecological crises" and civilizational collapses have also been energy issues. 

                              Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life on a finite world.

                              Jada




                              On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:27 PM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                               
                              Jada

                              There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

                              Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted..

                              See Genesis 2:15...  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

                              On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

                              The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

                              So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

                              My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

                              I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

                              Luis


                              On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups.ca> wrote:
                               
                              Luis,

                              On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

                              All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

                              But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

                              We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

                              So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

                              But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

                              Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

                              When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly:"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

                              Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

                              Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

                              As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

                              The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

                              Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

                              Jada  









                              On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                               
                              Luis
                              further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

                              Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
                              r

                              On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc] wrote:

                               
                              luis
                              have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title....
                              Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

                              r
                              On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] wrote:

                               

                              Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

                              Luis

                              On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. ..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups..ca> wrote:
                               

                              Luis,

                              Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

                              Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

                              But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

                              Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

                              It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

                              I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights... You finish them.." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside.. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two.. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.

                              This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery..' 

                              Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.

                              Jada



                              On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@gmail..com [ gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                               
                              Did you read the article to the end?  Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological.  This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.  So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin."  I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture.  Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall."  Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!

                            • Stanley N Salthe
                              Luis, all -- The free will aspect of catholicism appears to me to be a way to assign guilt to humans. Particular actions were done by (say) Luis! Not by
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jan 4 6:35 AM
                                Luis, all -- The 'free will' aspect of catholicism appears to me to be a way to assign guilt to humans.  Particular actions were done by (say) Luis! Not by biological predispositions, or social arrangements.

                                STAN

                                On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                 

                                Jada,

                                I am no theologian either, but we should not confuse words with the realities they represent.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly explains that God is pure spirit, "God the Father" is not a male, "God the Son" was not a male before the incarnation, and "God the Holy Spirit" is of course not a male.  For example, see the following:

                                CCC 239

                                ​CCC 370

                                CCC 2779
                                http://www.vatican.va/archive/ ccc_css/archive/catechism/ p4s2a2.htm

                                ​I believe the Bible was inspired but was written by human hands in a culture where patriarchy was taken for granted as divine law, and therefore the language is patriarchal, but divine nature cannot be reduced by human nature.  
                                So it has to be carefully interpreted, and fundamentalist literalism is dangerous, because it can be used to "prove" that anything we want is the divine plan for humanity and the entire community of creation.

                                Indeed, we Catholics believe that God is omnipotent but allows humans to exercise free will.  We have the 10 commandments, and few people obey them, but it does not follow that God wants the commandments to be disobeyed.  We believe that God became human in Jesus of Nazareth, and he was crucified, but it does not follow that God wanted Jesus to be crucified. Humans crucified Jesus, not God.  It is paradoxical, this is why for us these are "mysteries of the faith"... God loves us, but humans are free to love or not love in return.

                                With regard to the root cause of the ecological crisis, my hypothesis is just something I am offering for consideration.  The ecological crisis is so universal, and so related to all dimensions of human life, that we may have to go back all the way to "the beginning" of human history, deconstruct the patriarchal civilization that emerged 10000 years or so ago, based on domination and rivalry (cf. Genesis 3:16), and reconstruct civilization along the lines of solidarity among all people, starting at the most basic level, between both halves of the human species, and within the constraints of energy and other ecological limits. 

                                It is just a hypothesis, perhaps it is just a fantasy... if it doesn't make sense to you, that's fine with me, OK?

                                Luis

                                On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                 

                                Luis,

                                I am sincerely not interested in provoking any sort of theological debate with you, as I am not a theologian. But it takes no theologian to consider that your statement, "God allows humans to use free will" is astonishingly contradictory to Biblical scripture, which you apparently hold as authoritative.

                                Consider the curse put upon Adam and Eve (and all humanity) and their subsequent expulsion from Eden; the many commandments issued to the Israelites; the inundation of the entire world by flood; the destruction of the Tower of Babel; the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah; the prophecy of Armagedon, and even the ordained sacrifice of Jesus -- is this the behavior of a supreme being who "allows" the humans it created to "do their own thing?" 

                                Given that the Biblical God has been universally identified as a male entity (Said Jesus: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Luke 23:46) I find it inexplicable that you seek to hold human patriarchy primarily responsible for our civilization's current ecological predicament. Your own Biblical authority clearly reveals that the most destructive threat to the planet and all its inhabitants has been supernatural patriarchy, the divine perpetrator of which had no qualms about rewarding human "free will" with instant extinction.

                                Jada

                                 
                                 


                                On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 7:12 PM, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                 
                                That’s so nice of her!

                                Sent from my iPhone

                                On Jan 3, 2018, at 5:30 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                 
                                God allows humans to exercise free will...

                                Luis

                                On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                 
                                Re:
                                but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.


                                Oh, I thought your diety was all powerful…;-)



                                On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:39 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                See my response to Jada.  The social and biophysical dimensions do intersect, but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.

                                Luis

                                On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                 
                                I agree with Jada on this.

                                Steve

                                Sent from my iPhone

                                On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                 

                                Luis,

                                To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a "cultural disorder" and a "cultural aberration" that was "relatively latent until the 1800's" suggests everything was pretty much hunky-dory with the concept of civilization until just recently. I would rather point out, once again, that every known civilization prior to our present industrialized civilization collapsed and either went extinct or were assimilated into yet another doomed civilization. 

                                Although I have commented critically here at some length on the extreme cultural and ecological differences between pre-civilized and civilized human societies, I cannot share your conclusion that "the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue." The current "ecological crisis" is an energy issue, just as all the previous "ecological crises" and civilizational collapses have also been energy issues. 

                                Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life on a finite world.

                                Jada




                                On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:27 PM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                 
                                Jada

                                There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

                                Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted..

                                See Genesis 2:15....  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

                                On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

                                The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

                                So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

                                My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

                                I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

                                Luis


                                On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups.ca> wrote:
                                 
                                Luis,

                                On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

                                All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

                                But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

                                We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

                                So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

                                But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

                                Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

                                When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly:"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

                                Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

                                Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

                                As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

                                The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

                                Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

                                Jada  









                                On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                 
                                Luis
                                further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

                                Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
                                r

                                On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc] wrote:

                                 
                                luis
                                have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title....
                                Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

                                r
                                On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] wrote:

                                 

                                Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

                                Luis

                                On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. ..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups..ca> wrote:
                                 

                                Luis,

                                Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

                                Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

                                But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

                                Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

                                It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

                                I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights... You finish them.." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside.. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, br

                                (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
                              • Luis Gutierrez
                                The blame game is bad. Cultural factors certainly have an influence, but humans are morally responsible for individual actions. Luis On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jan 4 8:24 AM
                                  The blame game is bad.  Cultural factors certainly have an influence, but humans are morally responsible for individual actions.

                                  Luis

                                  On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  Luis, all -- The 'free will' aspect of catholicism appears to me to be a way to assign guilt to humans.  Particular actions were done by (say) Luis! Not by biological predispositions, or social arrangements.

                                  STAN

                                  On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  Jada,

                                  I am no theologian either, but we should not confuse words with the realities they represent.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly explains that God is pure spirit, "God the Father" is not a male, "God the Son" was not a male before the incarnation, and "God the Holy Spirit" is of course not a male.  For example, see the following:

                                  CCC 239

                                  ​CCC 370

                                  CCC 2779
                                  http://www.vatican.va/archive/ ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s2 a2.htm

                                  ​I believe the Bible was inspired but was written by human hands in a culture where patriarchy was taken for granted as divine law, and therefore the language is patriarchal, but divine nature cannot be reduced by human nature..  
                                  So it has to be carefully interpreted, and fundamentalist literalism is dangerous, because it can be used to "prove" that anything we want is the divine plan for humanity and the entire community of creation.

                                  Indeed, we Catholics believe that God is omnipotent but allows humans to exercise free will.  We have the 10 commandments, and few people obey them, but it does not follow that God wants the commandments to be disobeyed.  We believe that God became human in Jesus of Nazareth, and he was crucified, but it does not follow that God wanted Jesus to be crucified. Humans crucified Jesus, not God.  It is paradoxical, this is why for us these are "mysteries of the faith"... God loves us, but humans are free to love or not love in return.

                                  With regard to the root cause of the ecological crisis, my hypothesis is just something I am offering for consideration.  The ecological crisis is so universal, and so related to all dimensions of human life, that we may have to go back all the way to "the beginning" of human history, deconstruct the patriarchal civilization that emerged 10000 years or so ago, based on domination and rivalry (cf. Genesis 3:16), and reconstruct civilization along the lines of solidarity among all people, starting at the most basic level, between both halves of the human species, and within the constraints of energy and other ecological limits. 

                                  It is just a hypothesis, perhaps it is just a fantasy... if it doesn't make sense to you, that's fine with me, OK?

                                  Luis

                                  On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  Luis,

                                  I am sincerely not interested in provoking any sort of theological debate with you, as I am not a theologian. But it takes no theologian to consider that your statement, "God allows humans to use free will" is astonishingly contradictory to Biblical scripture, which you apparently hold as authoritative.

                                  Consider the curse put upon Adam and Eve (and all humanity) and their subsequent expulsion from Eden; the many commandments issued to the Israelites; the inundation of the entire world by flood; the destruction of the Tower of Babel; the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah; the prophecy of Armagedon, and even the ordained sacrifice of Jesus -- is this the behavior of a supreme being who "allows" the humans it created to "do their own thing?" 

                                  Given that the Biblical God has been universally identified as a male entity (Said Jesus: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Luke 23:46) I find it inexplicable that you seek to hold human patriarchy primarily responsible for our civilization's current ecological predicament. Your own Biblical authority clearly reveals that the most destructive threat to the planet and all its inhabitants has been supernatural patriarchy, the divine perpetrator of which had no qualms about rewarding human "free will" with instant extinction.

                                  Jada

                                   
                                   


                                  On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 7:12 PM, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                   
                                  That’s so nice of her!

                                  Sent from my iPhone

                                  On Jan 3, 2018, at 5:30 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                   
                                  God allows humans to exercise free will...

                                  Luis

                                  On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                   
                                  Re:
                                  but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.


                                  Oh, I thought your diety was all powerful…;-)



                                  On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:39 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                  See my response to Jada.  The social and biophysical dimensions do intersect, but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.

                                  Luis

                                  On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                   
                                  I agree with Jada on this.

                                  Steve

                                  Sent from my iPhone

                                  On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  Luis,

                                  To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a "cultural disorder" and a "cultural aberration" that was "relatively latent until the 1800's" suggests everything was pretty much hunky-dory with the concept of civilization until just recently. I would rather point out, once again, that every known civilization prior to our present industrialized civilization collapsed and either went extinct or were assimilated into yet another doomed civilization. 

                                  Although I have commented critically here at some length on the extreme cultural and ecological differences between pre-civilized and civilized human societies, I cannot share your conclusion that "the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue." The current "ecological crisis" is an energy issue, just as all the previous "ecological crises" and civilizational collapses have also been energy issues. 

                                  Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life on a finite world.

                                  Jada




                                  On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:27 PM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                   
                                  Jada

                                  There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

                                  Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted..

                                  See Genesis 2:15....  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

                                  On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

                                  The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

                                  So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

                                  My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

                                  I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

                                  Luis


                                  On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups.ca> wrote:
                                   
                                  Luis,

                                  On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

                                  All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

                                  But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

                                  We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

                                  So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

                                  But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

                                  Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

                                  When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly:"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

                                  Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

                                  Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

                                  As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

                                  The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

                                  Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

                                  Jada  









                                  On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                   
                                  Luis
                                  further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

                                  Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
                                  r

                                  On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc] wrote:

                                   
                                  luis
                                  have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title....
                                  Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

                                  r
                                  On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] wrote:

                                   

                                  Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

                                  Luis

                                  On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. ..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups..ca> wrote:
                                   

                                  Luis,

                                  Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

                                  Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than wom

                                  (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
                                • Helmut L
                                  Luis, ... it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history. [L Eternel Dieu prit l homme et le plaça dans le
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jan 4 2:21 PM

                                    Luis, "... it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history." [L'Eternel Dieu prit l'homme et le plaça dans le jardin d'Eden pour qu'il le cultive et le garde.]

                                    I think there is other "guidance" available.
                                    The bible is not the only scripture.
                                    Factual history is a guidance as well.

                                    Assuming humans are part of nature, we exploited and grew our ecological niches (not "Eden") till we hit boundaries. Can't remember, who was it who said even the atomic bomb is part of nature?

                                    Depletion, stronger competitors (animals, humans) led to collapses. Technology led to the present overshoot, and we're only a few years away from our collapse. The weakest link in the chain? Possibly food production and distribution (peak oil, biological rupture of the food chain).

                                    Jada wrote: "Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life."

                                    Helmut@... Enjoy today
                                    www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios
                                    www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem

                                     

                                    Jada,

                                    I am no theologian either, but we should not confuse words with the realities they represent.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly explains that God is pure spirit, "God the Father" is not a male, "God the Son" was not a male before the incarnation, and "God the Holy Spirit" is of course not a male.  For example, see the following:

                                    CCC 239

                                    ​CCC 370

                                    CCC 2779
                                    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ ccc_css/archive/catechism/ p4s2a2.htm

                                    ​I believe the Bible was inspired but was written by human hands in a culture where patriarchy was taken for granted as divine law, and therefore the language is patriarchal, but divine nature cannot be reduced by human nature.  
                                    So it has to be carefully interpreted, and fundamentalist literalism is dangerous, because it can be used to "prove" that anything we want is the divine plan for humanity and the entire community of creation.

                                    Indeed, we Catholics believe that God is omnipotent but allows humans to exercise free will.  We have the 10 commandments, and few people obey them, but it does not follow that God wants the commandments to be disobeyed.  We believe that God became human in Jesus of Nazareth, and he was crucified, but it does not follow that God wanted Jesus to be crucified. Humans crucified Jesus, not God.  It is paradoxical, this is why for us these are "mysteries of the faith"... God loves us, but humans are free to love or not love in return.

                                    With regard to the root cause of the ecological crisis, my hypothesis is just something I am offering for consideration.  The ecological crisis is so universal, and so related to all dimensions of human life, that we may have to go back all the way to "the beginning" of human history, deconstruct the patriarchal civilization that emerged 10000 years or so ago, based on domination and rivalry (cf. Genesis 3:16), and reconstruct civilization along the lines of solidarity among all people, starting at the most basic level, between both halves of the human species, and within the constraints of energy and other ecological limits. 

                                    It is just a hypothesis, perhaps it is just a fantasy... if it doesn't make sense to you, that's fine with me, OK?

                                    Luis

                                    On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                     

                                    Luis,

                                    I am sincerely not interested in provoking any sort of theological debate with you, as I am not a theologian. But it takes no theologian to consider that your statement, "God allows humans to use free will" is astonishingly contradictory to Biblical scripture, which you apparently hold as authoritative.

                                    Consider the curse put upon Adam and Eve (and all humanity) and their subsequent expulsion from Eden; the many commandments issued to the Israelites; the inundation of the entire world by flood; the destruction of the Tower of Babel; the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah; the prophecy of Armagedon, and even the ordained sacrifice of Jesus -- is this the behavior of a supreme being who "allows" the humans it created to "do their own thing?" 

                                    Given that the Biblical God has been universally identified as a male entity (Said Jesus: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Luke 23:46) I find it inexplicable that you seek to hold human patriarchy primarily responsible for our civilization's current ecological predicament. Your own Biblical authority clearly reveals that the most destructive threat to the planet and all its inhabitants has been supernatural patriarchy, the divine perpetrator of which had no qualms about rewarding human "free will" with instant extinction.

                                    Jada

                                     
                                     


                                    On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 7:12 PM, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                     
                                    That’s so nice of her!

                                    Sent from my iPhone

                                    On Jan 3, 2018, at 5:30 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                     
                                    God allows humans to exercise free will...

                                    Luis

                                    On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                     
                                    Re:
                                    but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.


                                    Oh, I thought your diety was all powerful…;-)



                                    On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:39 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                    See my response to Jada.  The social and biophysical dimensions do intersect, but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.

                                    Luis

                                    On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                     
                                    I agree with Jada on this.

                                    Steve

                                    Sent from my iPhone

                                    On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                     

                                    Luis,

                                    To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a "cultural disorder" and a "cultural aberration" that was "relatively latent until the 1800's" suggests everything was pretty much hunky-dory with the concept of civilization until just recently. I would rather point out, once again, that every known civilization prior to our present industrialized civilization collapsed and either went extinct or were assimilated into yet another doomed civilization. 

                                    Although I have commented critically here at some length on the extreme cultural and ecological differences between pre-civilized and civilized human societies, I cannot share your conclusion that "the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue." The current "ecological crisis" is an energy issue, just as all the previous "ecological crises" and civilizational collapses have also been energy issues. 

                                    Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life on a finite world.

                                    Jada




                                    On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:27 PM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                     
                                    Jada

                                    There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

                                    Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted..

                                    See Genesis 2:15....  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

                                    On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

                                    The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

                                    So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

                                    My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

                                    I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

                                    Luis


                                    On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups.ca> wrote:
                                     
                                    Luis,

                                    On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

                                    All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

                                    But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

                                    We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theories alone do not explain why pre-civilized peoples were generally sexually egalitarian and at ecologically sustainable and civilizations are not. Cherokee men, for example, were no more immune to the presumed effects of hormones, biology, or evolution than the civilized men who destroyed their society.

                                    So, as long as we are hypothesizing about male dominance, we may as well speculate closer to home. Imagine for a moment that a writer published an article excoriating male dominance. Enraged by the article, an irate male chauvinist redneck shows up at the writer's office and bashes the writer's face to pulp. Would we expect the writer to shrug the incident off as merely a bad day at the office? Of course not. In all likelihood, the outraged writer would call the police and likely prefer charges against the redneck. This understandable response would be motivated by the writer's desire to seek punishment for the violence suffered and to prevent its recurrence.

                                    But anytime anybody in a similar situation picks up the phone and calls the police, they are explicitly invoking the dominant, essentially patriarchal, coercive power of the State to act on their own behalf against another person. This is precisely what happens when an aggrieved woman files charges against a man she accuses of sexual misconduct.  

                                    Of course, invoking the same patriarchal dominance one otherwise criticizes as morally reprehensible is blatantly hypocritical. But that this not the point I am attempting to make. The point is that, hypocritical or not, it is what all civilized States require.

                                    When military-backed civilization dominates society, it not only assumes a legal monopoly on violence but formally requires its subjects to accept that monopoly. (Far from being an exception to the rule, the US Constitution stands as a perfect example.) A quote attributed to George Orwell puts it succinctly:"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." Left unsaid is that only certain rough men are legally authorized to visit violence on others.

                                    Whether the State is a liberal democracy or a totalitarian autocracy makes no difference with regard to its enforced monopoly on patriarchal violence against its own citizens. And this is especially true regarding the State's monopoly on violence against external societies. (At the same time that American tabloids are swooning over the sexual malfeasance of powerful men at home, the US Special Operations Command reports it currently has operations in 143 nations. Should we consider this merely coincidental, or rather an example of the adage "what goes around, comes around?")

                                    Moreover, civilizations are not only founded by patriarchal violence, but subsequently require the obedience of the vanquished as a condition for their future protection. The term "outlaw", for example, did not originate in the "uncivilized" American Wild West, but in civilized medieval England: to be declared "outlaw" did not mean your were necessarily considered an enemy of the State, but that the State would no longer protect you from any violence or transgression committed against you by others. 

                                    As a practical matter, the primordial origins of patriarchal dominance appear to me somewhat beside the point. The point is that the socioeconomic customs of pre-civilized societies generally did not tolerate domestic patriarchal dominance or ecologically unsustainable behavior, whereas in every known case civilizations require both as a precondition for their very existence. 

                                    The ironic result today is that even those who complain the most bitterly about patriarchal dominance implicitly expect it to work on their behalf when they find themselves personally threatened by it. An even greater irony is that, prior to the advent of civilization, few members of society had reason to complain about domestic patriarchal dominance because no such thing existed -- while any foreign threat of patriarchal dominance was universally resisted equally by both sexes, instead of by State-designated "rough men standing ready to do violence" on their behalf.

                                    Just as the God of Genesis ordained humans with anthropocentric dominion over nature and patriarchal domination of females, civilizations -- far from banishing either -- preserve both as monopolistic prerogatives. It appears the first step in the eradication of patriarchal domination would be the eradication civilization itself. Good luck with that.  

                                    Jada  









                                    On Monday, January 1, 2018 4:35 PM, "Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                     
                                    Luis
                                    further to the sexes issues, likely you have seen this one but worth a read if not;

                                    Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain.  How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.  isbn 978 0 14 200467-8
                                    r

                                    On 2018-01-01, at 2:03 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@...  [gaiapc] wrote:

                                     
                                    luis
                                    have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title....
                                    Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

                                    r
                                    On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] wrote:

                                     

                                    Jada, good analysis.  I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis.  Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world.  Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions.  As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!

                                    Luis

                                    On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. ..net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups..ca> wrote:
                                     

                                    Luis,

                                    Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.

                                    Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.

                                    But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare. 

                                    Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition. 

                                    It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so. 

                                  • Luis Gutierrez
                                    Helmut, please note the biblical the context for my remark. I meant that, at this point in human history, Genesis 2:15 is better guidance than Genesis 1:28.
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Jan 4 2:38 PM
                                      Helmut, please note the biblical the context for my remark.  I meant that, at this point in human history, Genesis 2:15 is better guidance than Genesis 1:28.

                                      Of course, the Bible is not the only source of guidance.  All the modern ecological sciences provide relevant guidance. 

                                      Also, I keep recommending the comprehensive encyclical by Pope Francis, Laudato Si'.  It is long, and weak with regard to the overpopulation issue, but very inspirational.

                                      Luis

                                      On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Helmut L helmut.lubbers@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                       

                                      Luis, "... it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history." [L'Eternel Dieu prit l'homme et le plaça dans le jardin d'Eden pour qu'il le cultive et le garde.]

                                      I think there is other "guidance" available.
                                      The bible is not the only scripture.
                                      Factual history is a guidance as well.

                                      Assuming humans are part of nature, we exploited and grew our ecological niches (not "Eden") till we hit boundaries. Can't remember, who was it who said even the atomic bomb is part of nature?

                                      Depletion, stronger competitors (animals, humans) led to collapses. Technology led to the present overshoot, and we're only a few years away from our collapse. The weakest link in the chain? Possibly food production and distribution (peak oil, biological rupture of the food chain)..

                                      Jada wrote: "Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life."

                                      Helmut@... Enjoy today
                                      www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios
                                      www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem

                                       

                                      Jada,

                                      I am no theologian either, but we should not confuse words with the realities they represent.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly explains that God is pure spirit, "God the Father" is not a male, "God the Son" was not a male before the incarnation, and "God the Holy Spirit" is of course not a male.  For example, see the following:

                                      CCC 239

                                      ​CCC 370

                                      CCC 2779
                                      http://www.vatican.va/archive/ ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s2 a2.htm

                                      ​I believe the Bible was inspired but was written by human hands in a culture where patriarchy was taken for granted as divine law, and therefore the language is patriarchal, but divine nature cannot be reduced by human nature.  
                                      So it has to be carefully interpreted, and fundamentalist literalism is dangerous, because it can be used to "prove" that anything we want is the divine plan for humanity and the entire community of creation.

                                      Indeed, we Catholics believe that God is omnipotent but allows humans to exercise free will.  We have the 10 commandments, and few people obey them, but it does not follow that God wants the commandments to be disobeyed.  We believe that God became human in Jesus of Nazareth, and he was crucified, but it does not follow that God wanted Jesus to be crucified. Humans crucified Jesus, not God.  It is paradoxical, this is why for us these are "mysteries of the faith"... God loves us, but humans are free to love or not love in return.

                                      With regard to the root cause of the ecological crisis, my hypothesis is just something I am offering for consideration.  The ecological crisis is so universal, and so related to all dimensions of human life, that we may have to go back all the way to "the beginning" of human history, deconstruct the patriarchal civilization that emerged 10000 years or so ago, based on domination and rivalry (cf. Genesis 3:16), and reconstruct civilization along the lines of solidarity among all people, starting at the most basic level, between both halves of the human species, and within the constraints of energy and other ecological limits. 

                                      It is just a hypothesis, perhaps it is just a fantasy... if it doesn't make sense to you, that's fine with me, OK?

                                      Luis

                                      On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                       

                                      Luis,

                                      I am sincerely not interested in provoking any sort of theological debate with you, as I am not a theologian. But it takes no theologian to consider that your statement, "God allows humans to use free will" is astonishingly contradictory to Biblical scripture, which you apparently hold as authoritative.

                                      Consider the curse put upon Adam and Eve (and all humanity) and their subsequent expulsion from Eden; the many commandments issued to the Israelites; the inundation of the entire world by flood; the destruction of the Tower of Babel; the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah; the prophecy of Armagedon, and even the ordained sacrifice of Jesus -- is this the behavior of a supreme being who "allows" the humans it created to "do their own thing?" 

                                      Given that the Biblical God has been universally identified as a male entity (Said Jesus: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Luke 23:46) I find it inexplicable that you seek to hold human patriarchy primarily responsible for our civilization's current ecological predicament. Your own Biblical authority clearly reveals that the most destructive threat to the planet and all its inhabitants has been supernatural patriarchy, the divine perpetrator of which had no qualms about rewarding human "free will" with instant extinction.

                                      Jada

                                       
                                       


                                      On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 7:12 PM, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                       
                                      That’s so nice of her!

                                      Sent from my iPhone

                                      On Jan 3, 2018, at 5:30 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                       
                                      God allows humans to exercise free will...

                                      Luis

                                      On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                       
                                      Re:
                                      but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.


                                      Oh, I thought your diety was all powerful…;-)



                                      On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:39 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                      See my response to Jada.  The social and biophysical dimensions do intersect, but it is humans who are in the driver's seat.

                                      Luis

                                      On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                       
                                      I agree with Jada on this.

                                      Steve

                                      Sent from my iPhone

                                      On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                       

                                      Luis,

                                      To speak as you do about our current civilizational/ecological crisis as a "cultural disorder" and a "cultural aberration" that was "relatively latent until the 1800's" suggests everything was pretty much hunky-dory with the concept of civilization until just recently. I would rather point out, once again, that every known civilization prior to our present industrialized civilization collapsed and either went extinct or were assimilated into yet another doomed civilization. 

                                      Although I have commented critically here at some length on the extreme cultural and ecological differences between pre-civilized and civilized human societies, I cannot share your conclusion that "the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue." The current "ecological crisis" is an energy issue, just as all the previous "ecological crises" and civilizational collapses have also been energy issues. 

                                      Millions of species of organisms totally devoid of "culture" went extinct long before human culture arrived on the scene. Humans share a common trait with these extinct species: we too have the capacity to produce more offspring than environmental food-energy can support. Carrying capacity thus is not a character fault of humans, nor is it a "cultural aberration or disorder." It's just a fact of life on a finite world.

                                      Jada




                                      On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:27 PM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                       
                                      Jada

                                      There is general agreement among biblical scholars that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written separately, and Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1.

                                      Keep in mind that both were written ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevalent culture, and both project back to "the beginning" the culture they took for granted..

                                      See Genesis 2:15....  That Genesis 1:28 has been used for 3000 years to justify a culture of domination, rather than a culture of care, does not make Genesis 2:15 irrelevant.

                                      On the contrary, as Pope Francis explains at length in Laudato Si', it is time to recognize that Genesis 2:15 is the best guidance at this point in human history.

                                      The basic connection here is that male domination over women extends to human domination over nature, with most women internalizing patriarchy as much as men, even though it is manifested differently in men and women.

                                      So the ecological crisis is, fundamentally, a cultural issue.

                                      My hypothesis is that this cultural aberration, which was relatively latent until the 1800s, was exacerbated worldwide by the fossil energy surplus, leading to the current situation.

                                      I may be wrong, but this is my working hypothesis at the moment.

                                      Luis


                                      On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal. net [gaiapc] <gaiapc@ yahoogroups.ca> wrote:
                                       
                                      Luis,

                                      On further reflection, the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy in Genesis 3:16 was prefigured by the more general doctrine of anthropogenic dominance of nature in Genesis 1:26-28. In like manner, today's patriarchal dominance was prefigured by the existence of civilization, itself.  

                                      All civilizations have come into existence by means of military force. Force was necessary because the pre-civilized societies from which civilizations were amalgamated typically violently resisted surrendering their autarky. And these pre-civilized societies were notably sexually and politically egalitarian prior to their subjugation by the necessarily patriarchal dominance of conquest. ("Necessarily patriarchal" because military conquest requires infantry warfare, always the exclusive domain of males.) 

                                      But why and how are these facts relevant to sexual egalitarianism or ecological sustainability?

                                      We may theorize that testosterone, evolutionary biology, or sexual selection may have caused the male social and ecological dominance we observe today. But these theor