At 11:54 AM 6/4/96 BST, Richard Twine wrote:
> I loved Piercy's ideas on 'job rotation', I think they are essential
>to utopias, we have to move beyond the meritocracy, which probably most
>of us on this list are a part of, me included, which is so structured by
mind/body dualism,
I have not read Piercy but while I agree the concept of 'meritocracy' is
suspect I am equally doubtful of 'job rotation' and for the same reasons.
Both seem to me to imply coercion. The libertarian concept of freedom is
abused by the selfish and powerful but the answer is to equalise power,
including economic power, not to embrace coercion.
> Piercy's language,
> the use of the words 'Person' and 'per' instead of he, she, herself,
himself etc,
> I also liked.
Mmm, David Brinn used a similar language in his 'uplift' books. I liked it.
> What I didn't like so much was Piercy's implication that the
>emancipation of 'women' is premised upon the removal of childbirth from
>the womb. In this respect she allies herself with Shulamith Firestone and
>I suppose it's not impossible that she was an influence since they wrote
>at around the same time, late 1970s. This view suggests an abhorrence with
nature.
>Piercy seemed to be implying that when pregnant women are passive and
constrained,
>which though I am male, I know to be false.
As a mother, with a daughter who is a mother, I am not so sure that there is
not something in this. Of course not all women are passive when pregnant and
everything is relative - some may be more passive than usual and still be
pretty stroppy. Nevertheless my observation of my daughter has made me very
aware of the effect of hormones on the personality. My daughter was an
ambitious student in her third year at University when she became pregnant.
Even when she was not vomiting all day she lost all interest in her studies
and became totally absorbed in 'nest-building' activity. Also, mothers DO
have a tendency to put their families before their personal ambitions, while
fathers tend to excuse their ambition as necessary to their 'breadwinner'
role. I think children do need personal attention from at least one adult
who has a permanent attachment to them. I would not like to see mothers
rejecting any responsibility for this. It does, however, inevitably make
women, if not exactly passive, certainly less able to be visibly active in
the public arena. I think a 'better future' would include more committment
to children by both parents not releasing both from responsibilities.
I also find the idea of 'industrialised reproduction' inconsistent with the
kind of connectedness with nature which, in my view, must be part of a
sustainable future.
Laura said:
>the part in Piercy's book that really sticks in my mind is the
>part when they take the adolescent who is ready to become an adult out to
>the middle of the wilderness and drop her off for a week or two.
>Spending time in the wilderness and keeping yourself alive gives one a
>larger world view, I think. hmmm...
>
I cannot imagine that people who had been through the kind of initiation
ritual Laura refers to being happy with 'industrialised reproduction'.
Helen Marsh: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: +64 9 473 9760
5 Neilon Place, Browns Bay, Auckland North Shore, New Zealand
