In a message dated 11/8/98 2:03:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<OK Chris, Why does religion have to be democractic? What are you trying to
get liberated from exactly? The false notion that man and woman were not
created equal heirs to a life a grace? Or is it that woman want Power just as
badly as men and now we really will be over-masculated with power hungry
individuals - instead of the woman of obedience who want nothing but to help
and humble themselves to the spirit - why should woman who are just as "title
hungry" as men be liberated to anything? Aren't they in reality just as bad
as the men in this case? Why would a power hungry, overzealous, disobedient
woman be any different from her male complement?
I know Sophia represents Wisdom - but remember that people define wisdom
differently. To me it is far wiser to be obedient to LIFE and the Spirit
(because it should be obvious by now that is what is needed Obedience) then to
try to assert my own understanding, control and idealogies through false
perceptions of wisdom!>>
It's about a different kind of power! The Power you describe is "Power over",
that is the govt. has power over us to tax us & make sometimes crazy laws to
enforce over us. Men have the power society gives them over women &
everything else. What we are talking about is a different kind of power from
this. It is "Power with", this kind of power is also called empowerment &
is different by it's very nature. You can't be power hungry for this kind of
power because it gives power to everyone & it wouldn't work if it didn't.
This kind of power isn't power over anything but instead is the understand of
something to have power with it. equality in itself is empowering because it
makes us look at each other without stereotypes, at least ideally. Those of
us who desire a change from the current system to a goddess system may talk
about ideals but while we know the ideal will likely never be reached
perfectly it still gives a goal to reach for & the shape of a world that is
definetly better than the current one. To give you an example of the
difference between the 2 types of power hwo crime is dealt with & viewed in
our society is a good start; In our society crime is punished & the deterrent
to committing crime is the punishment. People look at all criminals, all
those people convicted of a crime the same, they are seen as a separate class
of society as some how less than the rest of us. what they did & why they did
it is irrelevant. this is also part of the punishment. In a society where
power with was the power in place people wouldn't commit crime not because of
the punishment but because they would understand & care about the effect
committing such an act has on the rest of society both at the individual level
& the community, & the society at large. They would understand shoplifting
drives prices up for everyone, & that if it didn't happen prices even when
they are short of cash & their child got sick & needed some medicine, the
price would be more affordable. Besides that fact medical care would be a
right just as religious freedom & freedom of speech are rights. education
would also be a right. & those 2 things alone would recitfy 90% of the
crimes committed today. i hope this enlightens you.
By the way I have yet to meet a man who deserves my obedience in any way,
shape or form. Most of the ones I've met if I followed their advice/ orders
I'd be in very bad shape very quickly. Most of them are socialized by our
society to believe thay should be worshipped & know one else's opinions or
ideas matter except their own so they usually disregard & supress other
people's ideas & opinions in ways that range from subtle ridicule of what was
said to outright oppression by saying or screaming the individual is stupid &
what they said is stupid. As I said I have yet to meet a man who doesn't do
this to one degree or another. & if I ever do meet a man who doesn't do this
obedience to him probably would turn him off anyway. & this are only false
versions of wisdom if they lead to a bad end & in my case finding the Goddess
& not being obedient to anything except what my conscious says is right has
saved my life & is leading it on a much better path than it would have if I'd
remained on the Christian path.
BB
Aedrienne
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 8 15:21:49 1998
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 17:21:23 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Two Alternatives
We also aren't talking about the face you put on god but the face 90% of the
rest of the world puts on HIM. except where you expect that the rest of us
are somhow missing out on something by not believing as you do & this need you
seem to have to prove that your God is the only God for everyone. that very
notion is expessly different from the way we, at least i for one believe.
Divinity by it's very nature in relationship to humanity has to be just as
diverse as humanity itself. This is not the many faces of the one true god,
it is many different gods to fufill many different purposes & needs. Your God
will never ever be my God ever & believe me I know I'm not missing out on
making that choice. Irregardless of what you believe about your god, society
at large believes that same god you hold to be a god who would set me as a
woman as a second class citizen to men for the mere reason that they are men
which is a simple accident of birth. I've already discussed at length the
many things our society does wrong in relation to adherence to that god. The
simple fact in my mind is that the current society who largely worships that
god oppresses the overwhelming majority of it's populace on the excuse of
divine orders that these opressed are somehow less equal than the rest & not
deserving of equal treatment. Until that changes your god won't even deserve
my recognition ever! I'm not going to burn in hell for that choice, when I
die I will merely be reincarnated again when My goddess deems she needs my
prescence on this planet again.
BB
Aedrienne
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 8 15:32:17 1998
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:31:43 +1300 (NZD)
09 Nov 1998 11:32:30 +1300
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 11:32:06 +1300
From: "STEFANIE S. RIXECKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Sterilization of Women (long)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear All:
I thought this might be of interest to some here.
Stefanie Rixecker
ECOFEM Coordinator
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>*************************************************
>New Sterilization Procedure Touches Off Debate
>
>Knight Ridder News Service
>
>MIAMI -- A new and inexpensive method to sterilize women without
>surgery, never offered in the United States, has touched off a
>worldwide debate about its medical risks and the motives of
>immigration-control groups sponsoring it for the sterilization of Third
>World women.
>
>Dr. Michael Benjamin of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., plans to offer the
>chemical sterilization technique in South Florida in a month or two. He
>is part of an activist group of doctors who believe the technique will
>improve women's health.
>
>In the procedure, tiny pellets of quinacrine -- a drug originally used
>orally to treat malaria -- are inserted through the vagina into the uterus
>with a plastic straw.
>
>The pellets dissolve within 30 minutes, flowing into the fallopian tubes
>and causing a burnlike reaction. As the area heals in six to 12 weeks,
>scar tissue forms, closing off the tube, blocking the egg's path to the
>uterus and producing sterility.
>
>``It's a practical answer to one of the world's biggest problems --
>overpopulation,'' said Benjamin, a gynecologist who describes the
>method on an Internet site.
>
>The quinacrine method, also known as QS or the Q-method, has
>prompted a global debate -- not only over the procedure's possible
>medical risks but also over its implications for the world's most
>vulnerable women.
>
>Vietnam halted the procedure in 1993 after charges that illiterate
>women served as guinea pigs against their will. This spring, prompted
>by new complaints, Chile and India outlawed the method and a Swiss
>company that supplied quinacrine pellets announced it no longer will
>make them.
>
>As the quinacrine debate shifts to the United States, critics of the
>technique charge that the motive behind the sterilization campaign --
>funded in part by groups lobbying to limit immigration to America --
>might be to discriminate against Third World women.
>
>``Quinacrine smacks of eugenics, racism and contraceptive
>imperialism,'' said Steven Mosher, president of the Virginia-based
>Population Research Institute. Eugenics is the discredited science of
>selective breeding. ``Invariably, it's the poor and minorities who are
>targeted for all kinds of sterilization,'' Mosher said.
>
>Said Pat McEwen, coordinator of Melbourne-based Life Coalition
>International, an anti-abortion, anti-sterilization group: ``Quinacrine's
>supporters are like the eugenicists of the 1930s who feel some people
>are human weeds that we have to remove.''
>
>As worldwide demand for birth control grows, quinacrine's
>champions see it as safer and cheaper than surgical sterilization, the
>world's most widely used birth control, outpacing even the pill. In
>surgical sterilization, known as tubal ligation, a surgeon makes an
>incision in the abdomen and ties the fallopian tubes to prevent
>pregnancy.
>
>The Q-method, which can be performed in a doctor's office without
>anesthesia, costs as little as $2 in the Third World. In the United
>States, Benjamin's proposed price tag is $200, or $500 less than
>what he charges for tubal sterilization.
>
>But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns that quinacrine
>sterilizations aren't approved here. Several family-planning groups
>oppose them, citing possible long-term complications, including
>cancer, and worry that women might not fully understand the risks.
>
>U.S. regulators want more tests on animals before approving
>quinacrine for contraceptive use. At the same time, regulators
>ackwedge they have no authority to discipline physicians who use
>quinacrine obtained legally from pharmacists.
>
>Quinacrine sterilization, first tried in Chile in the 1970s, since has been
>used on more than 100,000 women in nations with soaring birthrates.
>
>Benjamin, who says he doesn't intend to actively promote the new
>technique, plans to provide quinacrine to women for whom surgical
>sterilization is not an option: women who are scared of surgery, who
>can't undergo surgery for medical reasons or who can't afford
>surgery.
>
>``We're not talking about a woman with health insurance who has
>access to birth control,'' said Benjamin, whose patients come from
>South Florida, the Caribbean and South America. ``We're talking
>about a woman who doesn't have access to birth control and doesn't
>want any more children.''
>
>He sees the Third World as quinacrine's biggest beneficiary -- ``in
>countries that are reproducing themselves into starvation and tribal
>warfare ... in places where women are going through fourth, fifth or
>sixth pregnancies in a family of starving children.''
>
>At the center of the debate are two North Carolina-based
>researchers with financial ties to immigration-control groups -- Dr.
>Elton Kessel and Dr. Stephen Mumford. They supply the pellets to a
>network of doctors, midwives and nurses who administer quinacrine
>in remote villages and cities where hospitals and equipment are in
>short supply. Benjamin linked up with them through a
>population-control activist.
>
>With mounting opposition overseas, Mumford and Kessel have taken
>steps to make quinacrine available in the United States. A company
>will export raw quinacrine powder from India. U.S. suppliers will sell
>the powder to pharmacists. And the pharmacists will mix it into
>quinacrine pellets for use by doctors here.
>
>``I never believed that quinacrine would be limited to the Third
>World,'' said Mumford, who recently returned from an overseas trip
>with a ``60 Minutes'' television crew looking into the controversy.
>
>He said the drug holds promise to help curb a world population that is
>growing by 80 million a year.
>
>Denying they are motivated by racial fears or prejudice, quinacrine
>advocates blame abortion foes for trying to torpedo the drug through
>a misinformation campaign. The same groups, they say, often hurl
>eugenics charges against other forms of contraception, including
>surgical sterilization.
>
>``Is it better to cut women open and place them at risk?'' Mumford
>asked, adding that women in Vietnam chose quinacrine over surgical
>sterilization by an 11-1 ratio.
>
>In several developing nations, surgical sterilization has recently come
>under fire. Human rights groups report that women allegedly have
>been coerced into getting their tubes tied in exchange for food and
>clothing.
>
>Quinacrine critics say the chemical technique has a higher failure rate
>than surgical sterilization. Studies show that between two and five of
>every 100 chemically sterilized women become pregnant after one
>year.
>
>The FDA says tests are needed to see whether quinacrine causes
>cancer or damages a fetus if the pellets are inadvertently inserted into
>a pregnant woman.
>
>Supporters counter that there is no cancer risk. Unlike surgical
>sterilization, they say, no one has died from the quinacrine method and
>side effects are minimal: pelvic pain, bleeding, headaches and vaginal
>itching.
>
>Hoping to slam the door on the procedure, the FDA says it has
>cracked down on quinacrine self-sterilization kits sold over the
>Internet. And Florida health officials say Medicaid will not pay for the
>procedure, although it does cover surgical sterilization.
>
>Benjamin said he will provide quinacrine sterilization free to women
>who can't afford it.
>******************************* ******************
>Submitted for discussion and analysis only under the "fair use"
>provisions of the US Copyright Laws.
------------------------------
************************************
Dr. Stefanie S. Rixecker
Division of Environmental Management & Design
Lincoln University, Canterbury
PO Box 84
Aotearoa New Zealand
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fax: 64-03-325-3841
************************************
