--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are > > > in the historical record as having achieved > > > enlightenment is not because so few women actually > > > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few > > > who did were noted as having done so in the > > > historical record--either because they weren't > > > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record, > > > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't > > > bother to note or even actively suppressed that > > > information. > > > > > > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer > > > to women's history to emphasize that the standard > > > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"), > > > have tended to ignore women. > > > > Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who tend > > to make it into the books and historical records. There are many > > more enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass > > on, unrecorded. > > I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal > society whose records were written by women, it > would probably appear that there were very few > enlightened *men*.
So you're saying that in these hypothetical matricarchal societies, the women would be as sexist and as stupid as the men? :-)