--- 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?
:-)
