NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6747

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 1.7 KB

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6747 soc.women:22060 soc.men:22041
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!yvax.byu.edu!cunyvm!ripbc
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Critique of Gimbutas' "Idyllic Goddess" Claims
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, 3 Jan 1993 07:34:45 EST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><[e-mail]>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Lines: 22

I feel that all this talk about what WAS as an indication of what CAN be,
is only very marginally relevant.  Whether Gimbutas is right or not,  its
relevance is only partial, as is the relevance of an opposing point of
view based on the past.

Through most of history, birth control did not exist, many professions
required  fair amount of bodily strength, most people were not literate,
there was no TV, there were no microwaves which made `woman as cook' an
absolute necessity.  All these things are changed now and the structures
that we CAN aririve at now are also therefore different.  The biological
facts are the same, and I do believe they are relevant, but they don't
determine our choices or we would have only one culture in the world.

The crucial thing to me is to ask, how can we work out a world order in
which men and women can live together in love and friendship, in which
biological differences are respected, but not made into a prison  for
anyone?  These are all possible goals and why not we, men AND women,
work towards them instead of quarreling?

Best wishes for the New Year to all,

Rohit Parikh