From: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.EDU (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Mythopoetic Groups
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.EDU
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:23:21 GMT

sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) asks:

>1.  These "men's" groups seem almost the same as the various "goddess-
>    religions" being created by some feminists.  Why do some feminists
>    criticize these groups so heavily?

Perhaps for the same reason anyone would criticize something that
they would be excluded from: What are those people doing? Should
I be paranoid?

>2.  These groups function on the seemingly reasonable assumption that
>    same sex individuals need to bond more then they do in ordingary
>    life.  Im not sure I believe this.  I make friends,(male or female)
>    through my various hobbies.  I find the needs I have met by these
>    arent supplied exclusively ( or close) by one sex or the other.
>    If it was so, why couldnt I just make friends with men through my
>    hobbies?  What do I gain from the "mythopoetic" aspects of going
>    out in the woods are worshipping sex organs etc etc?

Saying that "mythopoetic" retreats are about worshipping sex
organs is like saying Christians are cannibals (bread/wine = flesh/blood)
Whatever else you would call a Christian, cannibalism misunderstands
(IMO, & I'm not one) what Christianity is all about.

I do not know of a single man who went on a men's only retreat
who said it was a waste of time, who said that he didn't learn
anything (this doesn't mean there aren't any).

IMO, men who go on these retreats do so precisely >because<
they are sick and tired of the 50's T.Roosevelt/R.Reagan/etc
stereotypes concerning what "masculinity" is all about.

I suggest you consider it. After all, from your analyis, what
do you have to lose?

>3.  It seems to my view that many problems have been self-created for
>    human's by engaging in myth making/religion building for the past
>    several thousand years.  Isnt it illogical to solve the problem
>    of stereotypes/edicts from these things by going out and inventing
>    more of them?

Again, I don't think it's a matter of "invention"; the "men's movement"
is an attempt (IMO) by men to break through the stultifying paradigms
force-fed to us from birth about what a man `ought' to be.

Without exception, the female feminists I know personally, who I have
talked to face to face, think it is a "good thing". If men don't
do this hard work, who will?

Let's not forget that we are surrounded by fragmentary images of
what the dominant culture believes are `proper' gender roles all
the time. There have always been, and likely will always be this
type of discourse. The question becomes: Do you want to either
accept what society tries to shove down your throat passively,
or do you want to attempt to "go it alone", or do you want to work
with others to encourage a more positive, hopeful, empowering
paradigm?

>4.  By #3, wouldnt people be better off if they looked at themselves
>    and the world as is?  Why do we need to become "The Great Hunter"
>    or "The Healing Woman"?  Why cant we be just "Harry The Accountant"
>    or "Lisa The Lawyer"?  This may seem trite but it looks like if
>    you want to change yourself/society you first have to live with
>    yourself/society, not putting on war paint once a week or making
>    rituals to nonexistent goddesses.

It is trite, because it ignores the paradims we are innundated with
and live with all the time. This characterization (IMO) is a
caricaturization.

Dano

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.