From: oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Many things - was women Vs men (ugh)
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:54:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <memo.744592@cix.compulink.co.uk>, shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk writes...

>We have two fairly pregnant ladies who are understandably annoyed
>with what they see as potential put-downs on child bearing and
>motherhood.

I was not annoyed.  I thought the discussions prior to posts from 
Shava and I were one-sided, and negative toward something women 
traditionally value more than men.  I wanted to present an alternative 
view.  That's all.  The fact that I am pregnant (as you pointed 
out) is IRRELEVANT.  Being pregnant is not a requirement for having a 
view similar to mine.  I'm sure Colin is not pregnant.  I would have 
felt this way whether I was pregnant or not (and did not feel it 
necessary to announce my pregnancy to the net either, not that I 
really care, but it does not pertain to the discussion.):)  

>There is a natural desire to believe that whatever one is engaged in
>is intrinsically better - not just for oneself, but for the whole
>human race. This applies to pregnant women as much as to priests. The
>difference is that the priests had more time to write it down :-)

I certainly am NOT guilty of this.  I do not think that everyone 
should have a child.  Its a matter of individual preference, and 
a decision to not have any is just as valid (good) as a decision 
to have one.  It all depends on what the individual wants.  I don't 
know where you got this idea from, that I think everyone should 
have a kid because I'm having one?

>I suppose that was the real point of this posting - not to shore up
>the Xtian paternalism (I think that is a fairer term than patriarchy:
>Judaism was a patriarchy, but Europena Xtianity isn't quite the same
>as the USA variety - but I digress) but to make the point that maybe
>that was what those guys were thinking when they preached sacrifice
>and celibacy.

I still think "those guys" had a very one-sided view, took it too 
far, and imposed it on other people.  I see this 
xtian/authoritarian/paternalistic still popping up all over.

> we have to make a
>value judgement about what is better - either in a personal context,
>or in a gloabl context.

Since people generally have control only over themselves I think 
its best to keep these value judgements personally and not apply 
them to other people.

>I agree with castaneda: In the end all paths are equal, we have only
>our personal lifes and our personal deaths. The experience of life is
>what we have, and our personal power is ultimately the relationship
>we develop between our selves and the world.

I agree.

>That is what _I_ call spirituality, the understanding of that fact.
>Having children and being male or female is quite simply irrelevant
>to that. What matters is not the icing on the cake, but to know that
>one has a cake, and not a photograph :-)

No problem with that either.

>Now many religions are (AFAIAC) means to bring the individual towards
>the REAL appreciation of what life and death are: To cut through the
>maze of intellectualisation  to the basic core fact 'all you touch
>and all you see is all your life will ever be' etc.

Wait, I don't understand that.  IMO religions just create more 
red-tape and barriers to direct experience.

>All josh and I, and in a way Shava are saying, is that any sort of
>engulfing and ongoing career - be it running computer comapnies or
>bringing up kids, will distract from that fact.

Not necessarily.  We all have to do something with our time.  
Doesn't matter what we do.  The important part is doing it with 
awareness.  If running a computer company or having a kid is done 
with awareness it doesn't have to be a distraction from direct 
experience of life.  A combination of "doing stuff" then 
withdrawing from it and contemplating it for a while works best 
for me.

>It may not matter to you - or me. Personally I like to live a bit
>lightly, but I seem to end up deeply involved :-) My fight is to stay
>detatched, where I feel I am more effective. Thats me. Thats all.

This is getting complicated.  I think there are different levels 
of involvement and detachment.  For example, someone can be 
involved due to relationships and responsibilites, but detached 
due to their mental/emotional/knowledge-of-the-"higher I".  
Someone else could have few relationships and responsibilities, 
but could take everything very seriously.  Anyway, I don't know 
exactly what you mean but suspect its similar to my first 
example.

- Peggy -