From: Mikelis Bickis <BICKIS@sask.usask.ca>
Subject: Re: Reverence take two (& three)
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:52:49 GMT



Muffy Barkocy asks:
>  
> It just occurred to me.  The primary basis for "reverence for women" is
> their ability to have children, right?  Yet this function is neither
> miraculous nor divine.  Indeed, all female animals *can* bear young.
> So, two questions on this for the reverers:
>  
> 1. Do you also revere other female animals?
> 2. If a woman chooses not to have children, is there still a reason to
>    revere her?  (Say she has a hysterectomy, so she will never be able
>    to have children.)
>  
> And a third, related:
>  
> 3. What good does it do women for you to revere them?
>  
> Another thought - if women should be revered, shouldn't women also
> revere women?  Gets kind of twisted, eh?

To answer 1. and "another thought": somewhat and yes, respectively.
Shortly after my first daughter was born, all three of us went to the 
zoo, where we saw the polar bears.  A female bear was playing with her 
cub, which had just been born that spring.  My wife was especially taken 
by this scene.  She could relate to this mother bear in a way that could 
be described as "reverential".  Note that in some cultures, (e.g. Hindu) 
reverence for certain female animals takes on religious proportions.

To answer 2., note that it is not the individual that is revered, but 
the symbol.  What a woman symbolizes is not a function of her own 
personal fertility.  (Post-menopausal women deserve as much as fertile 
virgins.)  By analogy:  A general may be respected by his 
soldiers because of his power.  Of course, in fact, the general is 
nowhere near as powerful as the soldiers.  The power is largely due to 
the authority the general symbolizes, which the soldiers accept.  Even 
if the general grows old, becomes crippled and senile, and is far from 
being an imposing figure, he is still shown the respect due his rank.

I will answer 3. in conjunction with a question by (Lenore Levine):

> Question: Why have a woman revering world view at all? There are many
> women who do not deserve reverence -- and many men who do. Is it fair
> or nice to women not to hold them up to the same ethical standards as
> men? 

Do I need a reason?  So many of recent posts have been defending the 
right of people to adopt their own lifestyles/roles/values without the 
imposition of traditional stereotypes.  Why shouldn't I be able to adopt 
this worldview if I like it?

Of course 'why' has many interpretations.  I suppose one could explain the 
reason I have this worldview in terms of culture, psychoanalysis, 
sociobiology, social Darwinism, my upbringing, my politics, or my religion.
Anyone want to try?

But to answer Muffy's question: why would I defend such a world view as 
being good for women?  Well, for one thing, it provides an antidote for 
another prevalent view of women as being submissive, desirable creatures 
whose sole raison d'etre is to satisfy men's various appetites.  I am a 
little skeptical about whether this latter view can be eradicated.  I am 
afraid that some of modern women's problems are due to the Woman 
revering world view being eroded, while the woman desiring world view is 
still much among us.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@sask.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

---
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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.