chapter 19

16_chap10.html

@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ part of it. Form and meaning are causally intertwined in such a way that to unde
 <p>She believes that the reasons men and women drink are also entirely different. "Men drink for a sense of power," she says, "while women drink out of frustration, helplessness and dependency."<a href="#fn10">[10]</a></p>
 <p>In Women for Sobriety groups, women introduce themselves by affirming their dignity and self-respect: "My name is Jean and I'm a competent woman." Instead of repeating the lord's prayer, they conclude their meetings by joining hands and affirming: "We are capable and confident, caring and compassionate, always willing to help another, bonded together in overcoming our disease of alcoholism."</p>
 <p>Another difference is that this group, in a more holistic, womanly sort of way, is interested in improving and maintaining each woman's health in every way, not merely in keeping her alcoholism at coping level. Part of the program emphasis, for instance, is "the use of meditation, taking vitamins, avoiding candy, drinking little or no coffee, and cutting down on smoking" - i.e., loving oneself, including her body, and taking her body and health seriously.<a href="#fn11">[11]</a></p>
-<p>But predictably enough, Women for Sobriety gets little recognition and less prestige, primarily because it does not include men, and almost none of us is able to take womenonly groups as seriously as we do those that include men. Neither is it based in men's value system. It is unacceptable and even fear provoking because it comes out of women's mind, is based on women's experience, and is directed toward women.</p>
+<p>But predictably enough, Women for Sobriety gets little recognition and less prestige, primarily because it does not include men, and almost none of us is able to take women-only groups as seriously as we do those that include men. Neither is it based in men's value system. It is unacceptable and even fear provoking because it comes out of women's mind, is based on women's experience, and is directed toward women.</p>
 <p>Because it does not have the masters' imprimatur, because it is positive and affirming and therefore does not sound familiarly and comfortably like patriarchy, many doubt its efficacy. AA goes beyond this and actively persecutes individual members as well as the organization itself.<a href="#fn12">[12]</a> It is very hard for women to believe that women understand us better, know better what we need, and can provide it better than men - evidence of our internalized oppression, our self-hatred, our slave mind.</p>
 <p>Why has men's 12-step program - negative, other-directed, conventionally blaming the victim, mortifying and abasing, god-oriented - been perceived by some women as lifechanging? Perhaps it feels comfortable and right to women precisely because it is the same old extemalization of power, the same old powerlessness, the same old negativity, the same old moralistic, abject, lack of self-love (any feminist who sits through the lord's prayer several times a week - even once a <i>year</i> - does not honor herself much in my opinion), and when we are in pain we find solace in the known, in the echoes from our childhood.</p>
 <p>But more likely women find strength in any 12-step program simply because it <i>is</i> a program. When we feel as if our lives are out of our control, when we are in emotional chaos, finding such a solid, rigid structure must feel like coming upon a life raft in a shipwreck. Perhaps it didn't need to be the 12 steps of AA for those people to feel so welcome and safe; perhaps the relief would have been the same if <i>any</i> process had appeared, any dependable program in which there was group support and acceptance. As I say, thousands of people join the Mormon church yearly for this exact reason.</p>

24_chap18.html

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+<h1>CHAPTER 18</h1>
+<h2>She/Volutionizing "Process"</h2>
+<p>Process figures prominently in feminist parlance these days. A belief in process is both a belief that old habits don't give way easily on this planet yet and an expectation to have to repeat the same new lessons many times before they supplant our former tapes, to have to experience and practice new feelings and behavior many times before they become automatic.</p>
+<p>But many of us sigh with impatience even as we think this. We are tired of "process"; we want fiats. We talk about how some day, when we have advanced in our development on this planet, change will occur spontaneously. We remind ourselves that if time is not linear, process is an illusion, must be an illusion. How, we ponder, can this be made to fit our sense of the reality of process?</p>
+<p>I suspect that one difference between process and instantaneous change is that whereas process is along a two-dimensional continuum - from point A to point B - instantaneous change is three- maybe four-dimensional, global: we are <i>in</i> the change, we <i>are</i> the change, all aspects of the persons and circumstances involved are connected and cross-connected in every possible direction, across planes, through dimensions, not just held together by one tenuous horizontal line.</p>
+<p>After a speech in Cincinnati in January 1988, in which I mentioned my preoccupation with this puzzle, the audience and I began discussing the possibilities of instantaneous change. One woman offered the thought that perhaps instantaneous change is a natural law that women once understood and lived in accord with, a law that over the length and increasing depth of our history as slaves we have forgotten.</p>
+<p>Later, out in the lobby, another woman proposed a model for independent event versus process: "Think of it this way," she proposed. "A chicken grows inside an egg, finally getting big enough to begin pecking its way out. It pecks and pecks and one day its beak breaks through the shell. That instant, the beak's breaking the shell, is an event, not a process."</p>
+<p>This meshed with my perceptions that any point in the sequence of events we call "process" can be viewed as a unique event, that what we call process is the sum of unique events that are connected in ways that are not obvious to us. Perhaps experiencing "process" is strictly a function of perception; perhaps if we weren't thinking in linear-time, cause-and-effect terms, we wouldn't see such occurrences as "process," but would judge each moment alone and as equal with the others, causing change to appear essentially instantaneous.<a href="#fn1">[1]</a> Janet Blaustein talking about this at Womongathering in Pennsylvania in June 1988 added that because we see linearity in some events and some circumstances, perhaps we pick up the false idea that the linear model is true for or applicable to everything.</p>
+<p>In that same lunchtime discussion, I suggested the possibility that each point in our lives can be viewed as an end in itself, as enough, as our having arrived. That is, that perhaps one difference between process and instantaneous change is that there is no goal in the latter model - or that if there is, we reach it every moment.</p>
+<p>I remembered something Jane Mara from Seal Rock, Oregon, had told me nearly a year before as we puzzled about this in my kitchen in Virginia, trying to figure out how to <i>think</i> about there being no linear time and what that meant about change.</p>
+<p>How could one even imagine spontaneous change, given the "reality," for instance, that baby chicks and vegetable seeds have to develop along a time line, have to go through a "process," are apparently caught in linear time?<a href="#fn2">[2]</a></p>
+<p>Mara told me about another woman in Virginia, Machaelle Small Wright, who had become acquainted with devas, or nature spirits, at Findhom in Scotland. Putting her knowledge to work in her own garden in Virginia on her return home, she subsequently wrote a book in which she tells about carrots growing instantaneously from seeds into six-inch plants before her eyes.<a href="#fn3">[3]</a></p>
+<p>Months later, I admitted to Mara on the phone that I was still grappling with the problem of instantaneous change versus process. During that conversation, I tentatively offered the idea that perhaps we go through process because we think process is necessary, the "way things are." Perhaps belief in process <i>produces</i> process, and that if we believed in instantaneous change instead, we would get <i>that</i>.</p>
+<p>She replied that she had not only thought of that already, but that she had become aware that she <i>chose</i> process over immediate change, that in fact <i>her process was resistance to immediate change</i>. "Instantaneous change is overwhelming, very frightening," she told me, "so I devise a process to take me slowly, to acclimate me to change. For instance, though I'm certain I could do it if I weren't afraid, right now it's too scary for me to zap myself into your kitchen, to find myself suddenly there in your house with you. I think I may opt for the process of <i>getting</i> there instead of just <i>being</i> there because otherwise I would discover how powerful I really am. That discovery would obligate me to change my whole life, it would put incredible responsibility upon me that I don't feel ready to accept. So I take the plane, I take the safe, comfortable, powerless way out, I make small 'reasonable' demands upon myself, out of fear I remain blind to myself, to my potentialities, my capacities."</p>
+<p>If it is true for the rest of us that our process, like Mara's, is resistance to instantaneous change - and I think this is probable - then like her we are all likely to hold on to process until we become braver, until we dare experiment with the frightening possibilities a little at a time and a little at a time face the implications of the fact that we can change reality with incredible rapidity - instantaneously.</p>
+<p>Perhaps in an already overwhelmingly complex sensory world, and one with the potential of infinitely greater complexity, we also choose process because it orders and categorizes experience, because it simplifies, because it reduces ambiguity and tension. Clearly, without our silent agreement with one another and with the universe to follow certain principles of organization, life might be inordinately confusing.</p>
+<p>But also fascinating. Personally, I am becoming bored and very impatient with the restrictions I daily impose upon myself - believing I must pick up the telephone to communicate with someone at a distance, for example.</p>
+<p>The use of technology best illustrates our firm belief in process, the belief that we need some intermediary - such as a telephone, an airplane, a computer - to do the things that we could do far quicker and more efficiently ourselves.<a href="#fn4">[4]</a> If we altered our profound belief that we need such technology, such clumsy, slow, imperfect, limited intermediaries, alternatives would have the space and the energy and the permission to appear to us. I believe we must begin to believe in our unaided selves in order for those selves to reveal to us their stupendous powers.</p>
+<p>Peace Pilgrim made such a discovery for herself years ago when she first began walking for peace. For the first few years she wore only a scarf and sweater in the winter, and then discarded even them as unnecessary. She writes, "I'm now so adjusted to changes in temperature that I wear the same clothes summer and winter, indoors and out."<a href="#fn5">[5]</a> Apparently, this is common practice in less technologically-minded, less left-brained societies, such as exist, for example, in Tibet and Nepal. That this is obviously possible opens the mind to the existence of all kinds of amazing possibilities.</p>
+<p>I am preparing myself for what is commonly thought impossible, knowing that impossibility is created by disbelief. I am getting ready for anything, everything, am open to any possibility. I accept that anything I can imagine is possible; more than that, that my thinking it, my believing it, <i>creates</i> the possibility of it.</p>
+<p>But I also accept that I can never imagine freely, wildly enough to reach the limits of possibility. We have, for example, hardly begun to imagine, to say nothing of to invent, the world that many of us will live to see.</p>
+
+<hr>
+
+<p><a id="fn1">[1]</a> Conversation with Susan Horwitz, June 1988.</p>
+<p><a id="fn2">[2]</a> Mara is working on a book, <i>Emotions: Use and Abuse</i>. She has been accused of having process as her middle name.</p>
+<p><a id="fn3">[3]</a> Machaelle Small Wright, <i>Behaving as if the God in All Life Mattered</i>. Perelandra: Jeffersonlon. VA, 1987. pp. 119-120.</p>
+<p><a id="fn4">[4]</a> Conversation with Susan Horwitz, February 1989.</p>
+<p><a id="fn5">[5]</a> <i>Peace Pilgrim: Her Life and Work in Her Own Words</i>. Ocean Tree Books: Santa Fe, NM, 1982, p. 56.</p>

25_chap19.html

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+<h1>CHAPTER 19</h1>
+<h2>Escape from the Semi/Versity<a href="#fn1">[1]</a></h2>
+<p>Not long ago at the reception following my speech at a midwestem university, six or seven instructors from the Women's Studies Department stayed at the reception afterward until everyone else had gone. Then with tense, anxious faces they told me that they were miserable in their profession. They were realizing that they had edited themselves so severely in their teaching and scholarship - and often so unconsciously - that they had forgotten what they had once thought. They also saw that now they would never know how spiritually and intellectually high they might have soared if they had not been pinned to the ground by fear for their jobs. They were frightened by how insidiously they had slipped into compromising their principles and mourned the courage they had lost through accommodation.</p>
+<p>Though each of them was totally dedicated to teaching women about their history, to illuminating women's position and the reasons for it, and to helping women discover their own power, they could hardly face going to work another day. Several of them stated unequivocally that they wanted to leave. They felt as if they had to or they would lose their moral bearings altogether. They would do it in a minute, they vowed, if they weren't so afraid of "economics."</p>
+<p>Though as fed up as the others, one of them tried to persuade them that it was their duty to stick it out. "The women here <i>need</i> us," she pleaded with them. "For most of them, there's no other place to learn about themselves as women. But what's more important, they need us as <i>models</i>."</p>
+<p>"But what are you modeling for them?" I asked. "Do you really think they need more models of women compromising their principles, sacrificing their integrity either for money or for what they perceive as others' needs? Women who are saying less, being less, muting and scaling themselves down, bowing to the yoke? I should think they have had enough of such models."</p>
+<p>I asked them how they thought they could help other women find their sources of personal power when they themselves felt so powerless and thought so little of themselves that they accepted and played men's hierarchical, competitive game even though they knew it was in gross violation of all they valued. I told them I would have thought that instead their women students most desperately needed models of women having integrity, valuing their own women's culture, acting powerful and fearless, being free.</p>
+<p>As we spoke together, I questioned whether it was even possible for women to glimpse our own real power and potential in universities where we are forced to conform to the rules and values patriarchy deliberately set up to keep women from having access to our Selves. If the means are the ends, surely this is impossible.</p>
+<p>They asked what I would do if I were in their shoes. I replied that since I wasn't, I couldn't know, but that I trusted them to figure it out. To begin to open their minds to the possibilities, I told them a story I had heard about a group of women like them who, in the early 70s, had left their university positions and organized themselves to teach women's studies in the community. The story goes that they were successful enough to continue for at least a half dozen years.</p>
+<p>Though perhaps apocryphal, this story is nevertheless absolutely true <i>in its possibility</i>. It could very well have happened, and could happen, or happen again, at any time. Individual women have done it - Kay Hagan in Atlanta, for example. Why couldn't a group of women set themselves up to teach women's studies in every community, perhaps naming it something more compelling-Kay calls hers "Feminars" - and teach <i>everything</i> they ever longed to teach in exactly the way they always longed to teach it? Not a "feminist university" - which seems to me an oxymoron, like military intelligence - but a whole new concept.</p>
+<p>But, the argument against this goes (and you can probably hear it in your own head right now), no one would take such classes seriously because they wouldn't be recognized in the men's world, and men wouldn't award them "credits" toward "degrees."</p>
+<p>The question this raises is obvious: why should we be, why are we, interested in being recognized by men? Why are we interested in their "degrees?" The answers bring us full circle: because we need men's imprimatur in order to get jobs teaching subjects such as women's studies in universities, or working in other patriarchal prisons.</p>
+<p>Everywhere I go in the United States I find young women working toward degrees and older women returning to school for degrees. Though it is true that success in school gives women's confidence a sturdy boost, it is <i>not</i> true that it necessarily improves their economic situation. In Ohio, for instance, the average yearly income for college-educated women is $10,000 - an income that can barely support life, to say nothing of assuring that life of some reasonable quality. Older women, of course, fare worst.</p>
+<p>Even if a woman has a doctorate and obtains a teaching position at a university, she will find no job security there. Until she gets locked into the tenure cell, she is usually at the mercy of yearly contract renewals that all too often do not come through - a terrorist tactic, one of men's crudest ways of controlling our lives. In California as well as in other states, this has made women university teachers the new Okies - itinerant, rootless, securityless, devalued, underpaid. University education is not working economically for women. Nothing is.</p>
+<p>Some may ask, if women could have abundance without recourse to prostitution in the universities or in any of patriarchy's other garrisons, what evidence do we have that even then they would choose to give up the prestige dependent upon hierarchy and male approval? What evidence is there that such women do not so completely depend for their identity and sense of importance on patriarchy, are not so thoroughly co-opted morally and psychically, that they would actually choose peemess and integrity instead? Is there evidence that they would give up their privileged-prisoner rights for freedom?</p>
+<p>If we look with the expectation of seeing it, perhaps there is more evidence that they would than we might at first think. Those women in that midwestem university <i>do</i> exist. They <i>do</i> know that they are servants of a system that survives only by destroying women, and they <i>are</i> suffering consciously from this knowledge.</p>
+<p>Others like them <i>must</i> exist in every brainwashing, destructive institution of the fathers: businesses and corporations, schools, churches, legislatures, courts, and governments. Enough of them may have the courage to get up off their knees and deal on their own terms directly with other women. Especially if some of these other women are already busy creating a literal new society in which no woman needs to sell her soul to survive.</p>
+<p>But (the argument about women's leaving the universities continues) women don't take women seriously. We particularly don't take seriously women acting without men's stamp of approval in ways that radically undermine male domination. So who is to say that women who escape from the universities and strip away their titles to engage in truly feminist learning experiments in daring new ways will attract anyone to participate with them?</p>
+<p>No one can know for sure, of course. But so many women are so fed up with the dim little half-lives they are allowed, even compelled, to live, that if any other possibility presented itself with courage and passion, I have faith that, to save their lives, they would choose to join those of us who were intent on carrying it forward.</p>
+<p>To attract participants, the prisoners of war who had so bravely escaped would have to make their prison break widely known. Potential collaborators would have to find out that a new prospect for women had now opened up. They would have to read persuasive notices, articles, and flyers describing and inviting in ways that made them feel valiant and proud. They would have to see a wide range of ideas offered for discussion, most of which university dons would not only never officially sanction but at their mere suggestion would wet their trousers. They would have to be assured that the escapees were not merely duplicating the male system. They would, that is, have to know that there would be no hierarchy, no titles, no competition, no grades, no condescension. And that there would be an honest search for a new and more valid form of female achievement than "male scholarshit."<a href="#fn2">[2]</a> Prospective participants would have to be persuaded that the objective genuinely was freedom and that it was being pursued with utmost boldness.</p>
+<p>But most of all, word would have to get out that this experiment was changing women radically. If through these classes, women were able to leave behind their terror of men and men's approval, divesting themselves of the patriarchal claptrap that had previously determined their nearly every thought and feeling; if they came to think with outrageous nonconventionality, learning to love women and to take our ways seriously; if, inspired to view themselves as actors on a cosmic stage, they changed the structure and substance of their lives in large and stunning ways-then the renegade "women's studies" teachers would know they were creating the kind of model women genumely need, a feminist model of integrity, self-esteem, autonomy, and power.</p>
+<p>And then in a moonlit ceremony, with the blessing of the wind and sky we could pronounce them all wild women. They could pronounce themselves a new species: <i>free women</i>.</p>
+
+<hr>
+
+<p><a id="fn1">[1]</a> Wilma Scott Heide, <i>Feminism for the Health of It</i>. Margaretdaughters, Inc: Buffalo, NY, 1985, p. 4: "There is no university in the sense of universal truth. There are only semiversities of essentially white, heterosexual, androcentric thought patterns."</p>
+<p><a id="fn2">[2]</a> As Marlene Mountain from Hampton, Tennessee so aptly describes it. This reminds me of a slip an acquaintance made in my home one night as she fervently described an authority figure in her life as "one of the world's foremost biblical <i>squalors</i>!"</p>