MM>This is a nice quote from Ivan Illich, _Gender_.
MM>" Under the reign of gender,
Interesting turn of phrase...
MM>Vernacular culture
"Common-wording" culture?  What is this supposed to mean?
MM>Where men mutilate women's bodies, the gynaeceum 
"Women" isn't a good enough word?
MM>In contrast to this truce, the regime of [economic] scarcity imposes
MM>continued war and ever new kinds of defeat on each woman.
"Regime of scarcity"?  What's this; not enough men to go
around?
MM>The historical transition from gendered subsistence to dependence on
MM>scarce products establishes my argument.
We'll see....
MM>The era of scarcity could come to be only on assumption that "man" 
MM>[meaning, humankind] is individual, possessive, and, in the matter 
MM>of material survival, genderless -- a rapacious neutrum oeconomicum.
Also a large, and totally subjective assumption...
MM>And this assumption, incarnate in institutions from wedlock to schools, 
MM>transforms the subject of history....
There followed a series of vague sentences which conveyed
nothing in the way of clarity to the issue...
MM>Gender = man with male-defined tools and activities and his role in
MM>life; or woman with woman-defined tools and activities and her part
MM>Sex =  man or woman with the same shared tools or activities, only
MM>distinguished by mere physical difference, but in the eyes of the
MM>industrial economy, are the same, genderless worker
These are definitions based on what?  "Gender" is maleness
and/or femaleness, but "sex" is genderless and has only to
do with work?  Where does sexual interplay come in?
MM>commons = " Commons [as an old English word] referred to that part of
MM>the environment that lay beyond a person's own threshold and outside
MM>his own possession, but to which, however, that person had a
MM>recognized claim of usage -- not to produce commodities but to provide
MM>for the subsistence of kin.
For example, in areas that allowed for it, "game", as in
deer?
MM>I argue that the commons, which were protected by legal precedents 
MM>prior to industrialization, were in fact *gendered domains* "  [as 
MM>opposed to sexist domains]
Since he defined "sexual" to mean work-related, this is
true by his definition; no need to argue....
MM>In our rush to make men and women equal at work and at home, we have
MM>stripped them of their masculinity and femininity, churning and
MM>dulling the basic duality and symbols of the duality which make the home
MM>life, the social life rich.
This is the first thing he said (or is this you?) which is
clearly worded and actually conveys some meaning.  I agree
with the above, and I further think that this is the goal
that some seek....
MM>In the process, it wreaks more havoc to the woman, it damages her more 
MM>than it does the man,
A leap.... In what way does this "wreak more havoc on the
woman", and for what reasons?
MM>and so is quite counterproductive to its intended goals and damaging 
MM>to people, to the home, to relationships, to the culture.  
Depends upon what one considers to be the "intended goals"
wouldn't you think?  This seems like a cry for the status
quo; do you agree that something new must be "damaging"?
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * Get OS/2 WARP 3.0 - the best Windows tip around!
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a
---------------