April 25, 2008
In 'Gender' AUSTRIAN PHILOSOPHER Ivan Illich (left) (1926-2002) goes back way into the Middle Ages i.e. what life looked like before the Industrial Revolution
and builds up a solid case on the former existence of
a gendered society. In which each gender had its own
places, line of work, tools, responsibilities (towards
children etc.), time and use of language.
They worked side by side, complemented each other without stepping into each others territory. So to speak, when they married, on their farm each gender had its own tasks. You'd rather ask your neighbour to bring in the harvest before the rain or hail sets in than ask your
wife. And the men wouldn't tell their wifes running
the orchard on how to do that. etc.
The line between the two genders, though differing a
bit through those centuries and places, was a drawn
one.
Contrasting the unisex economy of today where men and women battle for similar jobs, no more having strictly separate household tasks, or the upbringing towards the children; to use your image: women wear blue jeans too nowadays.
The book is not too voluminous and a 2nd hand copy can be picked up at alibris.com.
The big winner for me was that Illich gave me a picture on how the sexes can live and work together by having two separate spheres of influence that barely overlap. So they can treasure the holiest of the holiest i.e. the time and place where they come together. Which could bring back the awe and wonder for the other gender.
Another recommendation is Plastic Words by Uwe Pörksen (Poerksen). This one blows you away on what happened to our languages in the past 50 or so years.
Ever wonder why almost every one has their mouths full of words such as health, care, system, center, development, growth, factor, communication, project, process, sexuality, role, model, energy, plan, service, management, resource, function, relation(ship), partner, consumption, identity, trend, value, information, etc. all in all some 50 words that
are a-historical, barely have a proper synonym, are a-specific, and basically can only be understood in context. They can be combined like Lego blocks as almost all fit together. Play with the above words and you can make easy combinations such as health care system, management information system, role model, sexual development, etc.
Now the interesting thing Poerksen says (comparing dictionaries, newspapers and politicians speeches over the decades, that these words originally had some other primary meaning but seemed to have been hijacked by the social sciences (...) and given back into the
vernacular with a replaced first meaning (the original meaning now moved to 3rd or 4th place).
For instance information comes from the Latin informatio meaning training, instruction, correction i.e. something which was given you to help you deal with life's problems, something that made real sense.
Later on came report, message etc. as added connotations, and only since about 40, 50 years we almost equate it with the newspapers, television, and internet. Also the word communication is like an umbrella words that has now largely replaced many other words such as debate, discussion, (non-)verbal messages, report, talk, etc. So when someone says or writes 'we have to improve the communication between Henry and André', this essentially is so vague i.a. non-specific that you can wonder which part? Am I not articulating clear
enough, are you not listening, perhaps body postures, written words, feedback,...?
The book was written 20 years ago which makes it even more impressive. You'll never think the same about language.
This by now has become a long e-mail. Keep going, and for me, often you start an article with a sound analysis or interpretation of, but then halfway you most of the time do the same thing: blame the illuminati, tavistock, the bankers, zionists, etc. All very true but it can become a bit tiring.
It may also be the easy way out: we have someone to blame. And yes, we have. This has been and still is being engineered. No accidents. As for me, I am more interested in how to deprogram our own minds and lives more and more to become the men and women we were
meant to be. So, let's not spend too much time and space on them (without ignoring them), but rather focus on character building, family building, and small scale-economy work (instead of those unisex office jobs like I have been wallowing in for a decade-and-a-half). You help and thanks for that, keep going. But different tails on the stories... Illich will shed light on some things left ignored thus far.
Brother in arms, I wish you well,--Andre
and builds up a solid case on the former existence of
a gendered society. In which each gender had its own
places, line of work, tools, responsibilities (towards
children etc.), time and use of language.
They worked side by side, complemented each other without stepping into each others territory. So to speak, when they married, on their farm each gender had its own tasks. You'd rather ask your neighbour to bring in the harvest before the rain or hail sets in than ask your
wife. And the men wouldn't tell their wifes running
the orchard on how to do that. etc.
The line between the two genders, though differing a
bit through those centuries and places, was a drawn
one.
Contrasting the unisex economy of today where men and women battle for similar jobs, no more having strictly separate household tasks, or the upbringing towards the children; to use your image: women wear blue jeans too nowadays.
The book is not too voluminous and a 2nd hand copy can be picked up at alibris.com.
The big winner for me was that Illich gave me a picture on how the sexes can live and work together by having two separate spheres of influence that barely overlap. So they can treasure the holiest of the holiest i.e. the time and place where they come together. Which could bring back the awe and wonder for the other gender.
Another recommendation is Plastic Words by Uwe Pörksen (Poerksen). This one blows you away on what happened to our languages in the past 50 or so years.
Ever wonder why almost every one has their mouths full of words such as health, care, system, center, development, growth, factor, communication, project, process, sexuality, role, model, energy, plan, service, management, resource, function, relation(ship), partner, consumption, identity, trend, value, information, etc. all in all some 50 words that
are a-historical, barely have a proper synonym, are a-specific, and basically can only be understood in context. They can be combined like Lego blocks as almost all fit together. Play with the above words and you can make easy combinations such as health care system, management information system, role model, sexual development, etc.
Now the interesting thing Poerksen says (comparing dictionaries, newspapers and politicians speeches over the decades, that these words originally had some other primary meaning but seemed to have been hijacked by the social sciences (...) and given back into the
vernacular with a replaced first meaning (the original meaning now moved to 3rd or 4th place).
For instance information comes from the Latin informatio meaning training, instruction, correction i.e. something which was given you to help you deal with life's problems, something that made real sense.
Later on came report, message etc. as added connotations, and only since about 40, 50 years we almost equate it with the newspapers, television, and internet. Also the word communication is like an umbrella words that has now largely replaced many other words such as debate, discussion, (non-)verbal messages, report, talk, etc. So when someone says or writes 'we have to improve the communication between Henry and André', this essentially is so vague i.a. non-specific that you can wonder which part? Am I not articulating clear
enough, are you not listening, perhaps body postures, written words, feedback,...?
The book was written 20 years ago which makes it even more impressive. You'll never think the same about language.
This by now has become a long e-mail. Keep going, and for me, often you start an article with a sound analysis or interpretation of, but then halfway you most of the time do the same thing: blame the illuminati, tavistock, the bankers, zionists, etc. All very true but it can become a bit tiring.
It may also be the easy way out: we have someone to blame. And yes, we have. This has been and still is being engineered. No accidents. As for me, I am more interested in how to deprogram our own minds and lives more and more to become the men and women we were
meant to be. So, let's not spend too much time and space on them (without ignoring them), but rather focus on character building, family building, and small scale-economy work (instead of those unisex office jobs like I have been wallowing in for a decade-and-a-half). You help and thanks for that, keep going. But different tails on the stories... Illich will shed light on some things left ignored thus far.
Brother in arms, I wish you well,--Andre