Gestern war ich bei einem spirituellen Salon, es war der erste in einer Jahresreihe um das große Thema Mann und Frau. Ich habe den Abend sehr
genossen, es hat gut getan, so viele Aspekte des großen Themas im Zusammenhang mit dem speziellen Thema Macht zu
hören. Dazu möchte ich noch einige Gedanken äußern,
die mir auf der Seele brennen.
Das
Thema treibt mich um: Dualität von Mann und Frau, die Anziehung, die
auf der Verschiedenheit beruht, der Polarität ... hier fehlte für mich
der große Komplex der erotischen Liebe. Und dann ist da die große
Ungerechtigkeit, die aus den Unterschieden im Patriarchat, und speziell
im Kapitalismus erwachsen ist. Als mit Beginn der Neuzeit Kirche,
Obrigkeit und Wissenschaft eine unheilige Allianz eingingen, um die
Verfolgung unchristlicher Tätigkeiten auf die Frauen zu konzentrieren,
gab es noch eine relative Selbstbestimmung der Frauen, weibliche
Göttinnen aus vorschristlicher Zeit traten in vielen Gestalten und unter
vielen Namen auf. Dann begann das, was Silvia Federici die
"Feminisierung der Armut" nennt und die Hexenverfolgung, die Zeit der
Verzweiflung. Zwischen 1328 und 1427 vollzieht die die Verdrehung der
Kelte zum Hexensabbat, einzig und allein aufgrund christlicher Vor- und
Unterstellungen. Die, die als Hexen verfolgt und verbrannt wurden,
hatten andere - vor alem weibliche - Vorbilder. Und diese fehlen uns
heute. Erst mit dem Auftauchen des Buchdrucks wurde eine
Masssenvernichtung daraus.
Hier
irrt die Co-Leiterin von gestern, Susanne Brian. Es ist die Neuzeit, nicht das
Mittelalter, die Aufklärung, die die Frau zur Natur, den Mann zur Kultur
erklärte. Die Folgen sind u.a. eine Abwertung der weiblichen Körper und
ihrer Tätigkeiten, die sich in der schlechten oder Nicht-Bezahlung von
Care-Arbeit bis heute ausdrückt.
Ich
mochte es nicht, wie Susanne gleich mit zwei sehr negativen
Frauenbildern eingestiegen ist: Dem Schmerzkörper auf der Opferrolle und
dem manipulativen Gebrauch von "Macht" aus der Ohnmacht, der
Bitchiness. Ich hoffe, hier nicht meinen eigenen Schatten gesehen zu
haben. Traurig, passiv, schmerzvoll, mit dem Brüten als Zentrum des
Frauseins. Deshalb habe ich Shakti als kraftvolle Essenz der Frau - als
anima in power - erwähnt, obwohl ich auch noch viele weitere Punkte
gehabt hätte, aber es sollte ja kein Co-Referat werden.
Dann
kam Barbara von Meibom mit der Satz: ich bin eine machtvolle Frau - das ist toll,
dazu zu stehen! Und gleich darauf die Verknüpfung mit ihren männlichen
Anteilen. Wie? - eine Frau kann nicht machtvoll sein und gleichzeitig
weiblich? Ich habe es auch gehört, dass sie weiblich und machtvoll sein
möchte, und wie schwer das sei. Ja, das kann ich nachvollziehen, das
muss meines Erachtens soziologisch-historisch und spirituell
aufgearbeitet werden. Auch deshalb hängt mein Auge am Matriarchat, das
(oder dessen Relikte) heute in rund 100 Kulturen noch zu sehen ist. Und
dies ist keine Umkehrung der männlichen Herrschaft. Einige Rollenmuster
können freilich als vertauscht betrachtet werden, wie das Werben eines
herausgeputzten Männchens um eine machtvolle, häufig ältere Frau, die
aktiv aus der Reihe von Bewerbern den für sie passenden auswählt. Aber
insgesamt geht es im Matriarchat um das Wohlergehen aller und nicht um
Unterdrückung, Ausbeutung und Expansion. Heide Göttner-Abenroth und
Bertha Eckstein-Diener haben das eindrücklich beschrieben.Ich habe kürzlich einen Vortrag über die Hexenverfolgung gehalten, der am 26. 3. auf Englisch wiederholt wird.
........................................................
Yesterday I was at a spiritual salon, it was the first in this year's line-up around the big issue of man and woman. I really enjoyed the evening, and it has been good to hear so many aspects of the great topic in connection with the evening's topic of power. I would like to express some additional thoughts, which have been driving me into action for quite a while now.
The duality of man and woman, attraction based on diversity, polarity ... here I was missing the great complex of erotic love. And then there is the huge injustice that has grown out of the differences between men and women in patriarchy, and especially in capitalism. When, with the onset of modernity, church, government, and science entered into an unholy alliance to focus on the persecution of unchristian activities on women, there was still a relative self-determination of women, female goddesses of the present time appeared in many forms and under many names. Then began what Silvia Federici calls the "feminization of poverty" and the witch hunt, the time of despair. Between 1328 and 1427, it completes the twisting of the Celts to the Witches Sabbath, solely on the basis of Christian precepts and insinuations. Those who were persecuted and burned as witches had others - especially female - role models. And they are missing us today. Only with the emergence of the book printing was a mass destruction from it.
Here's the co-director of yesterday, Susanne Brian. It is the modern age, not the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment, which explained the woman to nature, the man to culture. The consequences are u.a. a devaluation of the female body and its activities, which is expressed in the poor or non-payment of care work to date.
I did not like how Susanne got into two very negative images of women: the painful body on the victim role and the manipulative use of "power" from the powerlessness, the bitchiness. I hope I have not seen my own shadow here. Sad, passive, painful, with brooding as the center of womanhood. That's why I mentioned Shakti as a powerful essence of women - as an anima in power - although I had many more points, but it was not supposed to be a co-presentation.
Then came Barbara von Meibom with the sentence: I am a powerful woman - that's great to stand by! And immediately afterwards the link with their male shares. As? - a woman can not be powerful and female at the same time? I've also heard that she wants to be feminine and powerful, and how hard that is. Yes, I can understand that, I think it must be worked up sociologically-historically and spiritually. That's another reason why my eye hangs from matriarchy, which (or its relics) can still be seen today in about 100 cultures. And this is not a reversal of male rule. Certain role patterns may, of course, be considered as reversed, such as courting a spiked male for a powerful, often elderly woman who actively selects from among a range of applicants the one most suitable for her. But overall, matriarchy is about the well-being of all, not oppression, exploitation and expansion. Heide Göttner-Abenroth and Bertha Eckstein-Diener have described this impressively.
I recently gave a talk on the witch hunt, which will be repeated in English on March 26, 7pm,at Wilde Küche, Berlin-Kreuzberg.
The duality of man and woman, attraction based on diversity, polarity ... here I was missing the great complex of erotic love. And then there is the huge injustice that has grown out of the differences between men and women in patriarchy, and especially in capitalism. When, with the onset of modernity, church, government, and science entered into an unholy alliance to focus on the persecution of unchristian activities on women, there was still a relative self-determination of women, female goddesses of the present time appeared in many forms and under many names. Then began what Silvia Federici calls the "feminization of poverty" and the witch hunt, the time of despair. Between 1328 and 1427, it completes the twisting of the Celts to the Witches Sabbath, solely on the basis of Christian precepts and insinuations. Those who were persecuted and burned as witches had others - especially female - role models. And they are missing us today. Only with the emergence of the book printing was a mass destruction from it.
Here's the co-director of yesterday, Susanne Brian. It is the modern age, not the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment, which explained the woman to nature, the man to culture. The consequences are u.a. a devaluation of the female body and its activities, which is expressed in the poor or non-payment of care work to date.
I did not like how Susanne got into two very negative images of women: the painful body on the victim role and the manipulative use of "power" from the powerlessness, the bitchiness. I hope I have not seen my own shadow here. Sad, passive, painful, with brooding as the center of womanhood. That's why I mentioned Shakti as a powerful essence of women - as an anima in power - although I had many more points, but it was not supposed to be a co-presentation.
Then came Barbara von Meibom with the sentence: I am a powerful woman - that's great to stand by! And immediately afterwards the link with their male shares. As? - a woman can not be powerful and female at the same time? I've also heard that she wants to be feminine and powerful, and how hard that is. Yes, I can understand that, I think it must be worked up sociologically-historically and spiritually. That's another reason why my eye hangs from matriarchy, which (or its relics) can still be seen today in about 100 cultures. And this is not a reversal of male rule. Certain role patterns may, of course, be considered as reversed, such as courting a spiked male for a powerful, often elderly woman who actively selects from among a range of applicants the one most suitable for her. But overall, matriarchy is about the well-being of all, not oppression, exploitation and expansion. Heide Göttner-Abenroth and Bertha Eckstein-Diener have described this impressively.
I recently gave a talk on the witch hunt, which will be repeated in English on March 26, 7pm,at Wilde Küche, Berlin-Kreuzberg.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen