When we ask ourselves the question – what can women today do and what do they do for the Earth, we cannot escape asking another one – is there anything specific to our, female, way of acting “for the Earth,” have we found some creative model that could be called “female” in the best meaning of this word? Because if we haven’t, then we will be condemned to replicating the worn out, though still dominant in the contemporary world model of fighting, which in practice means engaging in several more or less desperate counter-reactions, in which someone else defines the situation. In this particular field, where the imbalance of power and means is so striking, when we compare those who “destroy” the Earth and those who “protect” her - it is very easy to start feeling on a mission, fighting for a right cause, which imperceptibly becomes the battle of good and evil, in accordance with the old, tried, dualistic model, which is deeply rooted in the field. It requires sacrifice for the “greater cause,” greater and more important than those who serve it. When I look from a woman’s perspective, it isn’t only the endangered species we’re trying to save, not only the forests, whales and wolves that are Mother Earth’s children – but also the activists! They deserve equal compassion and care, they mustn’t be treated as objects, “means to achieve a goal“ either, regardless of how noble and vital the goal itself. I wouldn’t want to treat myself or the women I work with “for the Earth” in such a way. At the same time, I want my actions to be effective, to have a real impact on the state of the world I live in, and everybody around me argues that “you can win only with the same weapon your adversary uses.” But I don’t want to fight anymore, or think about someone as the enemy, because I know very well that in this way I replicate and strengthen the old model, the very one I desperately want to change. If this world stopped being a battlefield, where so many forms of violence are deemed good - because effective - ways of acting, if we managed to change this, then automatically the fate of the Earth and all her living creatures would improve, and there would be nobody to fight for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Is there a way of acting which can be called female?

  

So, if I take such a decision (with all its consequences) – not to support the violent, patriarchal model, then I must ask myself once again the question without answering which I cannot go any further – does it exist at all and if yes, what does it consist of, this way of acting which wouldn’t require denying what is most valuable for me as a woman? 

If I don’t forget this question at the first opportunity, if I follow it to the end, it will inevitably lead me to other women. Because it seems likely that my problem is shared by other women, maybe this is the reason why they so rarely engage in strictly political activity, which prefers unfair and cynical methods. Maybe this it the main problem, which will not disappear until women develop their own model and believe that they can use different methods, which don’t repeatedly pose a dilemma: should I sacrifice being true to my values or sacrifice them in the name of effectiveness?! Many years of searching together, leading the Circle of women and different workshops showed me that liberating ourselves from patriarchal methods of acting isn’t for us, women, as difficult as it might appear. Suffice that we evoke the deeply imbuded, archetypal model of giving birth and caring for living creatures, who on every level – emotional, social, political, spiritual – are more important than power, gain and all other profits they can bring. Female activity can be about creating, building, giving life to what in our view is important and needed, to what we want to give life to (it doesn’t need to mean giving birth literally). Which means that then we will look after this child for a long time. Out of love and not out of obligation or another form of compulsion, because such activity will not be any form of counter-reaction, which can be unethical or against my system of values just because my “adversary’s” action is such. For this simple reason that no adversary defines and gives meaning to my actions but they are born from me, from my creative idea, longing, vision, which I want to share with the world.As a woman, I can say: my action – is my lifegiving! Not a mission, not a battlefield, not a task to accomplish, so its result will not be measured in rank and power it can give me, or wealth I can accumulate, but the vitality of the child it gave birth to. Its nurturing, creative aspect, because there’s no joy in bringing to life destructive children.

 

Return to co-operation.

 

What would the world look like if this model became dominant? We won’t find out until women apply it again. Again? Yes, I’m deeply convinced that in the pre-patriarchal era, in the culture of the Goddess, the social structure was built as a reflection of this very archetype, and hence co-operation, and not fight, became the dominant model of activity. At least three and a half thousand years of the peaceful civilisation of Old Europe – documented by archeological discoveries brilliantly interpreted by Marijia Gimbutas * – prove that co-operation is – can be – more obvious for homo sapiens than Darwinian “survival of the fittest.” Man to man co-operation, but also man to nature, Mother Earth and all her children. From this perspective the concept sanctioning the imperative for unending fight for survival is nothing more but a projection of the violent, agressive strategy characteristic for the mentality of “conqueror – ruler,” which is the basis of our civilisation. I’m not saying that co-operation or building is an only female model. On the contrary, I’m convinced that it is the only way which can be deemed truly human, innate, part of our nature. Not because man is the “king of the creation, “ “above” all the rest of nature, but for the simple reason that he is a part of it, so he has an encoded universal model of co-existence, which is necessarily a form of co-operation, which applies to all the living creatures on this planet. However, it is impossible to return to it, to live and act by it while still under the influence of the conqueror model, which measures the value of people by their power and accumulation of goods. And since in the patriarchal system men are in the centre, this influence has been much stronger on them. Paradoxically, women’s lower rank allows them more independence from the sick model and opens a possibility of a „shortcut” so to speak (of course provided that they don’t fall into the trap of proving that they are “no worse than men”). They can see more clearly that, in the current time of change, they have more to gain than to lose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What connects women with the Earth? 

 

What then connects women with the Earth? Where lies this similarity based on which in every myth they were on the same side: either surrounded with utmost respect and reverence or reduced to the slave level? 

The myth which still defines the structure of our world doesn’t perceive it as a good place for man, who must toil to rip the goods from the Earth, to force her to bear all kind of fruit to sustain him. Man, meaning male, has a right to do it, given by God himself, who placed the Earth, along with the woman, under his rule. Thus both received the status of a slave, whose duty is to give her ruler as many children as possible. From now on the same criterion applies to both when assessing their worth: fertility. Fertile soil is better from barren, the same as with a woman. What connects woman and earth, and what so recently was worshipped as the essence of the Goddess, mainly the power to give birth, to create life – was reduced to instrumentally treated fertility. From a blessing, commanding utmost respect, it was diminished to a divine curse and punishment for sins: “in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” ** If “the power to give birth” was perceived as creative, “female fertility” on the other hand was defined as passive, reduced to the ability to accept male sperm – the creative element. And thus the Earth and the woman were both attributed the role of the “passive female element” (which is required to continuously work, which equals being continuously active, which is a kind of paradox), but the Earth still fared much worse, because as a consequence of the philosophers and scientists’ interpretation of this myth, she, as a passive and extended element, was deemed inanimate matter. As it is known, if something is inanimate - dead, it doesn’t feel, so we, heirs of Desquartes and Newton, can, without scruple, as “higher beings,” because thinking and feeling, treat the earth as on object. Because it doesn’t have a soul, the same as plants and animals. And since we can, we are eager to use this possibility, because every, even the most “inhuman” action can be justified by this widely known, “objective” truth!

 

What would have to happen for us, acting for the Earth, to be able to draw upon a different, generally accepted, objective truth? We have only two possibilities: leave and settle in some reserve, where nobody will perceive us as some ecological nutcases when we say “Mother Earth is a living, feeling creature,” or stay and replace the old myth with a new one, because it is the myth that defines the undisputable obviousness (that is why it is so hard to dispute with it). But why should women introduce these changes? Since they are on the same side in this story as the Earth and for the same reason were attributed such a low rank, because of the same quality which was so degraded – it is in their best interest to restore respect and dignity to her! Every time I regain respect for myself as a woman, for my body, my wisdom, my way of acting – I regain it for the woman-Earth. Every time I change my way of thinking, feeling, perceiving myself in relation to other women – I also change the way of thinking, feeling, perceiving the female element, so also the Earth. When, on the other hand, I silently allow for her to be treated as a slave, to be raped continously, in many ways – then I behave like a “passive element,” thus giving permission for similar treatment towards me.

 

Some call this phenomenon ecofeminism. 

 

I am convinced that this interdependence described above underlies the spreading phenomenon of what is collectively dubbed ecofeminism.It has no one, defining, only-right ideology or doctrine, it is not a social movement in the generally accepted - read patriarchal - understanding, it doesn’t include so revered by the media “big names,” and nevertheless it is becoming more and more audible. It comes to life spontaneously, it is a grass-roots movement – or we could say it is like a tree, growing from the connection with the Earth. From a deep conviction, rooted in experience, that the Earth is a living, feeling creature - that is why we call her “Mother.” From admission that this connection is not only physical, but also spiritual, which alters completely the understanding of “spirituality,” which ceases being the opposite of earthly, or bodily, and thus “low.” My body, which I received as an earthly creature, from Mother-Earth, is equally sacred to me as the soul, and as long as I am a child of the Earth, I remain closely connected to her. If I experience myself as connected, then I start to see how strong my connection with other creatures is, who are also her children. Not only see, but feel, experience, act on the model which causes that attention automatically directs to what unites, and not what separates. I’m unable to think otherwise than “globally,” I’m unable to deceive myself that the way I live and act is only “my business and my problem.”

On this spiritual level a profound change is taking place right now, profound work, and many, many women are involved in it. Often, they don’t know about each other’s existance, they aren’t aware that in the same country or even city other women are discovering their deep connection with the Earth. They meet at numerous workshops, in support groups, women’s circles or other small communities which sometimes evolve into NGOs, foundations or other associations; for now they are countless little streams - nobody knows what will happen when they meet and become a wide river. One thing is certain: we will be in a different myth, where a different way of thinking and acting will become a generally recognized undisputable “obviousness.” Because, if Eliade was right when he stated that myth is a justification and at the same time an expression of a certain way of being in the world, *** then first we need another way of “being in the world,” somebody must discover and implement it, so that it can become a justification and a model for the whole population. Women are very practical, they rarely start from big slogans, but from specific, personal actions. This is said to be the best method of building a new house - from the foundations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Circle – a new structure of acting.

 

Everything I wrote about so far is realised in the activities and structure of a community I have co-created for years – Dakini Women Association. The structure of our association was influenced by the experience of many years of working in the Cirlce – so it has many features of a circle and is based on partnership, not hierarchy. Holding a position doesn’t bring gratification in the form of power or other privileges (although it involves a certain level of commitment) – it stems from a desire to give something, to share one’s skills or learn new ones through action. A person who gives more can count on respect and gratitude but the main gratification remains personal satisfaction, joy of giving and realising one’s potential. Each member can create her own project and invite other women to realise it – the only criterion is whether the project can inspire interest and encourage participation. Such freedom in acting, combined with sincerity and respect for others means that there are practically no problems with rivarly or competition. The rule (which of course comes at a price) that a living creature and her feelings are more important than success or “keeping an image,” is observed unconditionaly. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly, this way of acting requires from all members a high level of self-awareness, maturity and readiness to keep developing. It wouldn’t be possible without years of work on recognizing and liberating all those patterns which force women to compare themselves constantly with others and to draw satisfaction from accepting this external, critical observer. Enormous level of perseverance was also indispensable in the process of slow building, drawing conclusions from mistakes, experiencing and leaving behind frustration which awakened when occasionally old, habitual patters dominated over our conscious intentions and good will. We draw most help and support from our feeling of spiritual connection with Mother Earth, from awareness that we can learn from her a non-destructive, positive model of living and acting, a part of the universal rythm of life-death-rebirth. Such solid spiritual basis allows us to treat everything we do as spiritual practice, restoring balance in our life as well as thanking for all we take through giving. We call ourselves Mother Earth’s daughters – and this gives us solid ground to stand on. Each one chose this identity by taking part in an initiation ceremony, in which the old woman symbolically dies and a new one is born – as a daughter of Mother Earth. That first choice opened the space for many others, for a life which is always a chance to practice one’s freedom – by making choices. Each of us had many occasions to ask herself what it means to be Mother Earth’s daughter, since it can manifest differently in different women’s lives. Our community-association is created by these women who chose to work together and support each other in discovering answers to this question and realising them in the world.  

 

Anija Miłuńska

 

* Marija Gimbutas (1921 - 1994) – American archeologist of Lithuanian origin, who presented and documented a revolutionary thesis, which claims that between the seventh and the fourth millenium BC, a highly developed, agricultural civilisation of Old Europe thrived on the territory of Central Europe and the Balkans. The central icon of that peaceful, based on equality (that is why she didn’t label it matriarchal) culture was the Goddess. Main works: The Language of the Goddess and The Civilization of the Goddess.

 

** Bible.com, King James version, Genesis 3,16

 

*** Mircea Eliade Myths, Dreams and Mysteries