Actors ?

[Bruv]

I have noticed a trend to call all people of whatever gender "Actors"

The same for "Authors" "Comedians"

When did this change occur?

[Wandrin]

It began in the '60s when a woman pointed out that these variations to denote gender were of the diminutive form. To refer to an actor as "actress" indicates that the two are not equal (or so the reasoning went).

[Mark Aspam]

Wandrin;1459356 wrote: It began in the '60s when a woman pointed out that these variations to denote gender were of the diminutive form. To refer to an actor as "actress" indicates that the two are not equal (or so the reasoning went).Well, I was born in 1940 and I can't recall ever having heard a female author called anything but an author. I looked up 'authoress' in the unabridged Random House Dictionary and it ain't there.

Many languages make clear distinctions between the sexes; in German, a male friend is ein Freund and a female friend is eine Freundin and you can't call her eine Freund because she isn't. The distinction is purely linguistic.

English is more versatile, especially with regard to culture, which is changeable.

[Wandrin]

Mark Aspam;1459357 wrote: Well, I was born in 1940 and I can't recall ever having heard a female author called anything but an author. I looked up 'authoress' in the unabridged Random House Dictionary and it ain't there.

Many languages make clear distinctions between the sexes; in German, a male friend is ein Freund and a female friend is eine Freundin and you can't call her eine Freund because she isn't. The distinction is purely linguistic.

English is more versatile, especially with regard to culture, which is changeable.


There were postmen and postmistresses - now there are mail carriers. There were waiters and waitresses. The list is long. Most were relics of a different time.

[FourPart]

Terms such as this are mainly a result of OTT P.C. regulations, but for some reason, although it doesn't seem to make logical sense, this doesn't seem to be out of place when speaking of people in the Media. Technically A MAN who acts may be an ACTOR, and a WOMAN who acts may be an ACTRESS, but when the term is generic, then it remains as ACTOR (etc).

In a similar way, I was always taught that when writing a letter, when the name of the person is unknown, then the salutation should always be "Dear Sir", regardless of gender. "Dear Sir or Madam" or simply "Dear Madam" which although 'P.C' was never deemed suitable - or as my English Teacher used to put it, "A Madam is a woman who runs a brothel". I don't see it as Sexist, just a matter of correct Grammar.

Sexism terms are all around us & taken to extremes for fear of riling the P.C. extremists, yet even if they're sexist, they can remain P.C. For instance a woman who takes up nursing is referred to as a 'Nurse', but if a man takes up nursing, he is referred to as a 'Male Nurse'. Why? It isn't the same way with Doctors? This seems like a form of Non-P.C. Sex Discrimination by the back door to me.

Of course the term 'man' in a job refers to it generally being a male position, but just because the positions were historically dominated by men, now that we live in a time where the same jobs may be held by either gender, I don't see any point in changing the terms. It would be like referring to us all as the Huperson Race, or Personkind. A Postman can still mean a person who delivers the post. By differentiating in the terms used is, in its own way, a form of Sex Discrimination.

"A Rose By Any Other Name Would Smell As Sweet".

[Mark Aspam]

Wandrin;1459358 wrote: There were postmen and postmistresses - now there are mail carriers. There were waiters and waitresses. The list is long. Most were relics of a different time.No, post offices were run by postmasters or postmistresses, (meaning the person in charge), and as far as I know, they still may be. It would depend to some extent on local usage.

How the USPS officially refers to these people I'm not sure, I would guess as postmasters, regardless of gender, but that would be more a matter of convenience than of culture.

Here in Illinois there are still waiters and waitresses, I suppose you could call them 'servers', but servers would not necessarily take your order, only deliver it to your table.

My wife and I are fond of one restaurant chain in particular, I won't mention the name but the initials are "RT", derived from a song title by the RS. Our order is taken by a waiter or waitress, who continues to check up on us, but the food itself is delivered directly from the kitchen by a server. The host or hostess is the person who greats us at the door.

I'm not sure of your point.

[Mark Aspam]

FourPart;1459359 wrote: I was always taught that when writing a letter, when the name of the person is unknown, then the salutation should always be "Dear Sir", regardless of gender. "Dear Sir or Madam" or simply "Dear Madam" which although 'P.C' was never deemed suitable...A company I worked for a long time ago solved that problem by using the salutation Good Morning!, that being the time of day when mail is usually opened. Tho' somewhat unconventional, it worked for them and when I went into business I followed their example.

[FourPart]

Mark Aspam;1459363 wrote: A company I worked for a long time ago solved that problem by using the salutation Good Morning!, that being the time of day when mail is usually opened. Tho' somewhat unconventional, it worked for them and when I went into business I followed their example.Similarly eMail seems to have crossed the bridge a great deal, as it has a tendency to make a more informal approach, thus even making 'Hi' acceptable (although I still usually tend to keep to the formal format, especially when applying for jobs - it always pays to show that you have a good command of the correct way to address a letter).

[Wandrin]

It is interesting that they did not come up with a feminized version of "doctor".

[LarsMac]

Mark Aspam;1459361 wrote: No, post offices were run by postmasters or postmistresses, (meaning the person in charge), and as far as I know, they still may be. It would depend to some extent on local usage.

How the USPS officially refers to these people I'm not sure, I would guess as postmasters, regardless of gender, but that would be more a matter of convenience than of culture.

Here in Illinois there are still waiters and waitresses, I suppose you could call them 'servers', but servers would not necessarily take your order, only deliver it to your table.

My wife and I are fond of one restaurant chain in particular, I won't mention the name but the initials are "RT", derived from a song title by the RS. Our order is taken by a waiter or waitress, who continues to check up on us, but the food itself is delivered directly from the kitchen by a server. The host or hostess is the person who greats us at the door.

I'm not sure of your point.


I started referring to wait staff as "Waitrons" back in my chef days.

It's starting to catch on in some areas. I've heard it used a few times.

[recovering conservative]

Wandrin;1459356 wrote: It began in the '60s when a woman pointed out that these variations to denote gender were of the diminutive form. To refer to an actor as "actress" indicates that the two are not equal (or so the reasoning went).
Wandrin;1459366 wrote: It is interesting that they did not come up with a feminized version of "doctor".


They did! Back when the very first female doctors were accredited. But the term "doctress" didn't hold, and was quickly abandoned, since doctor is a neutral term that could be used by either gender.

You're right about your other points though. The English language...and most other languages...carry a lot of baggage with them that emphasize men's roles in society, and diminish women. Consider how hard it is to come up with satisfying neutral terms for roles that were historically assumed to be reserved for men: chairMAN, fisherMAN, craftsMAN, journeyMAN etc. etc.

[FourPart]

recovering conservative;1459371 wrote: You're right about your other points though. The English language...and most other languages...carry a lot of baggage with them that emphasize men's roles in society, and diminish women. Consider how hard it is to come up with satisfying neutral terms for roles that were historically assumed to be reserved for men: chairMAN, fisherMAN, craftsMAN, journeyMAN etc. etc.
I always feel that "Chairwoman" is too much like "Charwoman" & may be misconstrued.

The position with our choir is currently held by a woman is held by a woman, but is still referred to as "Chairman".

I look on such positions as contractions between the Noun & the Verb.

The Noun being "Chair", and the Verb (to) "Man". i.e. The person who Mans the Chair ('Man', in this case being a non-generic verb). The same applies to other similarly titled positions.

[recovering conservative]

FourPart;1459359 wrote: but if a man takes up nursing, he is referred to as a 'Male Nurse'. Why?
Who uses the term "male nurse these days? That may have been the case back when it was more unusual for a man to be a nurse, but I don't hear it used today. I would wager that no hospital uses "male nurse" in their personnel or payroll records!

Of course the term 'man' in a job refers to it generally being a male position, but just because the positions were historically dominated by men, now that we live in a time where the same jobs may be held by either gender, I don't see any point in changing the terms.
Would you feel the same way if you were a woman? Maybe some women don't want to be referred to as man in their job description! Problem is that there very little neutral terminology in our language, while some languages like French are even worse, and have a masculine and feminine adjective for every noun...including inanimate objects like houses. At least we don't have that mess to deal with!

[FourPart]

recovering conservative;1459373 wrote: Who uses the term "male nurse these days? That may have been the case back when it was more unusual for a man to be a nurse, but I don't hear it used today. I would wager that no hospital uses "male nurse" in their personnel or payroll records!
I don't know about in the U.S., but it's still a very much used term in the U.K.

[Bruv]

Wandrin;1459356 wrote: It began in the '60s when a woman pointed out that these variations to denote gender were of the diminutive form. To refer to an actor as "actress" indicates that the two are not equal (or so the reasoning went).


Vive la différence, as they say in France.

If I succeeded in anything I wouldn't want my gender forgotten especially if I was a women and breaking through the so called glass ceiling.

[LarsMac]

recovering conservative;1459371 wrote: They did! Back when the very first female doctors were accredited. But the term "doctress" didn't hold, and was quickly abandoned, since doctor is a neutral term that could be used by either gender.

You're right about your other points though. The English language...and most other languages...carry a lot of baggage with them that emphasize men's roles in society, and diminish women. Consider how hard it is to come up with satisfying neutral terms for roles that were historically assumed to be reserved for men: chairMAN, fisherMAN, craftsMAN, journeyMAN etc. etc.


FourPart;1459372 wrote: I always feel that "Chairwoman" is too much like "Charwoman" & may be misconstrued.

The position with our choir is currently held by a woman is held by a woman, but is still referred to as "Chairman".

I look on such positions as contractions between the Noun & the Verb.

The Noun being "Chair", and the Verb (to) "Man". i.e. The person who Mans the Chair ('Man', in this case being a non-generic verb). The same applies to other similarly titled positions.




Bruv;1459381 wrote: Vive la différence, as they say in France.

If I succeeded in anything I wouldn't want my gender forgotten especially if I was a women and breaking through the so called glass ceiling.


A friend of mine, who has been a "feminist" since the late sixties, says that women will have truly won equality when no one sees the need for those gender designators in such a manner, and a chairman, or a craftsman, or a journeyman, etc, could be either male or female, without anyone thinking anything of it.



recovering conservative;1459373 wrote: Who uses the term "male nurse these days? That may have been the case back when it was more unusual for a man to be a nurse, but I don't hear it used today. I would wager that no hospital uses "male nurse" in their personnel or payroll records!




I have not seen that phrase in use for years. and a good half of the nurses I have encountered of late are male.

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1459384 wrote: A friend of mine, who has been a "feminist" since the late sixties, says that women will have truly won equality when no one sees the need for those gender designators in such a manner, and a chairman, or a craftsman, or a journeyman, etc, could be either male or female, without anyone thinking anything of it.


The way I see it, the naming issue is not one that men should be deciding on. I have no idea whether this is a serious or trivial issue; but that should be up to women moving in to professions to decide. If a woman in charge of some public committee doesn't want to be called "chairman" and considers "chairwoman" as one of those female ghetto terms, and wants to go with that clunky neutral term - "chair", then so be it. Over time, we'll get used to it. In Canada, or at least in Ontario, 'chair' has become the standard term regardless of gender...so we'll have to get accustomed to it anyway.

[FourPart]

That's all very well & good, but as with anything, regardless of how small the minority, it's always the ones that shout loudest that get their way. The majority are content to leave it as it is. The vocal minority are the ones who are intent on making it seem that they're the ones that speak for the majority.

[recovering conservative]

FourPart;1459423 wrote: That's all very well & good, but as with anything, regardless of how small the minority, it's always the ones that shout loudest that get their way. The majority are content to leave it as it is. The vocal minority are the ones who are intent on making it seem that they're the ones that speak for the majority.
Well; when it comes to minorities, men are the minority by a slight amount. Yet, because the patterns of civilization we've followed for the last 5000 years rewards the greedy, the violent and the most vocal, women - by and large, have not have their voices heard or had an equal part in making decisions.

I've never been able to understand the attitudes about feminism that a lot of men have...which seem to be getting worse in some ways these days...if we can judge by internet activity. To put it all in a nutshell, until the rise of the first patriarchal societies about 5000 years ago, women in a group of hunter/gatherers and later horticultural communities, protected their interests against men who might be hostile towards them by banding together as a group. This sense of sticking together maintained relative gender equality for most of human history, until things became unbalanced when they lost that ability to protect themselves through the long course of patriarchal agrarian societies, through industrial societies in modern times.

The feminist movements of the last 150 years, are more or less, an effort to re-establish the ability to act collectively. Do women still need to act together, and maintain their own feminist movements. I would say they do, judging from the problems of domestic violence, income inequality, attempts to control and regulate reproductive issues etc.. As long as the human race is what anthropologists call "sexually dimorphic" with men being larger, stronger, as well as more aggressive and prone to violence than women; then women will have to cooperate with each other to protect their own interests.

[AnneBoleyn]

FourPart;1459423 wrote: That's all very well & good, but as with anything, regardless of how small the minority, it's always the ones that shout loudest that get their way. The majority are content to leave it as it is. The vocal minority are the ones who are intent on making it seem that they're the ones that speak for the majority.


Do you include the Pankhursts in this theory of yours? Could it be the majority are not content, but afraid of the unknown consequences of action, even toward a desired goal? Your phrasing makes it seem that those who work for progressive change are pugnacious spoiled brats.

[along-for-the-ride]

Definition of AVIATRIX



: a woman who is an aviator

I like the word "aviatrix"

[Bruv]

recovering conservative;1459428 wrote: Yet, because the patterns of civilization we've followed for the last 5000 years rewards the greedy, the violent and the most vocal, women - by and large, have not have their voices heard or had an equal part in making decisions.


How does that square with women being the ones that have almost total care from birth until puberty of males in most cultures?

Why do males still dominate when their first influences are female?

[LarsMac]

along-for-the-ride;1459448 wrote: Definition of AVIATRIX



: a woman who is an aviator

I like the word "aviatrix"


So plural of aviatrix, umm, Aviatrices?

Actor, Actrix? Actors, actrices?

Him, it starts getting a little deep.

Ummm, nevermind.

You are right. Aviatrix sounds kinda cool.

[Wandrin]

It is interesting that they give awards to best actor and best actress but not for best female director, music composer, etc.

[FourPart]

An assertive employer may be known as a Dominator....

[recovering conservative]

Bruv;1459450 wrote: How does that square with women being the ones that have almost total care from birth until puberty of males in most cultures?

Why do males still dominate when their first influences are female?


Like I said - the rise of patriarchy provided the opportunity for men to keep women separated and under their control, which was not the case in matrilocal/matrilineal societies. Case in point, since they were studied in modern times more extensively than the historical communities described as 'matriarchies,'(which we only know about from writers who considered themselves and their cultures superior) would be the traditional Iroquois societies that existed in Upstate New York and further up the St. Lawrence until the mid-1800's. One of the first significant anthropologists was American - Lewis Henry Morgan..who was actually a lawyer by trade, but whose family had close contact with the Seneca tribes while growing up, and went to assist them during a time when U.S. federal and state governments were trying to use contract law to take away their land.

The Seneca's, like the other tribes of the Confederacy...and every other horticultural (post-hunter/gatherer) society of North America, was organized communally, where an elder woman - referred to as a 'clan mother' led a 'longhouse' that included her daughters, their husbands, and all of their children. Lineage was traced matrilineally, and men may have taken some role in caring for children (this is common among hunter/gatherers), but they did not have a sense of paternity...at least until encountering Europeans.

In the Old World, in the Wikipedia article on Patriarchy, the concept of paternity doesn't arise at least until 6000 years ago at the earliest. Prior to then, and all over the world until modern times, the general belief was what is called "Partible Paternity." It was believed that the "father" of a child was every man who had sex with a women before it was discovered that she was pregnant. So, without a sense of paternity, men cannot have a sense of ownership of children, or the women who bear them!

With that concept of paternity, and for some reasons that are still largely unclear- the rise of livestock herding and animal agriculture as a cultural development that allows men to separate women from their kin, we end up with the common accepted wisdom that patriarchy and all of its associated baggage is natural and inevitable. It's not just a product of religious fundamentalism...it's even part of the dubious science of evolutionary psychology...as most evolutionary psychologists can't seem to be able to distinguish between what are likely genetic traits, and what are more likely cultural adaptations!

At this stage in history...which I personally believe is unsustainable for a whole host of reasons, I don't know how likely it is that we can make many changes in the way things are done now. Right now, we sure as hell don't have people who have the sense of cooperation and sense of group identity that was the norm in earlier times. So, I'm not going to say we should go back...but I do think it is important to understand how we got here; so we can make better decisions about where we should go in the future.

[FourPart]

recovering conservative;1459488 wrote: In the Old World, in the Wikipedia article on Patriarchy, the concept of paternity doesn't arise at least until 6000 years ago at the earliest. Prior to then, and all over the world until modern times, the general belief was what is called "Partible Paternity." It was believed that the "father" of a child was every man who had sex with a women before it was discovered that she was pregnant. So, without a sense of paternity, men cannot have a sense of ownership of children, or the women who bear them!


It sounds like the way of a lot of Single Mothers even now.

[Chloe_88]

who cares? as long as I get paid and treated the same way as my male co-workers, I don't care..

[AnneBoleyn]

FourPart;1459491 wrote: It sounds like the way of a lot of Single Mothers even now.


It sounds like you have some resentment towards women. I can understand your friendship with Mr. Dante, you seem to have much in common. IMO, of course.

[Bruv]

recovering conservative;1459488 wrote: Like I said - the rise of patriarchy provided the opportunity for men to keep women separated and under their control, which was not the case in matrilocal/matrilineal societies. Case in point, since they were studied in modern times more extensively than the historical communities described as 'matriarchies,'(which we only know about from writers who considered themselves and their cultures superior) would be the traditional Iroquois societies that existed in Upstate New York and further up the St. Lawrence until the mid-1800's. One of the first significant anthropologists was American - Lewis Henry Morgan..who was actually a lawyer by trade, but whose family had close contact with the Seneca tribes while growing up, and went to assist them during a time when U.S. federal and state governments were trying to use contract law to take away their land.

The Seneca's, like the other tribes of the Confederacy...and every other horticultural (post-hunter/gatherer) society of North America, was organized communally, where an elder woman - referred to as a 'clan mother' led a 'longhouse' that included her daughters, their husbands, and all of their children. Lineage was traced matrilineally, and men may have taken some role in caring for children (this is common among hunter/gatherers), but they did not have a sense of paternity...at least until encountering Europeans.

In the Old World, in the Wikipedia article on Patriarchy, the concept of paternity doesn't arise at least until 6000 years ago at the earliest. Prior to then, and all over the world until modern times, the general belief was what is called "Partible Paternity." It was believed that the "father" of a child was every man who had sex with a women before it was discovered that she was pregnant. So, without a sense of paternity, men cannot have a sense of ownership of children, or the women who bear them!

With that concept of paternity, and for some reasons that are still largely unclear- the rise of livestock herding and animal agriculture as a cultural development that allows men to separate women from their kin, we end up with the common accepted wisdom that patriarchy and all of its associated baggage is natural and inevitable. It's not just a product of religious fundamentalism...it's even part of the dubious science of evolutionary psychology...as most evolutionary psychologists can't seem to be able to distinguish between what are likely genetic traits, and what are more likely cultural adaptations!

At this stage in history...which I personally believe is unsustainable for a whole host of reasons, I don't know how likely it is that we can make many changes in the way things are done now. Right now, we sure as hell don't have people who have the sense of cooperation and sense of group identity that was the norm in earlier times. So, I'm not going to say we should go back...but I do think it is important to understand how we got here; so we can make better decisions about where we should go in the future.
You are an education.

[AnneBoleyn]

Bruv;1459503 wrote: You are an education.


I know! and wholeheartedly agree!

[FourPart]

AnneBoleyn;1459497 wrote: It sounds like you have some resentment towards women. I can understand your friendship with Mr. Dante, you seem to have much in common. IMO, of course.
Nothing of the sort.

[Betty Boop]

FourPart;1459491 wrote: It sounds like the way of a lot of Single Mothers even now.


You know many do you? :wah:

[AnneBoleyn]

FourPart;1459510 wrote: Nothing of the sort.


I'm very glad to be wrong.

[recovering conservative]

FourPart;1459491 wrote: It sounds like the way of a lot of Single Mothers even now.
Okay! There are probably are similarities between traditional matrilocal societies and the modern situation of young single mothers living in public housing developments, who form cooperative relationships to ease the burden of being solely responsible for raising children.

A key difference would be that the women in traditional matrilocal societies were not dependent on the men of the community (or the state system in the modern version) for their sustenance. In horticultural societies, the women do the bulk of the planting, tending and harvesting of their gardens, plus gathering wild plants (berries and greens), while the men had the domain of hunting and fishing.

When it comes to total calories provided; what the women were bringing in, was greater and more crucial for the community than the supply of meat brought back from the hunt. So, the men could not deal with the women from a position of power and control. They were as dependent on the women for survival, as the women would depend on them. It would be the same situation in all of the different types of hunter/gatherer societies that existed in the world for most of human history.

The balance wasn't broken until relatively modern times....and there's a strong argument that the imbalance has been a detriment for us all: excessive violence and warfare, hierarchies and oppression...especially the prevalence of slavery before energy abundance made the institution obsolete....all of the major ills of 5000 years of civilization were made worse by overemphasis on masculine virtues and values, without a guiding influence from the female half of the population.

I would venture to say that the overemphasis on the masculine, has led civilization to the point we are at today - on the edge of collapse, due to overexploitation of nature. The notion that we "conquer" nature and control this world, is a masculine ideal full of hubris. The concept that we never leave nature, regardless of what technologies we develop to isolate ourselves from nature, comes from the feminine ideal of the mother earth goddess....something the god-kings of our patriarchal religions killed off several thousand years ago. Seems very plausible that the root cause of our inability to live in sustainable societies today began right at the start of civilization!

[recovering conservative]

Bruv;1459503 wrote: You are an education.


Thanks, I'm glad you found worth taking a look at. I have to admit to feeling a little melancholy these days about the subject of REAL traditional societies over the last few years, as I notice one story after another, telling us about hunter/gatherer tribes in the Amazon, Borneo, New Guinea, the Congo etc., that are either vanishing or being forced off the land.

After Attack, Reclusive Amazon Tribe Feared Missing

Existence of Uncontacted Amazon Tribe Confirmed

Even the Amazon Valley isn't big enough nowadays for a few small tribes to live in the jungle, and be free of loggers, miners, ranchers, drug traffickers, and missionaries. And, to add to their struggles against encroaching civilization, climate change is drying out the Amazon, and the rainforest will mostly disappear entirely by the end of this century.

[FourPart]

recovering conservative;1459527 wrote: The notion that we "conquer" nature and control this world, is a masculine ideal full of hubris. The concept that we never leave nature, regardless of what technologies we develop to isolate ourselves from nature, comes from the feminine ideal of the mother earth goddess....something the god-kings of our patriarchal religions killed off several thousand years ago. Seems very plausible that the root cause of our inability to live in sustainable societies today began right at the start of civilization!
Whilst it may be possible to 'control' it, the very idea that anyone can conquer Nature is laughable, although, granted, there are still those that would try. Any section of land left untended will rapidly revert to form.

You mention the Earth Mother. As a point of additional trivia, I think it's worthy of note that Eostar is the Pagan Goddess of Dawn & New Beginnings - hence the Christian holiday, 'Easter'.

[recovering conservative]

FourPart;1459531 wrote: Whilst it may be possible to 'control' it, the very idea that anyone can conquer Nature is laughable, although, granted, there are still those that would try. Any section of land left untended will rapidly revert to form.
That's true if land is left unattended; but how much unattended land is left in the world? Surprisingly little, according to a report I read from the UN's FAO made about three or four years ago, which estimated that of the total Earth's arable land surface, almost 40% is occupied and modified by some human activity: cities, highways, agriculture - including grazing livestock etc.. A big reason why many of the world's top biologists today are already saying that we have been in an extinction cycle for at least 100 years, is because the disappearance of all sorts of animal and plant species and loss of biodiversity, is matching the rates found in the most serious mass extinctions of the past - the big five.

You mention the Earth Mother. As a point of additional trivia, I think it's worthy of note that Eostar is the Pagan Goddess of Dawn & New Beginnings - hence the Christian holiday, 'Easter'.


Yes, and it's a shame that when what we call 'religion' becomes developed and separated from everyday life, the understanding that male and female principles are active and interdependent, becomes lost during the rise of patriarchies, which diminished the importance and the roles of the goddesses, and eliminated them entirely in the Judeo-Christian traditions...where we have father sky-god, and no earth mother goddess!

It's still embroiled in controversy, but an ancient temple inscription that is verified to be almost 3000 years old in Palestine, refers to "Yahweh and his Ashura", an earth goddess of the ancient Canaanite religion, the picture looks likely that Judaism developed from the Canaanite tradition, and was not satisfied with just demoting the earth goddess...they had to completely erase her from their worship. I can't help thinking that the disregard and plundering of nature, which started back then, but really took off with industrialization of the last 150 years, is the legacy of abandoning the goddess and any regard or curiosity about the overall biosphere of life on Earth.