On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, Wood Lee wrote:
> With Earth Day coming up, I thought it's a good time for me to put in
> my own two cents.
>
> People's adverse effects on the environment can be classified into two
> basic categories:
>
> - population pressure
> - manner of `consumption' (land use, resource extraction,
> waste disposal, etc)
>
> Along this line, I have advocated considering adoption rather than having
> one's own child. A big obstacle to this is that people somehow seem to
> need to have their own children for them to feel `fulfilled'. Another
> contention to such an idea is that women simply need to have children.
> Women who don't have children of their own would somehow end up mal-adjusted,
> physically and/or mentally.
>
> The problem is that such attitudes are self-fulfilling. I just would like
> to see if people can shed some light.
Adoption makes sense. Personally, I never expected to be a parent at
all. Then, sometime in my late twenties, I decided it was time to have a
baby. It was as if my biological "timeclock" went off. This was not a
notion I had previously considered to have any validity. It was not
until I was disentangling myself from my daughter's father that I
realized how completely unreasonable (logically) my choice of partners
had been, except that I got a (wonderful) baby out of it. Being a parent
has made me a more humane being, with greater concern for the future of
all life. But I surely don't understand what happened.
I also would like to see if people can shed some light. Is there a
"need" for children for some and not for others? Or does socialization
just catch up with us?
Barbara Bliss
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 19 11:35:20 MDT 1995
From: Margaret Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 95 13:36:19 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: clothing/fashion
What a timely query! I really hope we get some statistics on
here,, because I've been pondering the combination of
politics and aesthetics of thrift store shopping for a long time.
Thinking about assigning poetry classes to go there, today
someone did a report, an assignment that I designed for them to go out and
observe wild places, and this student neatly refigured it in an urban context,
reporting on a downtown corner by the thrift store as an ecosystem of
sorts.
Thrift stores recycle, compost, they take more time and reflect more
of the local and result in more rich, interesting, individual clothing
than catalogues and malls.
I've been writing about food as a way to make everyone notice,
examine and celebrate their connection to place, but objects such
as clothes which are less obviously but just as importantly produced
out of materials we can eventually trace back to the earth.
As with food, an overall bland sameness (of all but that worn by the exotic
Other--performers, lower classes, foreigners) masked by overabundant availability
has made us take our very dress for granted, or at least relegated
to the back pages of the newspaper, or the edges of cultural studies.
Or to poets, the ultimate deep edge dwellers, composters. Watch out.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 19 13:10:54 MDT 1995
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:10:51 -0600
Wed, 19 Apr 1995 14:11:40 -0500 (CDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wood Lee)
Subject: Re: Forwarded message
While the observation that women are routinely overlooked or bypassed
is probably basically correct, one should keep in mind that the problem
goes deep.
It is my believe that cases where women are consciously overlooked or
bypassed are the exception. Many times, the preferred communication
style of most women simply does not fit well with the traditional,
male-dominated, combative style. Most simply are forced to take a back
seat, though some women try to adapt to such a style. However, I suspect
that many do not do well and probably make unfavorable impressions on
their male colleagues, further complicating the overall problem.
Trying to adapt to a style that you really don't feel comfortable with
is probably not a good idea. In areas such as politics, sports, etc,
making your opponent play to your game/style is a major part of gaining
advantage. In what we are discussing, however, the rules/game/style
simply has been tilted against women, though unconciously in most cases.
I don't intend to offer any solutions here. Just want to point out that
the problem is not simple and that communication is a key. There are
studies on the difference in communication style between male and female
but I don't have the sources handy. Knowing the root cause of the problem
is the first step.
For women who just want to work hard and get their `deserved' reward, I
think it won't be that easy. You're going to have to help your colleagues
along the way to make them realize that it's a different world now and that
we all need to learn about each other's communication styles.
Just my two cents.
Wood
>Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 14:25:30 -0500 (CDT)
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Forwarded message
>To: LEE
>
>Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 13:11:11 -0600
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Precedence: bulk
>From: Barbara Bliss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Forwarded message
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>X-Comment: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT
>
>On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, Jodi Smalec wrote:
>
>> Aloha! I am a new member to this list, and to ecofeminism in general.
>> After reading many messages over the last few weeks, I have begun to
>> question my own beliefs and perceptions as a "young"? woman (almost
>> twenty-five).
>> In response to what Barabar wrote, I am wondering if someone can give me
>> some pointers on where to get more information. I am beginning to
>> think that I *don't* know what it looks like. Especially in academe.
>>
>> Is it disadvantageous to think that with hard work, a woman can succeed?
>>
> Dear Jodi,
>
>I think it is disadvantageous to "think that with hard work a woman can
>succeed". My observation has been that hard work may be good work, but
>that you may not succeed.
>
>Women get called on less in class, get cited less in literature, and
>(somebody correct me if I'm outdated, here) get funded less than men in
>their professions. All the while, men may say "she does great work."
>
>What is your discipline? In science, a good tale is "A Feeling for the
>Organism," the story of Barbara McClintock, written by (???I forgot her
>first name) Keller. McClintock discovered transposons, or "jumping
>genes," decades before they were recognized by a male "establishment"
>scientist. McClintock eventually was rewarded for her work, after years
>of poverty and marginalization.
>
>How many department heads are women at your university? Who controls the
>dollars? Who gets quoted (legitimized?).
>
>Somebody else jump in here, anytime
>
>Barbara Bliss
>
