Replying to the message below:
Opening doors for others is not about strength, chivalry, or gender. If
I--a woman--arrive first at the door, I open it for others--male or female,
younger or older. If someone else arrives first, I expect the door held for
me, by a person of either gender. It seems like common courtesy...as well as
non-gender-specific acts and expectations. Isn't that what this struggle
is is all about? Disrupting those gendered roles will likely prove far more
useful than taking random (and unfair) pot shots at others.
In Message Wed, 21 Jun 1995 23:17:59 +0800,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kylie Matthews) writes:
> And I open doors for them, too.
>> Al
>oh and we are soooo grateful, we cannot possible open them ourselves.
>we're too weak.
>
>Respectfully,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Interesting: Your people glorified organised violence for 40 centuries,
>but you imprison those who employ it privately."
> Mr Spock. Star Trek 'Dagger of the Mind'
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 3 11:53:02 1995
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-NUPop-Charset: English
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 95 12:55:24 CST
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: apology
In Message Wed, 28 Jun 1995 16:26:40 -0600,
"Mary C. Simmons, Hydrologic Assistant, Albuquerque, NM
"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>A few weeks ago someone told us that she had gotten some pretty vile personal
>flames from someone on this list. SHe was advised by several of us to post
>these to the list--perhaps that would put a stop to them.
>
>I think the content of the flame in question HERE was completely
>inappropriate, whether it was a private insult or not. No one is doing us any
>favors by name calling. I also think that flames of such a nasty nature sent
>privately to someone who has been speaking publicly come from someone who
>lacks guts.
>
>Everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether anyone else thinks it is stupid,
>ignorant, masturbatory, or just wrong.
>
>NO ONE SHOULD BE SILENCED.
>
>I'd like to point out that we are all completely free NOT TO READ anyone's
>posts--they all come in with our names on the banner. And everyone is
>completely free to NOT RESPOND. In that light, no one is "messing up this
>list".
>
>It is not up to an individual on this list to decide whose comments have value
>for all the rest of us. Respect ought to be given to all listmembers,
>regardless of race, gender, class, or opinions.
>
>Mary
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Mary Simmons
>U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division
>Albuquerque, New Mexico
>(505)262-5332
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Beautifully said. I second this perspective.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 3 12:51:04 1995
From: Stephen Duguid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: nature/culture
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Mary C. Simmons,
Hydrologic Assistant, Albuquerque, NM" at Jul 3, 95 07:50:35 am
Mary's point is well taken - itis the strange blending of science and
technology that seems to go by the rubric 'applied science' that is
the real chanfe-agent here. Our suspicion of this accounts in part
at least for the sudden popularity of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
There is the argument of course that in the process of
'understanding' we alter or change what is being observed/understood.
This is perhaps inevitable and adopting your stance we may be able
to at least minimize that disruptioon of the observed.
Steve Duguid, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 3 15:36:26 1995
via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.950703164254.256;
From: "Jackie Van Brocklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: UTA Libraries
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 16:42:51 CST
Subject: Re: essentialism
How nice! Heretofore, I had always thought that was only a "southern"
custom..... (No offense to those NORTH of the M.D. line---)
Seriously, we could all get into a whole *thing* of whether or not to
hold doors for those behind us - but - (let's DON'T)!
Jackie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 4 08:21:47 1995
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 10:25:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: science
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I would like to express my heartfelt agreement with Mary on her view of
science:
> Now, *I* would just define science as the human attempt to understand nature,
> and leave it at that. It occurs to me as one of the few scientists on this
> list that the "and then alter nature" part of Steve's definition may be the
> general view of science by everyone else.
I am reminded of what Bertrand Russell has to say in an essay used in
one of my recent classes: "The love of knowledge to which the growth of
science is due is itself the product of a twofold impulse. We may seek
knowledge of an object because we love the object or because we wish to
have power over it. . . . Science in its beginnings was due to men [sic]
who were in love with the world. They perceived the beauty of the stars
and the sea, of the wind and the mountains. Because they loved them their
thoughts dwelt upon them, and they wished to understand them more
intimately than a mere outward contemplation made possible. . . . But
step by step, as science has developed, the impulse of love which gave it
birth has been increasingly thwarted, while the impulse of power, which
was at first a mere camp-follower, has gradually usurped command in
virtue of its unforeseen success. The lover of nature has been baffled,
the tyrant over nature has been rewarded."
My background was in biological science before I began to study
philosophy, and I have been continually amazed by the anti-science
attitude of many people in the humanities. It was certainly what Russell
identifies as "the impulse of love" that brought me, and, I'm sure, many
others, into science; if
some in society are driven instead by "the impulse of power," that would
seem to be a societal problem, not something intrinsic to "science"
itself. Many things that "science" teaches us, in fact, can be seen to
have implications that are quite subversive for the present status quo,
were we to fully integrate them into our consciousness--this surely
seems to be the case with both ecology and evolutionary theory, for example.
> I think any attempt to alter nature is within the realm of technology, which
> *uses* science to that end. Personally, I believe we should stop attempting
> to "alter nature" and really adapt ourselves and cultures TO nature.
Yes indeed. With all the talk lately of "nature" as a social
construction, it would seem that, were we to place things on a scale
indicating increasingly greater degrees of how "socially constructed" they
are, "nature" itself (and our conceptions of it) would be much farther
from the "highly socially constructed" end than would be, say,
institutions like the global economic scheme, notions like "private
property," and even things like the current "desired family size"
different people hold. The more socially constructed something is,
seemingly the more amenable to change it might be, and this was supposed
to be the point of a recent post I made: instead of taking for granted
that there will continue to be more and more people, hence a need for
more water, etc, to feed their increasing "demand," hence a need for
desalinization plants, fusion reactors, etc--more and more alteration
of "nature"--wouldn't it make more sense to begin altering those ideas,
practices and institutions that we have created so that we can better
live within "nature"?
> As a woman scientist, I would like to revision science in this way. Not as an
> evil manipulation of nature, but as a way we can learn to find our place again
> IN nature. I would argue that it was not "science" that separated us in the
> first place, but patriarchy, and most notably, christianity, which (among
> other things) sought to "separate the savage from the dust."
>
> And separated like this it is easier to destroy...without conscience.
>
Right on. It might be pointed out that a message to be found in both
evolution and ecology
is that the separation of humans from "nature" is illusory.
So glad that there are women scientists
like you who may be able to help bring about the needed changes.
Ronnie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 4 08:38:28 1995
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 10:42:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: opening doors
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
One brief comment on this topic, since it has been raised (and my
apologies to Jackie, who seems not to want to talk about it)
On Mon, 3 Jul 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Opening doors for others is not about strength, chivalry, or gender. If
> I--a woman--arrive first at the door, I open it for others--male or female,
> younger or older. If someone else arrives first, I expect the door held for
> me, by a person of either gender. It seems like common courtesy...
I very much agree--I hold doors open out of common courtesy when I am
first to arrive at them, and I hope others will do the same for me,
regardless of gender. However, I have to admit to disliking a certain
kind of gender-specific door-holding: when a man ostentatiously moves
ahead to open a door *for* me, and then proceeds to hold it open in such a
manner as to force me to walk "under the bridge" of his open
arm-and-armpit if I accept his act of "chivalry." I usually do, because
the only alternative generally would seem to be refusal, which could come
across as rudeness on my part. But I much, much prefer that a door simply
be "handed off" to be, because, frankly, I do not like this form of
enforced bodily closeness being imposed on me, and supposedly as a
"courtesy" yet.
Does anyone else on the list feel as I do about this? Perhaps if men
were aware such a gesture is not always perceived as something positive
by the woman on the receiving end, however well-meaning their intent, they
might re-think their ideas about what is appropriate in regard to doors.
Ronnie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 4 13:44:29 1995
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 95 11:09:47 PDT
From: mary hallock morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bioregionalism dicussion
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------Included Message---------------
Dear Mary,
I'm new to this list but your idea for initiating discussion about
bioregionalism sounds great and I would be very interested in
participating.
Apart from the intrinsic merits of talking about such an interesting and
new
political/social theory and practice, I've also got a more instrumental
reason: I'm writing up my PhD thesis at the minute on green political
theory, and one chapter is devoted to discussing bioregionalism as a form
of
eco-anarchism.
So count me in!
Yours in peace
John Barry
Dept. of Politics
Keele University
Keele
Staffordshire ST5 5BG
UK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The way I see it that bioregionalism makes a great deal of common sense.
It's overwhelming to think that the whole planet needs help and you think
that nothing you do is really going to make a difference. With
bioregionalism, its not like that -- you do thinks that help your region
and those are things that aren't overwhelming -- permaculture, political
battles, restoration ecology.
If we buy things from our region only, look how much oil, gas, etc. would
be saved on transportation costs! Look at all the local jobs that may be
created. There's lots of things you can buy locally, even if you live in
urban areas (I am thinking of the Kansas City Food Circle here -- I heard
a speaker talk about this at a rural life meeting here in Ohio).
As for the politics, is it really anarchy to work from the grassroots up?
I always worry that when people see the word *ANARCHY* they think -- Oh
God, it's going to be chaos. At least that's how my husband reacted when
I read him exerpts from both "The Green Reader" and Tokar's book "The
Green Alternative." But when I explained *how* these things work, he
agreed with much of what was said. Of course this is just my opinion,
because I live in a house with a died in the wool Republican ;-)
Also, this is relevent to this list as Judith Plant has done a lot of
writing on the subject of bioregionalism and ecofeminism. Her point is
that by refocusing on the home/community, the status of women will be
revalued and appreciated, with men also taking over some of the
traditionally *female* roles.
You all might have a different opinion, coming from different areas of the
world. I noticed that a lot of my books on green politics come from UK and
others and I believe Plant is from Canada. My opinions might be warped by
the area where I live -- I am a transplant to rural Ohio, but have been
here long enough that I often have to check my thoughts and make sure that
they are mine and not something that I have assemilated :-)
I would love to continue this conversation. I'm sorry it took me so long
to get back to you all because I was in the hospital for two days.
Mary
-------------------------------------
Name: mary hallock morris
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mary hallock morris)
Date: 07/02/95
Time: 11:09:47
Grad student at The McGregor School of Antioch University
Yellow Springs, Ohio
"In Nature, Nothing Exists Alone." -- Rachel Carson
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
