I would be incredibly grateful for any info anyone can give me which will
help us to establish a pedestrian safety/rights advocacy/lobby group.
If you know of any relevant advocacy groups, Internet groups, publications,
contact people, legislation, community action, whatever, please email me
personally (I've only temporarily resubscribed to ecofem, due to lack of
time, alas).
It would be very helpful for us to get an international perspective as well
as finding out what other people have tried and not having to reinvent the
wheel.
Please send info to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks.
Melissa Raven
National Centre for Education & Training on Addiction [NCETA]
Flinders University BEDFORD PARK SA 5042 AUSTRALIA
Telephone 61(0)8 201 7557 Fax 61(0)8 201 7550
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 2 20:09:33 1995
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 22:14:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Deep Ecology vs. Ecofeminism!!!! Grrrrr!!
In-Reply-To: <v01510100ac425f8c25ab@[192.38.164.24]>
Shawn, Kim, Kylie--
I'm glad we seem to agree that continued human population growth is a
serious problem, in all parts of the world. No, I don't mean to align
myself with the "patronizing and patriarchal attitude" that's behind
imposing top-down "control" on the reproduction of third world women.
And yes, while I haven't seen the Gaard and Gruen article, I am familiar
with Mies and Shiva, Cuomo, and Ariel Kay Salleh. I didn't mean to say
that I haven't seen ecofeminists addressing population issues, but that I
haven't seen it done in such a way as to make clear how big a problem
population is, for humans and for nonhumans. Unfortunately, most of what
I've seen comes across to me as kind of a "yes, but"--maybe a brief
admission that this is an important issue, but generally followed by a
much more lengthy critique of another position that has raised the issue,
not by much of a positive effort to think about the needs for and ways to
bring about limiting population increase, in any society.
Yes, the factors listed by Kylie are frequently mentioned as contributory
to the continuation of population growth in certain parts of the world.
Also unfortunately, I've never heard an analysis that goes much farther
than this. Cuomo raises the very interesting question, "Why do women
bear many children, even in areas or communities where high population
density impacts on individual lives very directly, through overcrowding,
shortages of food and other necessities, poor health and hygiene, and the
obvious destruction of local land and species?" I would like to hear
answers to this question from women who know the specifics of a given
area, rather than just the generalizations that I have heard up to now,
because they often seem to raise more questions than they answer. It may
be that the need for an extra pair of hands or "social security" for old
age are primary motivations and make sense in the society. It may also
be that certain cultural ideas, such as one that "associates male social
prestige with reproductive capacities and the abundance of offspring," as
Cuomo notes, may be dominant forces in this regard.
How will such cultural obstacles be called into question? Shall such
masculinist views continue to drive population growth because the women
in such societies have little power and those of other societies fear
being charged with cultural imperialism? It seems the Pope is quick to
charge western women with attempting to impose their own model on others,
but who is left to challenge the bias of the "cultural conditioning" that
has already been imposed?
I guess that I'm willing to face the charge, if that's the penalty for
raising the issue at all, as it often seems to be, if the alternative is
a continuation of the status quo. Sorry, but deferring to the sanctity
of "culture" when I know it means the destruction of thousands more
nonhumans (as well as much human suffering) seems to me just more dualism--
privileging the "culture" side of the culture/nature split.
Without knowing more of the details of specific other cultures, though, I
can't say much, other than to try to raise general questions about what
kinds of social constructions might be amenable to change. In the
privileged society I inhabit, however, I think quite a bit more can be
said. Shawn, I still need a clarification of what you mean when you say
the population problems I see around me in Florida are "obviously a
problem of capitalist consumption." Do you mean they are a *result* of
capitalist consumption? If so, how do you see that?
I see the consumption as an additional, aggravating factor--the more each
additional person consumes, the much greater the total impact of that
society on the global environment (including on the third world countries
each new baby born in the U.S. will affect by drawing on their
"resources"). But, unlike parts of the world where economic
considerations like needing the help on the farm or for one's old age, I
don't see consumerism as *driving* the process--I see, rather, more
general cultural ideas doing so. "Machismo" is alive and well in the good
old US of A--how many guys really do need to prove their masculinity this way,
at least by keeping it up til they succeed in fathering a son, no matter
how many tries it takes? And of course anthropocentrism--it's certainly
operative among the antiabortion forces, or else you'd see them picketing
to save the "innocent lives" at slaughterhouses, and I think it's there
as well, more subtly, in the widespread resistance to talking about
population among people who are willing to talk about reducing consumerism--
cutting back on our excessive lifestyle is OK to discuss (though rarely
actually put into practice), but talk about limiting the numbers of that
which is the locus of all value, well, just seems kind of embarassing.
So, here some of us are in a country with the material wealth, the
educational resources, certainly the widespread availability of
contraceptive technology for most, and we show virtually zip awareness of
how we're ripping off the rest of the planet in a whole variety of ways,
very definitely including casually thoughtless procreation. (A
well-known environmentalist of deep ecology persuasion comes to mind, one
who had to keep trying til he got a boy, and then another one--not even
entirely thoughtless in his case, but admittedly irresponsible!) Our
wonderful electronic media could carry all kinds of important
messages--and they show sitcom "families" having one more kid and then
another and another to keep the series going, with never a thought to
what such actions, or such messages about such actions, do to the earth
and its other inhabitants. (Perhaps in this way capitalism could be
said to drive the problem. But I think what is needed is a critique of
the way we, in western culture, think about our own reproduction, not
just another critique of "capitalism" per se.)
At any rate, I still feel that a more positive ecofeminist position needs
to take shape on this issue.
Ronnie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 3 09:42:43 1995
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 11:47:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ACTION ALERT - Call your Senator to support Reid Amendment (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 14:44:26 -0400
From: Roger Featherstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ACTION ALERT - Call your Senator to support Reid Amendment
Emergency Alert:
Reid Amendment Seeks to Restore Funding for ESA
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) announced plans today to offer an amendment
on the floor of the Senate to restore funding for listing, "prelisting,"
and possibly recovery and habitat acquisition funding when the Interior
Appropriations bill is considered on the Senate floor some time in the
next ten days. Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) will also lead in the
introduction of this amendment.
It is important that all supporters of the ESA call their Senators
and ask them to support the Reid Amendment to the Interior
Appropriations bill for ESA funding.
The Interior Appropriations bill that passed the House included no
money for listing of endangered species and no money for the preventive
programs to help species so that they do not need to be listed ("prelisting").
The Interior Appropriations bill that was reported out of
committee in the Senate included no money for listing, only $2 million
for "prelisting," and cuts in endangered species recovery program
funding.
This appropriations situation is critical. By removing funds for
endangered species programs, some in the Congress are trying to kill the
ESA without even a vote on it. The Senate floor vote is our last chance
to avoid severe cuts in ESA funding.
That is why the Reid ESA funding amendment is so important. We
must make an all out effort to generate calls for the Reid amendment to
demonstrate that supporters of the ESA will not allow it to be "bled"
away by funding cuts.
Cutting funds for new listings of endangered species solves
nothing. Delaying listings only makes the options for recovery more
difficult when species are eventually listed -- or it causes extinction.
Cutting funds for "prelisting" preventive programs is even more
shortsighted. These programs are critical to maintaining the species
whose declines may otherwise result in the necessity of listing them.
Call your Senators today at (202)224-3121 and ask them to support
the Reid Amendment for ESA funding.
