Date sent: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 21:09:04 +0000 (GMT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yuichi Nishihara) Subject: This reply is made automatically To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Madames/Sirs, This reply is made automatically. Due to the enormous amount of mails I'm recieving, it is now completely impossible for me to answer to your mail. I have some announcements. 1. The chain letter, "Stop Nulcear Tests!" is no longer wanted to be distributed. We have changed our method to collect names of people who are against the Nuclear Tests of France. We have opened a WWW site, and names put down using the easy fill out forms on the site will have the first priority. The adress of the WWW site is, http://www.icepp.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~keshi/ We have much more information there than we had on the chain letter. We have collected 10378 names from 74 countries/regions by Mon Jul. 17. 2. For those of you who had sent me back the lists, thank you very much for participating in this. We will include your list in our list which is to be sent to Mr. Chirac, but it will not appear as fast as the signs made via WWW. We couldn't help it, but I think there is noone who can manage more than 2000 mails per day. If you want to have your name on the list faster, please try our WWW site. Don't worry about duplications because it is rather easily eliminated by using the sort program. And ofcourse before sending it to Mr. Chirac, it will be very carefully checked. 3. If you had distributed our chain letter to your friends, thank you for your support, but please try to stop your friends from distributing it further. And also, tell your friends about the WWW site, and tell them to sign via WWW if they want their names on the list. What you should do about the list you have: if you had not yet sent the list back to me, please send it back with only the list part with it. That means, please cut the banner and the sentences away. 4. About the chain letter: after distributing our first chain letter, we have realized there were many problems in our chain letter, and then, that using chain letter was inadequate from the begining. We have sent our second chain letter to go after the first one, since that was the only way we could think of to stop the first one from spreading. However this is not working so well, and now many sites around world is having unnecessarly high traffics and are getting into troubles. We deeply apologize for having started a chain letter. We hearby declare that we will never ever start such thing and also never distribute one when we recieve other chain letters, no matter what the content may be. If you see anywhere anyplace in the network about this chain letter, please tell people that we have realized the inadequateness of our method and trying our best to stop further distributions. 5. If you had recieved our letter with only "Dear Sirs" on it, we are very sorry about this. It comes from our poor knowlege of English: in Japanese, we don't have differnt ways to call to Men and Women. Those of you who had added "Dear Madames" or changed it to "Dear people" and so on, thank you for your help. To gather many peoples power was from the begining our scheme. 6. We have already told all our story to our postmaster, and they have understood us. So, it is no use complaining about us to him. We are trying our best to stop what we have started. Sincelery, Yuichi Nishihara Shimizu Seishi both Physics student at University of Tokyo. >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 4 18:21:19 1995 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 20:25:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Population control and ecofeminism In response to the recent post by Petra: > Insofar I cannot agree with Ronnie that there is no feminist approach > to the population issue. But I fear, that s/he will put it done as the > "yes, but ..." approach as it is not "direct" enough. > As you quoted in the beginning of your post, my point was not that there was no feminist or ecofeminist approach to the population issue but that I feel what there has been has not adequately addressed the problem in terms of the impact of expanding human populations on nonhumans. (I'm a she, by the way.) I agree very much with the points you raise about the need for the education and empowerment of women, as I think Kylie's post did also. listing education as priority #1. > My impression is that many calling for population control do not CARE > for women (or people in the developing countries in general) at all, an > inhumane approach is acceptable to them as long as their purpose is > served. Furthermore, they SHARE the interest of those who keep > women subjected, therefore they cannot SEE the deeper reasons for > high or even rising birth rates, and - even more important - they are > NOT READY TO IMPROVE THE LOT OF WOMEN TO REACH THEIR > OBJECTIVE - population control. It may very well be true that "many" calling for "population control" are coming from a position such as this, and I think this perception is why most ecofeminist positions I have seen on the topic are defensive, counterattacking a view that they see as antiwomen, keeping women in a powerless position while blaming them for population problems (which strikes me as most ironic, since under all the various forms of patriarchy it has always been and continues to be the men who are by and large directing what happens in society, of which they are usually the first to take credit--until they need a scapegoat!). I am fully in agreement with forcefully rejecting such an antiwoman stance, and I think looking more deeply into the sources of the problem and exploring all avenues, such as those detailed by Kylie and Petra, to see to it that women in all parts of the world come to have more control over their lives, including their reproductive choices, is absolutely critical. My problem with some of the ecofeminist positions I have seen so far is that in their urgency to rebut attacks on women, they often say little about the many reasons why population limitation is so desperately needed, again, in all parts of the world. This may not mean that they do not agree that it is needed--but sometimes they do not make this clear. (When I read diatribes against "Malthusianism," for example, I often find it difficult to tell just what is being rejected--the idea that "external controls" such as famine and disease are needed to keep human populations "in check," which I would also reject, ideas like "population grows geometrically," i.e., if your maternal grandparents had 4 kids, and each of those kids (including your mother) had 4 kids, and you and each of your sisters and brothers and nieces and nephews have 4 kids, the number of people will have gone from 2 to 64 in 4 generations, an apparent truism which I don't see any reason to reject, or even the desire to bring the topic up for discussion at all, which I think is tremendously important.) If you take a look at _Beyond the Limits_, by Donella Meadows et al, a twenty-year followup on the computer modeling they did in _The Limits to Growth_, you will find a very sobering picture of scenarios for the future that brings home the need for limiting both population growth and our expectations for ever-increasing consumption, on the basis of human interests alone. If you read some of the conservation biology literature, moreover, you will get a grasp of the astounding impact that human encroachment on nonhuman habitat has had and will continue to have, if limits are not set, on nonhuman populations--it is predicted, for example, that all nonhuman primates, most large carnivores and many hoofed mammals will become extinct in the wild within the next century. Since many ecofeminists profess, in one way or another, a concern for nonhuman animals, and the oppression of "nature" is one of the forms of oppression that ecofeminism has undertaken to address and rectify, it seems strange to me that so little is said about the linkage between human population growth and nonhuman domination and destruction. A number of ecofeminist analyses quite rightly point out that "the human species" should not be conceptualized as a single, undifferentiated quantity, since there are great differences between different human groups in their responsibility for environmental destruction. But "nature" should not be construed as undifferentiated either, however--there are great differences in the capacities and needs of different forms of life, and hence in their vulnerability to human impacts, differences that should be made a part of the ecofeminist analysis. And, while the forces that impact different kinds of nonhumans will vary in different parts of the world, with "resource extraction" to meet consumer demand playing a large role in some places and subsistence agriculture to feed a very poor, sizeable and growing human population playing a large role in others, I see no way around the statement "For any given type of technology, for any given level of consumption or waste, for any given level of poverty or inequality [or affluence or full equality], the more people there are the greater the impact on the environment"--a statement from a UN report that Mies and Shiva roundly criticize, though, as far as I can tell, without showing it to be incorrect. Though I find much to agree with in the Mies and Shiva chapter on population, such as their pointing out the fact that many third world ecosystems carry not only the subsistence needs of the local populations but also the heavy burden of the North's demand for "raw materials," I also find it disturbing in the way many disparate issues are kind of thrown at the reader, often (as with the UN quote, and the attack on "Malthusian logic") with insufficient explanation or argument as to what is wrong with certain approaches or what position would be preferable (one example they mention, uncritically, is the "poor street children" allegedly being killed in Brazil "to supply the richer countries with a thriving organ trade"). But, recognizing that there are many versions of ecofeminism and that theirs is not necessarily concerned with confronting the oppression of *nonhuman* nature, it still comes across to me as a glaring omission that they say virtually nothing about the effects of human population increase on nonhuman life--nor does Salleh. Cuomo at least raises the issue, though I'm not sure she addresses it altogether satisfactorily. Naess, on the other hand, did long ago state "The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease." I see no reason to disagree with this statement, and I think its acknowledgement is extremely important to any ecological discussion. The "decrease" Naess speaks of is not intended to imply anything abrupt or "inhumane," but rather a slow and intentional tapering off of the number of children conceived. The requirement of nonhuman life for such a decrease is, I think, adequately demonstrated by conservation biology. Are there reasons to disagree with the view that human flourishing is compatible with such a decrease? I think that, right here in my context of central Florida, USA, human life and "flourishing" would be *enhanced* by a gradual population reduction--I can think of lots of ways in which my quality of life is diminished, day by day, with continuing "growth." But that's a personal view, with which others may disagree. Deep ecology has been criticised by ecofeminists for being "incomplete" in failing to discover the connections between racism, sexism, other forms of human domination, and the ongoing destruction of the natural world, and for emphasizing personal, psychological or spiritual development over political analysis--rightly so. But I think ecofeminism will also remain "incomplete" if it does not include a more thorough analysis of population issues, including the dramatic effect that continued human population growth is having on many different forms of nonhuman life. > Ronnie had some further points which concern the population issue in > the USA. As I am not American I am not familiar with the > overpopulation problem in Florida (apart from the fact, that more and > more pensioners flock to that state). Perhaps you can tell me more > about it. Apart from migration is the population rising in the USA, too? Florida's population is steadily increasing, both from people migrating down from the north and from babies being born in Florida. A few years ago its growth rate was almost 3% per year--rivalling many third world countries. The U.S. as a whole, according to 1994 World Population Data Sheet, has a growth rate of about 0.7% per year, high for an industrialized country. This rate gives it a doubling time of about 98 years--98 years to go from 261 million to 522 million, by the end of the next century. Hardly ZPG! > In Germany we have had birth rates below the reproduction rate for > nearly two decades (things are similar in the other richer European > countries). Therefore we have not discussed overpopulation as "our" > problem in Germany (more the other way round). That's right--I see on the Data Sheet Germany is given a growth rate of -0.1%, and several other European countries have very low or negative rates. I realize some worry about "the economy" in such situations (since the prime mandate of capitalism seems to be "to grow"), but I feel envious contemplating such figures--with a population that is stable, you can seriously talk about "sustainability,' something we can't do if we don't even know how many people it is that we're going to have to "sustain"! >From a German > perspective there is lot of space left in the USA - but I suppose you do > not agree on this point. What I do not agree with, being concerned about nonhumans, is that there is a "lot of space" for them and us too. We've already taken grizzly populations, wolf populations, Florida panther populations, etc etc down by 90-99% in the continental US--they don't have much "space" left as it is. Are we so selfish as to take every bit of the rest of it too, blinding ourselves to our long history of oppressing them as we do so? Respectfully, Ronnie >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 5 08:52:42 1995 Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 07:55:27 -0700 From: Doug Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Population control and ecofeminism Gentles, I urge all to look at the Global Programme of Action negotiated during the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt. I believe that you will find that it is one of the women affirming documents ever produced in an international setting/. Much of this success is due to the influence of many feminists from around the world from Peggy Antrobus to Bella Abzug and Kwok Pui Lan. There is much feminist material written on the issue. I will provide a limited bibliography when I get a chance to browse my shelves. Doug >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 5 23:14:59 1995 Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 01:18:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Fiona M Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Help! To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can not get unsubscribed!!! Why is this!! Could someone PLEASE either tell me how to or delete my name from the mailing list. Thank you Fiona Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Aug 6 16:52:23 1995 id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 07 Aug 1995 10:57:32 +1200 ; 7 Aug 95 10:54:16 +1200 Date: Mon, 07 Aug 1995 10:53:29 +1200 From: "STEFANIE S. RIXECKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Conference Announcement-- SPEP To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Lincoln University [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT There will be many great papers on Feminism presented at the SPEP (Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy) Conference this year. The conference will be held at DePaul University in Chicago on October 12-14, 1995. If you are interested in any of the following topics, please plan to attend this exciting conference. Here is a list of the papers dealing with general topics in Feminism: 1. Special session on the political philosophy of Hannah Arendt -- Thursday, Oct. 12 from 3:45-6:30pm 2. Special session on the philosophy of Seyla Benhabib -- Friday, Oct. 13 from 9:00-12:00noon 3. Robin Alice Roth, "Lying With Nietzsche: Does She or Doesn't She? That is the Question" -- Friday, Oct. 13 from 9:00-12:00noon 4. Katherine Rudolph, "Woman Incorporated: On Speculating Without a Mirror: Descartes's Use of the Body" -- Friday, Oct. 13 from 2:00-4:00pm 5. Lenore langsdorf, "Rationality's Body: Media as the Embodiment of Rationality" -- Friday, Oct. 13 from 4:15-5:30pm 6. Friday Plenary Session: Susan Bordo, "Can a Woman Harass a Man?" Toward a Cultural Understading of Bodies and Power," and Iris Marion Young, "Asymmetrical Reciprocity and Sexual Politics" -- Friday, Oct. 13 at 6:00pm 7. Marylou Sena, "Tragedy and Feminine Pathology: A Phenomenological Retrieval of the Mimetic Dimension of the Feminine Psyche in the Heroines of Aeschylus' Agamemnon, Orestes, and Eumenides" -- Saturday, Oct. 14 from 9:00-12:00noon 8. Robin May Schott, "Feminism and Kant: Antipathy or Sympathy?" -- Saturday, Oct. 13 from 2:30-5:30pm 9. Jane Kneller, "The Aesthetic Dimension of Kantian Autonomy" -- Saturday, Oct. 13 from 2:30-5:30pm 10. Holyn Wilson, "Rethinking Kant from the Perspective of Ecofeminism" -- Saturday, Oct. 13 from 2:30-5:30pm 11. Ellen T. Armour, "Theorizing Desire Between Women" -- Saturday, Oct. 13 from 2:30-5:30pm Here is a list of the papers dealing specifically with French Feminism: 1. Special session on Tina Chanter's book, "Ethics of Eros" -- Thursday, Oct. 12 from 1:00-3:00pm (room will be announced at registration) 2. Kelly Oliver, "Defending Irigaray against Kofman's Freud: Freud's Fear of Birth" -- Saturday, Oct. 14 from 9:00-11:45 am 3. Ellen T. Armour, "Theorizing Desire Between Women" -- Saturday, Oct. 14 from 12:00-2:00pm 4. Anne Caldwell, "Fairy Tales for Politics: Un-working Derrida Through Irigaray" -- Saturday, Oct. 14 from 12:00-2:00pm 5. Michael J. Monti, "Nature and Poiesis in an Ecology of Sexual Difference: Irigaray and Ecofeminism" -- Saturday, Oct. 14 from 12:00-2:00pm 6. Morny M. Joy, "Passionate Involvements: Luce Irigaray and an Erotics of Ethics and Hermeneutics" -- Saturday, Oct. 14 from 12:00-2:00pm The Beauvoir Circle will also be holding a special session on Thursday, Oct. 12 from 9:00-12:00noon. The following papers will be presented: 1. Eleanore Holveck, "Beauvoir and Sartre: Novel Approaches to Ethics" 2. William McBride, "Philosophy, Literature, and Everyday Life in Beauvoir and Sartre" 3. Kristana Arp, "Willing Others Free: The Evolution of an Idea" 4. Thomas Anderson, "Beauvoir's Influence on Sartre's First Ethics -- and Vice Versa" The Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy will also hold a special session to discuss pragmatism, feminism, and continental thought on Thursday, Oct. 12 from 9:00-12:00noon. The following papers will be presented: 1. Lenore Langsdorf, "Common Sense and Possessed Sense: Dewey and Husserl on Knowing fromthe Inside" 2. Charlene Haddock Seigfried, "Re-weaving the Social Fabric" There will be many other papers on all subjects in Continental Philosophy presented at this conference. This is the annual conference of SPEP and is the largest conference on Continental Philosophy held in America. If you are interested in attending, or want to know how to join SPEP, please read the following. Registration for the 1995 SPEP conference will be inthe DePaul Center, beginning at 9:00am and ending at 5:00pm each day of the conference. Full conference schedules, including room assignments, will be available at registration. Abstracts of all papers will also be provides. The official conference hotel is The Blackstone Hotel located on Michigan Avenue at Balboa Street, Chicago IL 60605. The conference rate is $99/single, $109/double, and other rates. Reservations must be made no later than September 14 to obtain these special rates. When making reservations, please mention that you are part of the SPEP conference. The telephone number is 1-800-622-6330. The hotel is located within a short walking distance of the DePaul Center, where the conference will take place. If you need any other information about the conference or about SPEP, please email Kristin Switala at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
