On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, j griffith wrote:
> At 11:25 AM 8/15/96 -0700, S. Grubb wrote:
> >I thought ecofeminists rejected the notion of "development?!"
>
> hmmm, well, i suppose 'some' ecofeminists reject it on a critical level
> because it creates a dichotomy between developed and nondeveloped, or
> possibly because it assumes that those who are developed can manipulate
> others, but in the end if one feminist stopped acting because anothe
> feminist 'rejected' their idea, feminism would NOT exist. infighting among
> feminists is probably the biggest reason that they dont mobilize.
Well, actually, most ecofeminists reject the notion of "development,"
especially the ones located in the "third world." As for the issue of
"rejection," what do you pose as an answer? Compromise? Conformity? Many
people have written on the issue of "coalition politics" (not just
in the realm of feminism), and I'm not quite sure what position/stance
you're coming from, much less, what you pose as a solution.
> well you've seen the disease
> suffering and decay
> and you whisper to
> yourself blisfully 'its ok'
> and you still refuse the possibility
> that the dead are better off than we
>
> why do we pity the dead?
>
>
> bad religion.
> the gray race
BTW, what's the fascination with Bad Religion? They were much better
(musically as well as lyrically) before they sold out :). Check out
Propagandhi's latest record, "Less Talk, More Rock," if you want "real"
punk/hardcore with insightful, dissident, and revolutionary lyrics. :)
-Susan
