On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, j griffith wrote:
> first,
>
> i'd like to make the dileneation that my response to this is on the level
> of development not on the level of its consistency with ecofeminism. i
> think that every time an 'ecofeminist' rejects 'wimmin in development,'
> they fragment the movement which in turn stops any kind of feminist
> transition. i realize that feminists have to be critical, but to 'reject'
> something is a different story.
Does it? I always thought that "rejection" furthered the movement, by
confronting it squarely with the issues being ignored, and bringing it,
for lack of a better word, to "consciousness." I'm convinced that without
this kind of confrontation or "rejection" the feminist movement would have
been slow to recognize the struggle of minorities (racial, sexual, etc.),
working/underclass women, "third world" women, etc., etc.
>
> next,
>
> At 11:18 AM 8/16/96 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I don't reject it. Guess it depends on how you define it, but without
> >development humans wouldn't have left the trees or caves. Development is a
> >good thing if done with a bit of foresight and intelligence. It sounds
> >kind of arrogant for us to sit here enjoying development and suggesting
> >that other peoples shouldn't? To me development would include medical
> >advances and the like. Who are we to say that people in the third world
> >shouldn't enjoy good health and longer lives too?
>
> i suppose i would call this a naive attempt to 'define' development, but it
> establishes two things:
>
> 1) the form of 'development' that the womyn in development position critiques.
>
> 2) the form of thought that ecofeminism critiques.
>
> development practices of the US government and agencies like the world bank
> and imf are probably in my mind the most evil policies that have ever been
> established on a global level. and i mean that sincerely. i've spent a
> substantial part of my life in collegiate debate, analyzing the policies of
> nations on a domestic and international level and how they react with or
> effect the globe ecologically, militarily and qualitatively. they exclude
> women, force nations into policies that skyrocet deforestation rates and
> ecological harms, kill up to fortythousand kids every day (if you want, i
> can produce source citations for this, its true, dont deny it) and force
> people into further poverty.
>
> i've spent a year doing five years of research on this area, and although
> we might want to help the 'other' and integrate what our develpment banks
> call the 'peripheries' with our 'developed centers,' we end up excluding
> them and forcing them into the poverty that we've created for them. its
> hard to believe that the people we vote for think these policies are
> brilliant attempts to help the world, but its true.
>
> as well as these policies being oppressive to the popel they try to help,
> the mindset associate with progress is the same one that ecofeminism and
> wid critiques on internal and external levels. ecofeminism is generally
> (in the majority of the literature base) critical of the assumption that we
> ought to move from our natural habitat (maybe not live in caves, etc, as
> you note). Every minute we play into the framework of development as we
> know it, and neoliberal economic growth, we take a step closer to killing
> ourselves. its the mindset of growth that promotes wars and risk nuclear
> annhilation (Trainer 82), inherently places us above the earth, using it as
> a means to an ends, etc.
After having recognized all this, I don't comprehend how one could *not*
reject the notion of "development!?"
> something to contemplate,
Something to contemplate, indeed.
-Susan
