I've been pretty silent lately. As I scroll hurriedly through my digests, I
think of things I could contribute if I had more time this semester; I often
don't take the time b/c I get to Kylie's post and find that she's spoken the
same thoughts. Sure, sometimes I wince at her, uh, enthusiasm; maybe I wouldn't
have phrased it the same way. Yes, rhetoric matters; but I think we get
too wrapped up in the ideal that this be a safe place for exchanges of ideas
among equals. Well, it's not. One person's politeness is another person's
lie. One person's sarcasm is another's voice. Thicken your skins, assume good
intentions, and listen.
Sara
(sorry I don't have a catchy quote under my name; I don't know how!)
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 26 10:10:21 1996
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 1956 22:24:39 +0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Liam Campion)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Americans and God
References: <v01510101ae91cc0f8a8a@[203.59.25.189]>
Kylie Matthews quotes:
>
> >Greg,
... a few things to learn yet about media, polls, and american
> >culture. i am unaware of any entrance or exit poll which inquires of
> >college populations about a belief in Adam and Eve.
I am sure if such
> >were taken the results would be quite different than a random survey.
>
kylie, i live in a university town. most of the people i interact with
are involved in higher education in one way or another. i am also a
parent of students and my door is open. occaisionally i have first hand
experience of news and the way the same stories are covered by the
media. i am a part of ongoing cultural conversation here. from my point
of view, your statement:
> If a random survey is taken properly it should be able to generalise to the
> entire population. These things can be done scientifically, and are
> extremely accurate.
reflects a scientific bias that is not unlike a literal interpretation
of the bible. a random survey generalized is like a map of the earth
without regional ecological differences. even the question about belief
is a leading one. how the belief works and why it is there is more
interesting: many people in this country participate in organized
religion, even more are exposed to organized science a in the context
of economy and government. are these generalizations of the specific
oppressive to individuals? what is not measured...? which voices are
not included? the donahue show is as subject to monied bias as
political elections ... who owns his network? (and why are elections so
expensive to candidates???) and it disperses stories which become
generalized and sometimes develop into misinformed public policy. such
sensational information about the public assistance network has recently
contributed to a revision that may cause considerable hardship to
mothers of young children (including those attempting to escape abusive
relationships.) (abuse in relationship may amplify as cultural norms
change gender roles, and expectations, along with economic rules) the
projected new hardship affects dependents: children, the disabled, the
elderly and infirm.
here is a story about how this begins... my mother inlaw, who may or may
not believe in adam and eve literally, is parent to several children
who have had serious problems with substance abuse. you may have
encountered families with similar problems, extending through
generations, in your work. she is not speaking to the daughter with the
most serious problem, now in "recovery" for the umpteenth time or to the
surviving daughter of this child (a sister died of heroin several years
ago.)
as an outsider blended into this family i do not need similar defenses.
my rage at my neice's death was for the irresponsible people who profit
from the sale of drugs outside of even civil law for wrongful death
damages. i was unscathed by any possible implication of my value as
mother. my inlaws were unable to bring themselves to attend the
funeral. recently as i came across the story of the cia's connections
bringing drugs into the inner city of LA (which is not yet thoroughly
discussed by the major media here) i dodged my mother inlaws opinions
about my own mother's health by asking her what she thought about the
story. oh, she said... these things always come up before elections...
what troubles me even more... i know a young woman who is on social
security because of her drug problem who recieves more than my husband
and i do each month and is still buying drugs... (there are popular
folk stories that circulate about people on public assistance... like
the person who used food stamps to buy vodka... somehow the story about
the mother deserted by her husband who has to turn in her vehicle which
is being paid for on time in order to obtain food assistance for five
children doesn't. she had to quit her job for food for her children.)
but for some reason, maybe it was my in law's tone of voice, i actually
believed she was getting out and meeting new people, living the life,
and troubled by what she saw... where ever did you meet her i asked?? !
oh, i never did she answered quickly regaining her sense of
respectability... my neighbor told me about her.
each person who believes in adam and eve may do so for a different
reason. each time i have been polled, which has been infrequent the
questions have been too narrow to include my sense of reality... like
being asked which popular slogan i prefer instead of what i personally
value. now i perceive your attitude as repudiation of a prior belief
using cognitive structures that have been trained to accomodate the
shape of dogma, now science instead of the bible. the institutions and
societies that have developed science have had agendas, one is economic
development or "progress". most of the science departments in my
university are supported by grants from the corporate community. even
the science of medicine is amazingly instep with the chemical
pharmaceutical industry... fully half of my sister's medical school
study was related to the chemistry of available medicines and theories
of the body developed in this economic context. very little of the body
as a system, lithium for toxity of urea in the brain, blocking receptors
but nothing about urea becoming a systemic toxin, why? what is
happening elsewhere?
> I have also heard about this belief in Adam and Eve that seems profligate
> in USA. The other most telling point is that Prentice Hall (Uni
> publishers, in USA) are intimidated enough by this belief that they pay
> only lip service to evolution. Here in Aust we rely heavily on Prentice
> Hall, but not for biological sciences as they have religious considerations
> in them which should not be there. They are not informative about
> evolution. For example, my human bio text was 50% evolution as was the
> course. The PH edition has about 5 pages. I must admit my source here is
> the Donahue prog, but i suspect that they couldn't be too inaccurate. they
> showed the audience the pages in teh book which related to evolution.
>
personally i find the neodarwinists rather frightening. the essence of
evolution is interrelationship from my point of view... i believe that
dna is a form of intelligent dialectic with environment and that this
dialog is slightly more open in ontogenesis than current textbooks make
available for discussion. fixed inheritances and survival of the
fittest seem awfully patriarchal, awfully dominance oriented, something
like the racist theory of "divine right" that led to horrors for
indigenous people on this continent. my personal experience, working
with children disabled by exposure to toxins in utero reminds me that
the script of dna is facilitated in an environmental context. how sad
when economic and developmental need impinge on intelligent beauty,
diversity and engagement of dna within environments. such oversights
and generalizations of what is good miss actual events and sometimes
lead to disasters like chernobyl... i work with a child born without
eyes from Bulgaria... i am not sure but she is about the right age... we
are experiencing tragedies with the children of military personnel
exposed to chemicals... evolution is so much more than eugenics or
planned breeding
didn't you notice when greg signed sir how close he came to "sire" ?
mary beth
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 26 11:52:31 1996
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:57:46 -0700
From: Katy Barber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Thesis Work
References: <v01510100ae91ca94319e@[203.59.25.189]>
Hi,
Some time ago a woman posted a message regarding either her masters or
dissertation thesis which was going to link notions of (Donna
Haraway's?) cyborg with breast implants. Is this person still a member
of this listserv?
If you are, would you please contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Katy
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 27 04:40:13 1996
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 07:38:12 +0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Liam Campion)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: rhetoric
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.. One person's politeness is another person's
> lie. One person's sarcasm is another's voice. Thicken your skins, assume good
> intentions, and listen.
>
> Sara
well said.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 27 06:03:05 1996
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 09:01:03 +0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Liam Campion)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sir G,G.
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Professor Sir Gregory Burdett Garrard BA MA PhD KCMG
here is a little counterpoint
re (your) interesting post on male/female differences.
when you say women are generally
> intellectually and emotionally superior....
or :My stepdaughter at age 11
> compares favourably with me at age 13/14.
and: There are clear differences
> between my male and female students which favour the latter.
I cannot help but wonder why use limited scales to measure human
abilities, and how these scales are biased. Could accomodation be
implicit in both your measurements of success, in the workplace and
academic arena.
Later your insight into social ecology is moving:
Here in South
> Wales several hundred thousand underskilled, ill-educated and usually
> unemployed men watch their former glory
(i am not sure the men of previous generations in south wales considered
employment glorious as much as oppressive if not as oppressive as
unemployment. can i assume by your signature sir that you are not
nationalist inclined? an inquiry with bioregionalist bias)
slip away with every passing
> year, with every job taken by harder-working, more flexible women. A
> minority of men cling on to power in the State and business, unfairly
> shutting out women, while at the other end of society millions of men
> are left without a role in the family,
(here I am given pause, roles change, there is a book here in the states
The End of Manhood which addresses this and also a burgeoning ventwork
(?!typo) of men's groups... creating new models for participation
the state (other than the
> dole) and the market.
this seems to be happening here too, more women are filling the roles of
middle management and quite well. Top brass is still an exclusive club
near totally male.)
Men are being superceded in some respects, and
> the process is likely to be as bloody,
bloody unfair yes, but I don't see witch hunts
as unfair and as undeserved as
> the exclusion and oppression of women.
these issues sound quite similar to the ones that led to the million man
march in Washington DC last year. Perhaps working class men in Wales
will be able to learn from black men in the States.
A friend of mine is working as a counselor with troubled young males
(often referred by the school system.) He told me a few weeks ago that
after a few individual sessions he was incorporating them into a group
with older men. He said he was surprised at how much harder the mature
men worked on their own issues to help (and create models of behavior
for?) their younger peers. This is working well for him.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 27 14:41:05 1996
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 16:42:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "Randi Zimmerman (CAS)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ecofem listserv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Womyn philosophers website
I inacurately listed the womyn in philosophy web site. It is:
http://billyboy.ius.indiana.edu/WomeninPhilosophy/WomeninPhilo.html
Apologies to anyone having diffuculties due to my error.
Randi Zimmerman
