I agree there is much still to be done to educate women on the
availability of contraception and to change the attitudes of society of
women.
>
>
>>However, the author seems to fall into the trap of blaming environmental
>>destruction on people in the Third World for having large families. He
>>seems to be
>>advocating having political leaders and scientists dictate the number of
>>children
>>each person can have. I agree that we must limit the number of people on
>>Earth.
>>
>>The reasons for women to have a lot of children are complex, but some of
>>them
>>include, men proving their masculinity by fathering many children, men
>>dominating
>>and dictating to women, lack of educational and economic opportunity for
>>women,
>>high mortality rates leading to people have more children so that some
>>will survive
>>and gross inequities of wealth and power in society.
>>
>
>And not least of all women's control over there own bodies and
>reproduction. It is always interesting to note that participants in rights
>to choice rallies have been all women (from my observation, if you have
>seen a man in one, then that's great, but i haven't). And those in right
>to life (against women's self determination) have been at least 50% male.
>Often the spokespersons of these groups are male too.
>
>That aside, women need access to adequate contraception and free and safe
>abortion for population control to be possible. Prior to the 1960's women
>did not have adequate contraception and this contributed largely to women's
>oppression by men. Feminism was able to take off after this breakthrough,
>even though contraception was only available to married women at first (In
>Australia, I do not know about other countries).
>
>While rape remains unpunished, largely, oh sure, there are penalties on the
>books but you try and make them stick! Men know they can get away with
>rape, their mates may frown, but no more than they would if there mate
>farted! Judges have shown what there thoughts on the matter are. Some
>quotes: Re: A woman whose profession was prostitution who was raped:
>"well, she's a bit like a car with the doors open and the key in the
>ignition"
>Another about reasonable force to get your wife to have sex with you "well
>a bit of physical violence is ok, to encourage her". The attitudes of
>judges are well know. Rape is not punished in this society. Abortion is
>illegal in most states of this country.
>
>Once again all issues are one. Women's oppression leads to population
>explosion, and destruction of the earth. We should all, even the boys,
>fight for the right of women to safe abortion. We should all fight against
>the oppression of any people, including women.
>
>I bet the American govt who are so keen to fight wars against countries
>where they can make economic gain are uninterested in the plight of
>Afghanistan women. Why don't women have human rights? Surely what the
>Afghanistan men are doing is contravening the human rights of women. What
>are the UN doing? What can we do?
In using "American" are you referring to the United States or all of the
American countries? In the United States, there is a fight consistently
occurring in regards to the abortion issue. It has more to do with a
women's right to have the choice of an abortion and that of saving a
human life (if you believe a fetus is a human). Population control is
not an issue that is much discussed.
Also, I am quite confident that "American" is not the only country
fighting wars.
>
>Trying not to despair when the work we have to do seems so huge. Sometimes
>we have to just do whatever is in our power to do. In my opinion this
>includes pulling up people on this list who use language which is
>derogatory to a group such as women (ie sexist language). Now Greg posted
>me privately about his views on this. I disagree that he should post me
>privately about this as I see it as a feminist issue. He said that he
>thought my concerns about sexist language were trivial but that he would
>condescend to attempt to use non-sexist language just for me. I don't want
>people to do this just for me. It is for the benefit of all that we become
>sensitive to the needs of oppressed groups and use language which is
>appropriate. For example indigenous Australians do not, on the whole like
>to be called Blacks. So don't! What is the big hassle in calling them
>Aboriginals? What is the big hassle in learning what is a polite form of
>address, what language is oppressive and what is inclusive? We should not
>disregard the small inequaties just because we feel impotent against the
>larger ones, or we should do nothing.
>Let's not have a competition about who is more oppressed. Let us instead
>tackle that which is within our grasp. A little win can go a long way.
>
>
>Regards Kylie
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>"All it takes for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing."
>
>
To change the attitudes, you have to change cultures, societies that
have existed for over hundreds, sometimes thousand , of years. Some
women may not want to change. Change is difficult and scary. We really
need to look at each individual culture and determine if it is what they
want.
I would also like to point out that to one person something acceptable
may be offensive to another.
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Nov 18 15:47:58 1996
19 Nov 1996 11:45 +1300 (NZD)
19 Nov 1996 11:47:16 +1300
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:47:02 +1300
From: "STEFANIE S. RIXECKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Wetlands Action Needed/fwd
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Lincoln University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY WETLANDS ACTION ALERT
November 14, 1996
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 26: PERMIT TO FILL
ACTION NEEDED TO SAVE WETLANDS, WATER QUALITY AND WILDLIFE!!! URGE
ADMINISTRATION TO WITHDRAW DESTRUCTIVE NATIONWIDE PERMIT 26!
There is an important opportunity for environmental activists to influence a
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decision about whether or not to reissue "general"
permits that allow the destructive dredging and filling of our nation's
wetlands, rivers, streams and lakes.
Under the Clean Water Act, general permits are supposed to authorize specific
categories of activities which have no more than minimal environmental effects,
either individually or cumulatively. Unfortunately, the Corps has, in a
misguided effort to expedite the permitting process, issued several general
permits which result in the destruction of tens of thousands of acres of
wetlands each year.
Particularly egregious is nationwide permit (nwp) 26 which allows the filling of
up to 10 acres of isolated waters and headwater wetlands, an area larger than
seven football fields! It is estimated that this permit, which accounts for
over 30% of all wetland fills allowed by the nationwide permit program, could
allow approximately 130,000 fills over the next five years.
The Corps has until November 21 to decide whether or not to reissue nwp 26. Key
Administration officials will reportedly be meeting next week to discuss this
issue.
SOME FACTS ABOUT NWP #26:
1. VIOLATES THE CLEAN WATER ACT
By failing to prove that wetlands fills have no more than minimal adverse
environmental impacts, Corps nwp 26 violates the Clean Water Act. Nwp 26 also
violates the law because it authorizes all kinds of activities in isolated
waters and headwater wetlands, not specific categories of activities as required
by the Clean Water Act.
2. VIOLATES THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
The Corps has so far rejected requests by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and many state resource agencies and
conservation groups to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the
reissuance of nwp 26, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
3. VIOLATES THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The Corps has so far failed to consult, as required by the Endangered Species
Act, with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service about the effects that nwp 26 would have on threatened and endangered
species. Approximately 50% of all listed animals and over 33% of listed plant
species depend on wetlands.
4. LACKS CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC BASIS
The National Academy of Sciences has strongly criticized nwp 26 for its lack of
scientific basis and for the potential adverse impacts of cumulative wetland
losses as a result of nwp 26.
5. FEDERAL AGENCIES OPPOSED TO IT
The EPA, the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration are all firmly opposed to nwp 26 in its present form.
6. STATES OPPOSED TO IT
Many states have opposed nwp 26 because of the amount of wetland destruction it
authorizes and have denied "certification" for nwp 26 under section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. States which have denied certification for nwp 26 include:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota and Vermont. States which partially
denied/conditioned nwp 26 include: Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
7. EFFECTS LARGELY UNDOCUMENTED
Due to understating and oversight, the Corps has collected very little
information about the impacts of nwp 26 on the environment. As a result, the
effects of nwp 26 are not fully documented nor fully understood. Although there
were over 26,000 fill projects authorized in 1995 under this permit, we can only
guess at the actual number of projects which have been approved; fills
destroying less than one acre of wetlands can proceed under nwp 26 without
advance notice to anyone.
* * * *
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Audubon urges you: 1) contact the persons listed below and
state your opposition to the reissuance of nwp 26 in its present form or any
similar form 2) call for a full environmental impact statement on the reissuance
of nwp 26 as required by the National Environmental Policy Act and 3) demand
that the Corps fully consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service about this permit's effects on threatened and
endangered species as required by the Endangered Species Act.
Please e-mail, phone and fax your comments to:
Vice President Al Gore
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500
(202) 456-1111 (White House Comment Line)
(202) 228-2424 (fax)
(202) 456-7044 (fax)
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kathleen McGinty
Chair, Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, NW
Washington, DC 20503
(202) 395-5750 (phone)
(202) 395-3744 (fax)
Thank you for your timely efforts!
For more information about the effects of NWP 26 or Audubon's Wetlands Campaign,
please contact:
Mac Blewer
National Audubon Society
1901 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 861-2242
(202) 861-4290 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
