Re H C Ellis - first, many would argue that what we persist in calling
'socialist' regimes were, economically, state capitalist; socially, elitist
rather than equitable and, politically, minimally participatory in any real
sense (and the last two could also apply to 'liberal' democracies).
Perhaps some ecofeminists will 'applaud' increased capitalism but I for one
do not - I am not convinced that the emphasis on surplus, profit ... is
necessarily compatible with environmental protection or with the
emancipation of women - and I use the phrase in its broadest sense beyond
the liberal agenda of civil and political rights. Talking about the 'best
record' for women's rights and environmental protection isn't necessarily
saying much.
Cairo tells us a number of things, including the fact that there are strong
anti-progressive forces which continue to want to deny women empowerment,
control over their own bodies, access to reproductive rights etc. Given
past records, I am not optimistic that 'states/governments' will give real
effect to the non-binding declarations that have arisen from Cairo.
'Economic development' is a contested concept and practice - it means
different things to different people - and there's much to suggest that the
practice of economic development as it has been understood in the past (and
the present?) has been disadvantageous to both women and to the
environment. I'm not holding my breath!
__________________________________________________________________________
| Dr Lorraine Elliott Phone: (61 6) 249 0589 |
| Department of Political Science Fax: (61 6) 249 5054 |
| Faculty of Arts |
| Australian National University |
| Canberra, ACT 0200 |
| AUSTRALIA |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
