> I also think, although I am not sure, that these books document efforts to
> 're-imbed globalized market forces within society' - please check them out.
Yes, but was it in a Pollyannic second phase sort of way? =)
jude
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jun 19 12:37:06 1997
Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:36:30 +0300 (EET DST)
(rfc931-sender: p4.j1.actcom.co.il [192.115.22.4])
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:27:47 +0300
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Fox)
Subject: Re: nature
Dear jude,
>Ok, in brief, I was stunned by what seemed to be a blithe summation
>of the animals rights movement and outright dismissal of
>feminists for animal rights because of the following:
>
>One, the animal rights movement is huge and incredibly diverse--
>spanning the traditional old school animal welfare kind of people all
>the way across to animal liberationists and anti-speciesists. To say
>that the AR movement simply advocates for rights, however those are
>defined, and does not include a rethinking of how we relate to other
>animals is simply untrue of most of the movement. Or better to say
>is simply untrue of all the groups I have known and worked with for
>the past 25 years. It is true, however, for some parts of the animal
>welfare wing.
>
Thank you for enlightening me (no I'm not being sarcastic). I was basing my
information on an article called "The Limits of Partiality: Ecofeminism,
animal rights, and environmental concern" by David Kenneth Johnson and
Kathleen R. Johnson which appeared in Ecological Feminism. I have had no
formal involvement in the animal rights movement and I accept the criticism
(once again no sarcasm).
>
>All of the foregoing is readily available to anyone who is interested
>in the subject. One of the reasons I did not wish to keep this
>going on the email list was because it covers the most rudimentary
>and primitive beginnings of ecofeminism and presumably anyone on the
>list would have already been motivated to research/think about all this
already
>and thus would perish of boredom to read it again from me.
Surely this is the place to discuss such things. Obviously there are some of
us who are newcomers to the list and wanted to discuss the basics.
>
>And I am leery of writing responses to lists when I feel certain
>people are simply posting to the list a plea for someone else to do
>their research.
Don't worry, jude, I've finished the paper and handed it in already.
These people obviously do not value the subject
>enough to devote any time to it, so it seems ludicrous for me, a
>reluctant and lousy writer at best, to attempt a response.
so why did you?
Thanks jude and others,
Ben.
