thank you for the response! i am most interested in the politica/social
aspesct of ecofeminism. as far the technical stuff goes i am a
sophmore. the paper has to be seven pages long and is due in the
beginning of january. there is no criteria as far as the amount of
sources are concerned. if you have any suggestions i would be very
grateful to hear them. thanks again!
gina puc
>Received: from host (localhost [127.0.0.1])
>Received: from sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu (sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu
[130.74.1.71])
-0700 (MST)
(950413.SGI.8.6.12/951211.SGI)
-0600
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 13:10:47 -0600
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Precedence: bulk
>From: "Maggie Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: ecofeminim
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Priority: 3
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
>
>> i am doing a term paper on ecofeminism for my english class. i was
>> wondering if anyone out there has any ideas for a thesis because i am
>> having trouble narrowing the topic down. i greatly appreciate any
>> suggestions! thanks!
>> gina puc
>
>Gina --
>
>I have been doing some graduate work with ecofeminism myself, and I
know
>what you mean, the subject of "ecofeminism" is very difficult to narrow
>down to a single topic! I'd love to help, though, and I'm sure lots of
>other people on this list will have interesting ideas for you as well.
>
>Could you tell us a little bit more about what *you* are thinking about
the
>topic? For instance, are you particularly interested in any specific
>aspects of "ecofeminism" -- political action/social change? literature?
>literary criticism? spirituality? the origins of the movement? There
is so
>much literature out there (fiction and non-fiction), and everyone on
this
>list probably has different ideas for you, depending on what aspects
you'd
>like to pursue. (I'm specifically interested in ecofeminist literary
>criticism and nature-based spirituality, for instance). Depending upon
>where you are in the research process, we could either suggest other
books
>to read, or we could talk about your ideas with you on this list.
>
>Also, regarding the "technical" stuff -- what year are you in? when is
the
>paper due? how long does it have to be? Is there a minimum/maximum
number
>of sources you can/have to use?
>
>Good luck!
>
>Maggie Gordon
>Department of English
>University of Mississippi
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 19 14:12:27 1997
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:12:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Carlos Alicea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: National Wildlife Federation's Population Fast ActionNetwork -Reply
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sue, A wonderful response. Very excited to share idas and arguments with
you.
A big hug from this Puerto Rican with admiration.
Carlos R. Alicea
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Susan Daniels wrote:
> For Emily, Carlos, and those interested in the population issue -
>
> I agree with Carlos. As Emily recognized, family planning is a
> complicated thing - and therefore not the sort of issue an ENVIRONMENTAL
> group such as the NWF should be getting involved in. Human population
> processes are, I feel, best understood by those with training precisely in
> that arena - sociologists - and not environmentalists or wildlife
> population biologists (such as the Ehrlichs, one of whom authored the
> Population Bomb; they have done tremendous harm by applying their admirable
> biological knowledge to human problems. The use of militaristic language
> is one example...)
>
> By identifying population growth as the problem, we lay blame precisely
> where it does not belong-- on the third world countries. It is a classic
> case of blaming the victim. In the U.S., people blame welfare mothers for
> taking their money-- but welfare mothers don't have any money. They have
> been scapegoated by the wealthy, who don't want people to realize who
> really has their money...
>
> Environmentalists blame third-world countries for the destruction of
> natural ecosystems and resources -- but the third world uses no resources--
> none to speak of, at any rate. The flow of wealth and resources is always
> from the south to the north. Even during the recent famines in Ethiopia,
> Somalia, the 1840's famine in Ireland-- there were net exports of food from
> the stricken countries to the rich nations. Bangladesh, one of the poorest
> countries on earth, exports more food than imported every year. This is,
> truly, an outrage. But yet, no one is outraged......how useful this
> blaming the victim can be.
>
> Susan George, How the Other Half Dies, is an old but excellent reference.
> Also check out the Rainforest Action Network...they'll tell you the cause
> of deforestation is not subsistence farming or slash and burn (blaming the
> victim) but systematic logging by multinationals, the products of which do
> not go to the farmers.
>
> At this moment, in preparation for the December talks, Clinton is even
> trying to persuade Americans that global warming is really a third world
> problem. Has anyone seen those television ads? Does anyone know who is
> sponsoring them?
>
> Population control measures can be extremely harsh, especially against
> women, and very rarely work-- because population growth is not the root
> problem, but is just a symptom. The real problem is the unequal
> distribution of wealth and resources-- both the disparity between rich and
> poor nations and the disparity between genders within nations. I believe
> that population growth rates will decline only when women gain higher
> status and sexual freedom (changes that can only come from within a
> society), AND when the U.S. and other westerns get their brutally
> exploitive corporate interests OUT.
>
> Somehow, mainstream environmentalists such as the NWF seem to be one of the
> most powerful groups actively backing this dangerous misconception
> (disinformation, really). Oh, of course I'll have to include those in my
> discipline--conservation biologists. I have a hard time understanding why
> these groups are so strongly invested in it, except of course that both
> fields are overwhelmingly white, middle to upper middle class...and, yes,
> male. I also believe that a few powerful people such as the Ehrlichs had,
> and continue to have, a great deal of influence...but why should these
> groups in particular struggle so much more than others to maintain this false
>
> Thanks for listening, all you good folks, and take it easy--
>
> Sue
>
>
> ***
> S. Daniels
> VPISU Dept of Biology
> Blacksburg, VA 24061
>
