I don't know if Jayne has been unusually reflective in her last
few posts or if I have been in reading them, but this talk of fear really
hit a cord with me. I think it deserves a lot more attention.
One place people are likely to turn when they are frightened is
to spirituality. Right now it seems, the Christian right is capitolizing
on this. We do not need to give them a monopoly! The only advantages the
Christian right have over other groups in taking advantage of this fear
is precident and name recognition.
I feel (and would welcome others input) that ecofeminism is
inherently spiritual. This being the case, a growing sence of fear in the
Nation is something we should well be able to use to our advantage (and,
I truely beleive, to the advantage of those we reach out to).
I agree with Jayne that this is not the time to get scared
ourselves, or to run for cover or run away. Let us start by affirming
that Christian Fundamentalism is not the only spiritual path available.
Let us be supporting of those who are moving to the right out of fear. We
will not make friends by fighting with them. For example, in regards to
Jaynes comment about white middle class feeling threatened, we need to
help remind them that there is such a thing as power WITH. That the
choice is not between "over" or "under." Attacking them at this time will
most likely lead to a move farther to the right. This does not mean we
should condone their reactions, but we need to be supportive and
understanding of peoples fear.
Thank you for bringing up this issue Jayne.
Respectfully,
Jon.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 9 20:23:47 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: stupidity...
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ecofem)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 22:26:08 -0500 (EST)
Mine, that is.
I seem to have thought that I was posting to ecofem, when indeed I was
only replying to the poster, not the whole list. So I haven't been all
that lacking in discussion... :-) They just weren't communal. I
wondered about that, but heck, got a busy schedule you know. I can't be
expected to think all the time. After all, I am only a man...
So, have you human beings gotten around to reading the Albert article in
Z magazine on overpoppulation? If so, comments, and if not, I will be
posting soem odds and ends soon taht I think are relevant for ecofem
issues. I might even figure out how to type.
Tchau,
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 9 20:29:49 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: Post election distress
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 22:32:46 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Jayne S
Docherty" at Nov 9, 94 08:18:57 pm
Interesting.
Jayne S Docherty proclaims:
|
|
|Amen to Faith. A less long-winded expression of my own sentiment that
|everyone is afraid and uncomfortable with the changes in the country and
|the world... As long as the demagogue's don't take control, we will
|probably make it through this disturbance -- AND -- if we nudge the
|system properly maybe the emergent order will be a big improvement over
|the old order -- environmentally, socially, politically, etc.
|
Why is it that we fear the changes? Because it disturbs our safe little
worlds? Those are illusions. I welcome the changes, because they are
inevitable. I can only hope that in a world beset by changes that
humanity will get the hang of changing, and not be so rectionary against
it, and then realize that with a few minor changes in attitude we can
make this place a better one. Besides, if you get a kick out of being
poor, then you realize that most of the changes won't make you any
poorer... I better think about that one some more. But I do think that
the "haves" worry more about these changes than the "have-nots."
--
Jim (a have-not-much),
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 9 20:43:32 MST 1994
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 22:45:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: analysis
To: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Ani Mareck wrote:
> > What possible purpose would you have in suggesting this book? You have
> >made it clear that you think it is the most riduculous piece of written trash
> >you have ever seen?
> My post suggested not so much the book itself as the fact that it was being
> taken so seriously in the US.......
> I brought up "The Bell Curve", because the fact of its popularity seems
> to be a relevant and telling symptom of some trends in the national psyche...
> trends that those wanting to really change our nation need to understand.
The spirited exchange which snapped us all out of our collected
torpor has sufficiently piqued my interest as to keep my head tuned to
my email all day. In the process, I have been trying to answer Ani's
legitimate question (tone problems aside) about the relevance of race and
issues to ecofeminism. In my mind, the fundamental value which
makes one sensitive to environmental destruction and also upset about
"The Bell Curve" is *a deep appreciation for diversity.* To me,
protecting the biological heritage of the Earth is important not because
of utilitarian benefits (e. g. rainforest medicines) but because of a
appreciation of the diversity of life. Similarly with
respect for African-Americans, whose are misrepresented by the argument
presented in "The Bell Curve" (warning: I haven't read the book...and
I don't plan on doing so).
All of which is to say that to me Ecofeminism offers a framework
for dealing with complex Human/Environment issues for the very reason
that it takes both intra-human (social) and Human/environment issues into
account in its value system.
- Joel
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 9 21:17:13 MST 1994
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 15:19:41 +1100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lorraine Elliott)
Subject: The world outside the US!
Hi! I wonder if I could very gently - without meaning to ruffle feathers -
remind some posters to this list that not everyone on the list is located
in the US. There's seems to have been a bit of a tendency lately to assume
that the audience to which one is speaking is purely a US audience
(references to articles in magazines, to books, even to the US election
itself), or at least to forget that the rest of the world might not be
intimately familiar with and involved with some of these things (I refer
not necessarily to the elections, but perhaps to some of the
country-specific journals, even assumptions about the nature of the
academic year etc). Perhaps it IS safe to assume that 'we' (beyond the US)
know more about the US than the US does about 'us' but I think that
(eco)feminism as it informs more general political (and other) practice is
based on a recognition of diversity and non-hierarchy.
Cheers. Lorraine
__________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
