On Tue, 25 Oct 1994, Kate Sandilands wrote:
> I think that a lot of the talk going on on this
> board re: "diversity" has the unintentional effect of glossing
> over genuine debate on the issues that "divide" us, and
> throwing us into a realm where all we are concerned about is
> whether or not we feel comfortable with any given discussion.
>
Please ... what issues are being glossed over? I've had a feeling that
there's a nugget of crucial misunderstanding inherent in much of the
discussion, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it.
> In any case, I propose that some concrete "issues" be raised
> as a way for us (meaning the participants in this conversation,
> plue others who may want to join) to transcend this whole
> debate about what is really NOT the problem we face.
Lead on, lady ... I'm following you so far.
>
> So I would like to ask you (all) a question: how can we begin
> to formulate an ecofeminist agenda that deals explicitly with
> questions of heterosexism?
I don't think you can address sexuality in only one mode when talking
about ecofeminism ... neither hetero nor homo has all the answers, much
less the questions we need to ask in order to further the kind of global
awareness and cooperation needed to address our environmental crises.
> I see, in existing ecofeminist > literature, little discussion of
sexuality, let alone queer > sexuality. I am not interested in creating a
new set of sexual > "norms" to which all people must aspire; I AM
interested > in interrogating current forms of sexuality in terms of their
> perpetuation of particular modes of power.
This is VERY juicy subject matter and I, for one, would be delighted to
explore it. Sworkin and MacKinnon? More info, please, about how I may
find their words.
> are there specific > things that we
could add to contemporary struggles around > sexuality (which I think is
far more complicated than simply > a question of orientation)? Isn't there
an erotic dimension > to social life that we want to preserve/foster?
Are you using erotic rather than sexual deliberately. Because I agree
that the EROTIC is possibly the most powerful connection that can be
formed ... with the natural world, with other people, with art, or the
doing of art. The erotic stimulates all parts of our brains, and engages
us wholly. Talk about a great medium for generating power to change!
> I'll shut up, now,
Please don't!! I want to hear more!
Faith Barr-Glover
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 27 15:50:32 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 27 15:50:32 1994
Received: from case.cyberspace.com (cyberspace.com [199.2.48.12]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id PAA06544 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 27 Oct
1994 15:50:23 -0600
Received: by case.cyberspace.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA04488; Thu, 27 Oct 94 14:56:04 PDT
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 14:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Faith BarrGlover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ALL posters to this list
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Damn!!! I LOVE this group, and I mean all of you ... anne, Brian, Jayne,
Paige, Dorceta, Sara(h?), all of you. Reading my email is the biggest
gas I've had in years! Keep it rollin!
Faith
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 27 16:22:31 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 27 16:22:30 1994
Received: from mason1.gmu.edu (mason1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.11]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id QAA07371 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 27 Oct
1994 16:22:24 -0600
Received: by mason1.gmu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3/GMUv3)
id AA12748; Thu, 27 Oct 1994 11:56:37 -0400
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 11:56:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: breast cancer
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 27 Oct 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't know how many of you heard it, but yesterday the news had
> some report linking, although tenuously, having had an abortion with
> increased rates of breast cancer. I wonder if anybody knows about
> this report and whether they are saying that having an abortion can
> increase your risk of breast cancer or whether certain socio-
> economic variables (e.g., diet, access to health care, education,
> etc.) that may (or may not--I don't know) lead to higher rates of
> abortion may also lead to an increased incidence of breast cancer.
> Any thoughts on this? I know it may not seem on the surface an
> ecofeminist issue but I think at its core it is.
I can only tell you what the Washington Post reported today. The study
was done in Washington state, it involved 1,806 white women. There was
no report of controls for socio-economic factors.
The researchers and scientific commentators are being very careful about
hedging all conclusions. They are not claiming a causal relationship and
argue that much more research is needed.
Of course, the results were immediately "politicized" and both sides of
the abortion debate commented immediately. Quite predictable comments --
everyone agreed more research is needed the anti-abortion group
emphasized the risk to women a great deal even thought the scientists
argued it was not really a significant increase in risk (whatever
significant means in this case).
There was a relationship between the lateness of the abortion and the
increased risk. Those who had abortions after the 8th week of pregnancy
had the highest increased risk. They are looking for a link between the
hormonal changes during pregnancy which cause breast cells to start
multiplying in preparation for milk production -- the cells differentiate
for functions related to lactation in the 2nd and 3rd trimester, but they
are produced even in the 1st trimester. The hypothesis is that the extra
undifferentiated cells may be the site where cancer develops.
The puzzler is that women who had miscarriages and presumably had the
same cells, etc. did not show the same increased risk.
That's all I have heard.
As for whether this is an ecofem issue -- I think anything related to
women's health is a feminist issue and since I think breast cancer is
probably linked to environmental factors I would also classify it as an
enviro issue. I find it really ironic that the right will grab this info
and start telling women that banning abortions is for their own good and
well-being, but the very same people will turn their back on toxic waste
dumping, pollution, etc because they want to have a "strong" economy and
they think the way to do that is to let transnational corporations walk
all over people -- especially the poor (who are often women and children)
and people of color. As long as it is not in their backyard, they will
not take the health hazards of environmental degradation seriously.
Jayne
