In a message dated 98-11-17 19:20:52 EST, you write:
<< I ask Ecolady, have you ever read any academic ecofem
literature? (Karen Warren, Vandana Shiva, Val Plumwood, Judith Plant,
Charlene Spretnak, etc., etc.). If you had then you would know that it
is precicely the PATRIARCHAL establishments like Christianity that have
been the systematic oppressors of women and nature.
>>
Hi!
Sarah in reply to this question yes - I only read one (twice) "Ecofeminism and
the Sacred" Carol J. Adams, Editor - Authors in book, Rosemary Radford
Ruether, Delores S. Williams, Catherine Keller, Stephanie Kaza, Judith
Plaskow, Sallie McFague, Lina Gupta, Karen J. Warren, L. Teal Willoughby,
Ellen Cronan Rose, Andy Smith, Gloria Feman Orenstein, Shamarra Shantu Riley,
Carol Lee Sanchez, Jane Caputi, Rebecca Johnson, Charlene Spretnak, Carol J.
Adams, Marjorie Procter- Smith, Zoe Weil.
The book is broken down to 3 parts - Part 1 - Revisioning Religion, Part 2-
Envisioning Ecofeminism, Part 3 - Emobying Ecofeminist Spiritualities.
The book has gathered writings that "provide vital insights into the causes of
current environmental crises as well as important recommendations for
addressing them."
I highly recommend it if you haven't read it!
The Christian Theologist in the book says Christians should assert SIN as the
cause of the Eco-Crisis - The sin of Greed - I agree!
Re: Patriarchial religion - The referring to God as White Male in the sky -
has got to go out with yesterdays bathwater - God is Omnipotent - Alpha and
Omega _ beyond human gender comprehension - so then If God just wants to be
referred to as FATHER - not white male god in the sky - I say "Ok God - you're
the boss - I am just your humble servant - amen."
End of fanatic rant.
Peace!
Angela
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 17 17:59:30 1998
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:57:54 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bunny faces legal challenge
In a message dated 98-11-17 19:09:07 EST, you write:
<< Perhaps I used colourful language but since when has that been a crime?
I can leave the content on my website basically the same but change a few
words but I still feel a little traiterous to my beliefs by doing so.
Kind regards,
Marguerite >>
Hi!
It looks like the English are finally doing something to help end animal
testing - why not contact the activist group in London who was responsible for
it - if there is just one! Since Australia, as you said, is based on the same
English system - maybe they can give you some advice on how to end animal
testing in Australia - maybe that article that Kim posted a coupld of days ago
can give some leads to the groups in London working for animal rights. Good
Luck!
Peace,
Angela
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 17 18:05:27 1998
From: "Us" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compassion to the animals!
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:04:18 -0600
In saying "pets", you also mean such pets as dogs and cats?
----------
> From: Washer Zine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Compassion to the animals!
> Date: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 1:59 PM
>
> Just wanted to see what everyone's opinions are on this:
>
> Owning pets is a form of crueltly to animals for many reasons, mostly
> because they are _confined_ in unnatural habitats (and are made to walk
> outside only with leashes and to "obey their masters").
>
> Tell me what you think. :)
>
> -Tasha
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 17 18:23:01 1998
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 20:10:53 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Compassion to the animals!
In a message dated 98-11-17 19:28:45 EST, you write:
<< Owning pets is a form of crueltly to animals for many reasons, mostly
because they are _confined_ in unnatural habitats (and are made to walk
outside only with leashes and to "obey their masters").
>>
Hi!
I agree that some pet ownership is cruel - such as parrots, any wild cat,
tropical fish, lizards, . . . any wild animal actually - unless the animal is
wounded and being cared for to be released into their natural home at a later
date, or if the animal can not live in the wild. I have owned many cats and
dogs in the past - they are domesticated so they do not have natural homes per
se. I do not now have pets because I feel that my boys are too young to have
small animals around - I miss not having animals in the house but I feel that
I should wait until the boys are older and more responsible. Pets can teach
children about being responsible - responsible to other things beside
themselves - something that will come in handy to becoming responsible adults
- something this world can use more of - responsible adults - how
irresponsible is it to destroy an animals home because you want planks for
your yacht? A lot of what is happening to this Earth is at the hands of
irresponsible adults who refuse to see that you can stamp every living thing
with a huge dollar sign!
Peace!
Angela
Thanks Kim for your post about how being a pet owner helps nurture a more
caring heart for the animals and I never thought in terms of how some people
inflict their power plays on animals - it is usually the most vulernable and
innocent that get hurt by power plays -
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 17 19:24:59 1998
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:18:37 +1900 (EST)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:18:37 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: MK Rawlings: the cosmic mystery of seed
Hi all,
An inspirational quote from "Cross Creek":
Who owns Cross Creek? The red-birds, I think, more than I, for they have
their nests even in the face of delinquent mortgages. And after I am dead,
who am childless, the human ownership of grove and field and hammock is
hypothetical. But a long line of red-birds and whippooorwills and blue-jays
and ground doves will descend from the present owners of nests in the orange
trees, and their claim will be less subject to dispute than that of any human
heirs. Houses are individual and can be owned, like nests, and fought for.
But what of the land? It seems to me that the earth may be borrowed but not
bought. It may be used, but not owned. It gives itself in response to love
and tending, offers its seasonal flowering and fruiting. But we are tenants
and not possessors, lovers and not masters. Cross Creek belongs to the wind
and the rain, to the sun and the seasons, to the cosmic secrecy of seed, and
beyond all, to time."
Love, Jane
