I know that this may seem trivial to some, but "political correctness" is a derogatory label attached by the right wing, and status-quo hierarchists to efforts that seek to be politically conscious, inclusive and questioning of the canon. I would not define politically questioning of the status quo, or efforts at inclusiveness by using the language of the opposers of such efforts. By so doing, you are implicitly accepting their political frameworks. Kami. p.s. I will try and get some sources for you if I can. On Thu, 16 Feb 1995, Long, David wrote: > > Could anyone please recommend examples of politically correct or at least > gender unbiased text books for primary and secondary school students? Are > there any publishing houses out there that specialize in this? I am looking > for all subjects, but most especially social studies and history... Please > send to me (David Long) or my colleague Jaimie Anne Carboy. Thanks in > advance and I apologize for cross-postings. > > David Long > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jaimie Anne Carboy > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Feb 16 14:53:13 MST 1995 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:58:45 -0800 (PST) From: Dancing Hummingbird /aka Joy Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: re: ecofeminism and social ecology In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Just delurking for the moment, I want to say first: this is a fascinating and interesting group of people! Hi! Anyway, since I am an Earth Worshipper and i regard the Earth as my mother, and ecology/environment are aspect of the Mother, that I find nothing dominating in the word "eco-feminist". It's basically to me just saying what kind of feminist you are, and where your focus is. I look at the desecration of the environment as intrically related to the oppression of women, the mind set that allows both is the same...(the Earth, a living being was first regarded as a goddess, when we desacralized Her, it was much easier to desacralize women, oppress them, and then in turn treat other races as inferior as well). Once we regard a forest as a bunch of trees that we can use and do whatever we want to with, once we think of those trees as our property, then they cease to be a living organism (ecology) and we can do whatever we wish with no guilt (after all it's *my property*, I can cut all the trees if I *want* to). If we regard the forest as a living being and as sacred, however, what we do in the forest, what we gather from that forest is much more thoughtfully done, we treat the forest with respect, because we know that we will want to have that forest there for a long time. I don't know if my analogy is a clear one, but I think that the same thing happened in the case of women. When war first started (the first one we really know about was reported in the Epic of Gilgamesh), it started when people turned away from the sacred. Gilgamesh rejected Ishtar. Women became booty to be won in exchange for risking one's life on the field of battle. Women became objectified into uterus' with legs, chattel, and the rein of the Sky Gods, who dominated over the world (The Earth Mother) began. Since these Gods dominated over the men, the men in turn dominated over the women, because that was the role model that the culture had set up as the paradigm. We are still living with that today, but women are starting to say "No more!". I find it incredibly interesting that environmentalism, feminism and Neo-paganism have all come into being at about the same time. I think that they are integrally connected. Joy Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scion in the Church of All Worlds "The Garrulous Grok Flok" Thou Art Goddess!
