I just want to be sure that US members of the list remember that the ESA goes before the Supreme Court of the US today. Those of you who live in other countries, if you embrace some kind of spiritual practice, I at least would appreciate your prayers for a favorable outcome. It should be an interesting week, with the impressive environmental/first nation gatherings in the capitol. Was everyone on spring break last week? Did my outburst cause mass resignations? ;-) Where IS everyone? Faith >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 17 13:10:04 MDT 1995 Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 12:10:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Barbara Bliss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Forwarded message To: Jodi Smalec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, Jodi Smalec wrote: > Aloha! I am a new member to this list, and to ecofeminism in general. > After reading many messages over the last few weeks, I have begun to > question my own beliefs and perceptions as a "young"? woman (almost > twenty-five). > In response to what Barabar wrote, I am wondering if someone can give me > some pointers on where to get more information. I am beginning to > think that I *don't* know what it looks like. Especially in academe. > > Is it disadvantageous to think that with hard work, a woman can succeed? > Dear Jodi, I think it is disadvantageous to "think that with hard work a woman can succeed". My observation has been that hard work may be good work, but that you may not succeed. Women get called on less in class, get cited less in literature, and (somebody correct me if I'm outdated, here) get funded less than men in their professions. All the while, men may say "she does great work." What is your discipline? In science, a good tale is "A Feeling for the Organism," the story of Barbara McClintock, written by (???I forgot her first name) Keller. McClintock discovered transposons, or "jumping genes," decades before they were recognized by a male "establishment" scientist. McClintock eventually was rewarded for her work, after years of poverty and marginalization. How many department heads are women at your university? Who controls the dollars? Who gets quoted (legitimized?). Somebody else jump in here, anytime Barbara Bliss >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 17 22:21:04 MDT 1995 From: "<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 95 14:38:15 CST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: immanental spiritualism and sexism On Sun, 16 Apr 1995 10:38:40 -0600, Philip T Shepard wrote: What continues to perplex and fascinate me as a part-time >scholar of Chinese philosophical traditions is the fact that deep organicisms >of this sort (example below) coexisted in China in highly developed forms >during the Sung dynasty right along side of some of the worst sexist practices >that the world has known (e.g. foot binding). A central example of organicist, >immanential spiritualism was the notion adopted by all the neo-confucians of >the sage as forming one body with "heaven-and-earth." Chang Tsai captures the >feeling in the first few lines of his "Western Inscription": > Heaven is my father and Earth is my mother, and even such a small creature > as I finds an intimate place in their midst. > Therefore that which fills the universe I regard as my body and that which > directs the universe I consider as my nature. > All people are my brothers and sisters, and all things are my companions. > (Chan, Wing-tsit, _Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy_, p. 497) > >I'm curious what others may think of this. Is the "one body" view of the >neo-confucians an appropriate example of the sort of view ecofeminists are >seeking out? (a "deep organicism"?) And if it is, what lessons should we draw >from its place in its own historical context along with Chinese sexism? I think it's very significant that the earth=mother concept is expressed in this quotation. Also the inherently hierarchical mind/body dualism (I interpret nature in this quotation to be mind/intellect (that which directs the universe - which includes the earth/mother) - correct me if I'm wrong). Like you, Philip, I'm intrigued by the juxtaposition of thinking that is sound/just in one dimension and horrendous in another. But I'm becoming less and less surprised by it - wanting to do the right thing doesn't automatically generalize across issues. (And this is a criticism of myself too - e.g. I have only very recently started to be aware of heterosexual dominance and class issues). Melissa _____________________________________________________ Melissa Raven Lecturer NCETA [National Centre for Education & Training on Addiction] Flinders University BEDFORD PARK SA 5042 AUSTRALIA Telephone 61(0)8 201 7557 Fax 61(0)8 201 7550 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________________ >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Apr 18 04:39:09 MDT 1995 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 18:36:39 +0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kylie Matthews) Subject: Re: Overpopulation Bugaboo >I deleted the message about history -- the Pope and the King of France, >etc -- before I thought to respond. > >Do you think that one of the reasons the Pope is so adamant about this >now is because it guarantees an increase in his following? >He certainly cannot rely on Catholics in this country or in Europe to >"replenish and multiply" the flock. > >Jayne Yes. Also, the poorer people are the more they donate. So Keeping Catholics poor keeps the pope and his cardinals ect very very rich. kylie [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Interesting: Your people glorified organised violence for 40 centuries, but you imprison those who employ it privately." Mr Spock. Star Trek 'Dagger of the Mind'
