I know that there is someone out there that is more knowledgable
about this subject than I am, but I can point you to some sources in the
US for ideas and inspiration. "The Permaculture Activist" (Route 1, Box
38, Primm Springs, TN 38476) is a quarterly magazine that addresses a
variety of practical topics you might be interested in. They also sell
many permaculture book including Bill Mollison's "Permaculture: Practical
Guide to a Sustainable Future". I read this a couple years ago, loaned
from the university library and it has a wealth of both philosophical and
practical ideas. Also "Designing and maintaining your edible landscape
naturally" by Robert Kourik is directed toward the home gardener. There
is even an urban permaculture book -I would love to see that one.
One of the main design principles that of zones. Zone 1 is
closest to your house, your garden that you may collect from for every
meal, Zone 2 may be animals that you visit once or twice a day, Zone 3
orchards that you visit every now and then for pruning or harvest, out
wilderness zone on the perimeter, that you may collect firewood, but
basically leave alone. I remember the point that even if you have only a
small amount of property, you can implement these principles. Everyone
could incorporate a small wild area as part of their landscape.
On a different note. I hope someone can help me. I just started reading
Dolores LaChapelle's "Sacred Land, Sacred Sex". On page 8, as part of the
preface she writes, "That is why this book doesn't fit into any of the
usual catagories <snip>. It's most certainly not 'eco-feminist', ...."
This confuses me because her essay of the same title appeared in "Healing
the Wounds: The Promise of Ecofeminism" (ed. by Judith Plant). Perhaps
this is part of the dialogue (debate?) about what is meant by the term
ecofeminism. Does anyone have an idea about this?
Sustainably,
Michelle Covi
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 17 10:06:59 MST 1995
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 12:07:13 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More on a Brief Hiatus
Deborah writes:
>we can never learn and grow if we spend our time with
>people who serve as echoes of our own thoughts. But learning >and
>growing demands a certain open-ness (i.e. the ability to >acknowledge
>that maybe, just maybe, there are many truths, and not just >one Truth
>which must be defended at all costs and imposed on others). >Jayne is
>right--that is exactly the point of view we are attempting to >move
>beyond. Why perpetuate it in our own discourse ?
-------------------------------------
I too, agree, although I've still been posting off and on. I have tried to
open the lines for healthy discourse, being one who grew up learning to
question just about everything -- I'm always open to a different way of
looking at things, but believe firmly that a healthy dialectic often produces
yet another opinion that no one thought of initially -- a rearrangement, if
you will. I've often altered my viewpoint as a result of such discussions,
but rarely find the impetus to do so when a hostile or smug voice shouts back
without really evaluating the contents of my post (a frequent occurrence,
I've found). I've been flamed, too, and I often think that my questioning of
other's opinions is taken far too personally, and perhaps seen itself as a
flame. There is certainly more than one feminist point of view, and more
than one way to evaluate ecological issues. If we can't question, then why
bother discussing? I can find status quo right outside my front door. I've
been a member of many media panels where healthy disagreement produced some
of the best dialogue I've been a party to -- disagreement is a tool for
change and evolution (something I've been accused of being adverse to!).
Thanks for the post. Maybe things will improve with so many on the list
feeling as you do.
--Katharine English
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 17 11:39:36 MST 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 09:38:55 -0800
From: Rose Zubizarreta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A (breif?) hiatus
I like very much the comments about using "I" messages in our dialogues.
Also, I'd like to suggests the form of the circle -- whereby people
consiciously prevent a two-person back-and-forth, by giving space for
other opinions to "round out" the discussion and prevent an oppositional
dualism. (Maybe back-and-forth exchanges betw. 2 people could be done over
mail instead of conferencing?)
What I am suggesting is something that I have experienced as very helpful in
face2face groups, and am wondering if it could be a useful principle to remember
here.
Rosa
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 17 13:03:47 MST 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 11:52:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Faith Freewoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Kylie Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Womyn/women
In-Reply-To: <v01510105630b6f728443@[203.8.222.24]>
On Wed, 29 Aug 1956, Kylie Matthews wrote:
> [Women] is derived from the word men because if men were derived from
> women then the generic would then have to be women and not men.
Well, that's what Webster's tells us, and that's the assumption behind
people who are purported to be experts in the English language.
But, my response is to go ahead thinking that "men" is derived from women
and that someone just slipped up years ago; all we need to do is point
out the fact often enough, and pretty soon the words will begin to
reflect the biological facts: everyone starts as a woman, and some just
evolve differently to provide us starters with mirrors, and themselves
with the experience of not being the dominant species.
Faith Freewoman
>From Lowe_Mary#b#[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 17 13:27:38
>MST 1995
From: Lowe_Mary#b#[EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Openmail-Hops: 1
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 15:28:20 -0500
Subject: Hiatus????
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Did I miss something here?
Every one keeps talking about "flaming" and "personal diatribes." I've been on
this list a few months and I just don't see exactly what you all are talking
about. Is it that bad?
I have been on lists (briefly) where people really did the "Oh, yeah, well
you're dumber than dirt" , "No I'm not!", "Yes you are!" thing until I had to
unsubscribe. I really can't say I have seen any of this on ecofem.
I *have* seen strong statements, heated discussions, and intense debate, all a
result of deeply held convictions and usually well presented.
Some lists are truly academic exchanges, no emotions or convictions allowed
(except for plenty of unstated and unrealized prejudices, of course). Others are
completely free-wheeling and people can say whatever they like about any subject
at all. Surely ecofem can chart a middle ground and allow for both fact and
interpretation, philosophy and action, the personal and poltical, "think
globally, act locally."
Hang in there, folks!
-Mary Margaret
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 17 13:44:10 MST 1995
MR-Received: by mta WPB1; Relayed; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:43:55 -0500
MR-Received: by mta EPIC66; Relayed; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:43:56 -0500
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:30:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Carol Meeds WPB 407-433-2650 x 113 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Womyn/women
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950317114123.4149E-100000@case>
To: ecofem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Posting-date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:43:00 -0500 (EST)
Importance: normal
UA-content-id: A92ZVREMGLHG
A1-type: MAIL
Hop-count: 2
Hi Faith:
Here in Florida, where linguistic consciousness evolves slowly, I
still get startled looks when I insist that, "I ain't nobody's
missus" after taking care of myself and my kids for 15 years! The
term Ms. is not used here voluntarily by anyone. Has it fallen
out of favor in the rest of the world too? Or never caught on?
