Hi, everybody,
It mystifies me to find something like this on a "feminist" list. Forget it!
I find this post extremely offensive and misogynist. Just so you know why
I'm unsubscribing.
Best wishes,
Viviane
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Wong Ee Ling
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 2:57 PM
> To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT
> Subject: RE: Society for Human Population Control : as a matter of
> discussion
>
>
> Dear Vicki,
>
> You asked me why I said that it was a disillusionment? Well, this was
> what Russell mentioned :
>
> > With respect, I ask this in the hope of stimulating discussion:
> > Isn't it a fairly common thread of ecofeminism to feel that "the
> > fundamental problem of the human race" is first world (male-dominated/
> > male-style) exploitation of the third world and the planet in general?
> > Isn't lobbying congress just going to make them drop a batch of condoms
> > from a helicopter over third world countries they are actively grinding
> > into the dust? Put another way, isn't the solution going to involve a
> > major paradigm shift that can't really happen through lobbying existing
> > power structures?
>
> That is, it seems that the approach of 'lobbying existing power
> structures'
> is
> going to get womenfolk a distorted result so in effect, I agreed with him
> and
> said "it is a disillusionment" of the way people in power and that would
> mostly
> be men, choose to play dumb and misinterpret women's requests for greater
> rights so that they come out with second rated solutions : ) ...zis is
> exactly
> what I was trying to say!
>
> Anyway, coming from Singapore, I do not really know much about
> America's women's liberation movement besides what is read and what I
> now get to read...things like 'color web for women'...etc seems
> to point to
> the fact that you people are at the stage of 'Celebration of Women
> Rights' , rather than the baser need to 'fight' for women rights. The
> 'space'
> you all are having, half of the world's women are simply dreaming off....
> In the east, for example, China, the womenfolk are known to be quite
> 'fierce'
> and a capable woman is seen as one that controls the purse strings of her
> husband (especially in southern China). I suppose it is thanks to MTT
> (although
> I am not personally a 'fan' of his) for saying that 'womenfolk
> holds up half
> of heaven'
> (a Chinese saying - makes me wonder which half he is talking about !!).
> Therefore, apart from the minority vagrant wife beater that we find in all
> cultures,
> women in China are doing ok. The strange thing is in very
> 'market-oriented'
> Hong Kong,
> just take a look at every film produced, a majority of it gives the female
> star the
> role of a prostitute or akin to one...
> The only place that women are not doing ok like in the army are probably
> places
> they shouldn't be in the first place! Sorry I ain't want a mother with a
> machine gun,
> I might be running to her for affection and get my brains blown off!
> Women in realpolitik and the business arena ...hmmmm....if I am
> not mistaken
> it is perceived that they are usually protrayed as 'bitches',
> 'prostitutes'
> ......
> and that is very sad IF the woman politician or business woman has to face
> all these remarks because she happened to be a woman. Of course, if
> she does behave like that then one has to dwell deeper to see if the
> 'culture'
> in these arenas compelled women to act this way to stay in power or in the
> world
> of $$$, namely, if they don't play within the rules that men has set since
> they
> were there first, they don't get to play. Again I suppose this applies to
> those women
> whom, with sheer effort and intelligence, made it to where they
> are now....
> and not by status
> if they are the daughter of Margaret Thatcher, as an example, or Queen
> Elizabeth or
> some nobility, the tables are turned......
>
> 'nuf said! Have I occupied too much e-space! For discussion sake. Have a
> nice day!
>
> Regards,
> Eeling
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ----------
> > From: vikki charles[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 8:00 PM
> > To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT
> > Subject: Re: Society for Human Population Control
> >
> > I don't understand why you think it's a disillusionment.
> > The more people realise what is necessary the better.
> > On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 21:24:11 +1100 Russell Edwards
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 04:38:15PM +0800, Wong Ee Ling wrote:
> > > > For some reason Russell makes perfect sense. What a
> disillusionment.
> > >
> > > Why is it a disillusionment?
> > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Eeling @ Zin
> > > > Singapore
> > >
> > > Russell
> > > (Melbourne)
> > >
> >
> > ----------------------
> > vikki charles
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
