As I have said before it would ideally be our own choices. Otherwise we
might as well sing along over the cliff of overpopulation, stagnation and
environmental destruction.
Bertina
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Candi Chruchill wrote:
> I haven't been following this whole debate, so maybe this has been said,
> but let's not forget that when we get into this issue, WOMEN are the people
> we are talking about controlling. Women must have control over our bodies,
> not governments, not environmentalists, not men. Women have been
> sterilized against their will for being poor or from the "Third World" or
> of "Third World" background or immigrants or of certain religious
> backgrounds; we've also been forced to have abortions/take birth control,
> been denied abortions/birth control and forced pregnancy. some of us who
> have money can control our bodies, but even these women do not have
> complete access. We do not live in a world where women control their
> bodies. Economics, male supremacy, and conservative forces limit our
> freedom, in every country in the world. Let us not forget that limiting
> family size, whatever the intentions might be, often hurts women. The
> people in control of this world at this moment are not sensitive to human
> rights; the rich and male segments of our global community (even in the
> ecological movement) are often very biased (i.e., racist, sexist and profit
> driven). Please keep these things in mind because when (eco)feminists
> start advocating for population control without making these points, it is
> scary. Who will consider these things if WE aren't?!
> Candi Churchill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 8:57 AM
> To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT
> Subject: Re: family size,etc.
>
> I certainly agree with you on the limiting of children per family. In the
> 60s a little-known writer/scientist at the time Isaac Asimov wrote of the
> future problems with population and the need to lessen family-size to
> maximize the continuation of life on this planet. At the time it was
> probably a radical idea, but now it is far more feasible and necessary.
>
> IMHO,
>
> Bertina
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, bunny wrote:
>
> >
> > What is the answer? In my opinion a global acceptance (over time) of a
> one
> > or two children limit on children per family and enforcement of recycling
> > through
> > controling manufacturers outputs and that everyone turns vegetarian/vegan
> > (no more intensively farmed animals).
> >
> > The radical steps necessary to save what is left of the earth will be
> fought
> > by many religions and capitalists and therefore it will be very hard to
> > reconcile religious beliefs and Ecofeminism (in my view).
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Marguerite
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
