In a message dated 98-10-15 13:28:04 EDT, Arlene write:
<< Wouldn't it be a useful (extremely so!) contribution to population
issues if Americans, in addition to currently having less kids (which they
do), stopped rampantly consuming everything, stopped rampant waste, and
exported a valuable image of another way to be?
>>
Hi! I agree with this! We have become an overly consumeristic society - I
just read this about how they are trying to stop the advertising to children:
Peace!
Angela
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
– Coalition sends letter to International Advertising Association asking
advertising firms to stop advertising to children. The letter follows:
October 15, 1998
Norman Vale
Chief Executive
International Advertising Association
521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1807
New York, NY 10175
via telecopier: (212) 983-0455
RE: What IAA and Advertising Firms Can Do for Children
Dear Mr. Vale:
We are writing about the International Advertising Association's (IAA)
"Give A Kid a Hand" ad campaign to encourage people to volunteer with
kids. The campaign's goal, you said, is to "help [children] realize
their full potential."
There is a more direct way for IAA and advertising firms to help
children "realize their full potential": stop advertising to children.
We want you to let children alone. That would halt the psychological,
physical, and emotional harm that advertisers inflict upon children.
Every day, advertising firms direct a strategically organized,
pre-meditated, callous barrage of ads at innocent and impressionable
children. They employ sophisticated psychological research techniques
to develop potent methods of psychological manipulation to sell products
to children, and lure them into destructive values and the addictions of
alcoholism, smoking, gambling and overconsumption. The goal of the
advertising industry is not to promote the health, creativity, or
well-being of children. Rather, it is to generate profits for
corporations.
The magnitude of this commercial bombardment of children is enormous
and entirely unacceptable. According to Consumer Reports, the average
American child views more than 30,000 television commercials each year.
Newer, more coercive ways to make children watch ads are gaining
strength. For example, the Channel One program of direct advertising
now reaches about eight million children each day in schools. Joel
Babbit, then-president of Channel One explained why advertisers like it:
"The biggest selling point to advertisers [is]....we are forcing kids to
watch two minutes of commercials."
The targeting of children by advertisers has become widespread and
commonplace. James U. McNeal, an expert in marketing to children, wrote
recently that "Virtually every consumer-goods industry, from airlines to
zinnia-seed sellers, targets kids." General Mills executive Wayne
Chilicki said that "When it comes to targeting kid consumers, we at
General Mills follow the Proctor & Gamble model of 'cradle to
grave'...We believe in getting them early and having them for life."
Advertising firms use techniques that harm children and families,
including:
* Convincing children that purchasing products will solve their
problems and make them happy.
* Exploiting a child's emotional weaknesses, such as his or her sense
of insecurity, inferiority, need to be loved, powerlessness, and need to
fit in. Nancy Shalek, then-president of Shalek Advertising Agency,
explained: "Advertising at its best is making people feel that without
their product, you're a loser. Kids are very sensitive to that. If you
tell them to buy something, they are resistant. But if you tell them
that they'll be a dork if they don't, you've got their attention. You
open up emotional vulnerabilities and it's very easy to do with kids
because they're the most emotionally vulnerable."
* Fueling anger and rebelliousness among youth. According to Rick
Litman, a partner at Kid 2 Kid Research, "marketing is a unique process
in which corporations learn to use youth rebellion to more effectively
target a product and sell a product."
* Manipulating children to nag their parents to buy products. In other
words, pitting children against their own parents, and causing strife
within families. As Cheryl Idell, director of strategic planning and
research at Western International Media, explains "It's not just getting
kids to whine, it's giving them a specific reason to ask for the
product."
Children are unable to defend themselves against this commercial
manipulation. They cannot understand the manipulation that your
industry subjects them to. They are not mature enough to see through
what advertisers direct towards them.
The advertising industry has a serious values problem. It puts its own
profits above the health of children. You are growing rich by taking
advantage of children. That is wrong. We are calling on the IAA and
advertising firms to stop advertising to children.
Mike Searles, president of Kids ‘R' Us, once explained that "If you own
this child at an early age, you can own this child for years to
come....Companies are saying, ‘Hey, I want to own the kid younger and
younger.'"
We don't want advertising firms to "own" children of any age. If the
IAA and advertising firms truly aspire to help children to "realize
their full potential," you will let them alone, and give them back their
health, their time, and their minds.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
Gary Ruskin, director, Commercial Alert
Juliet Schor, author, The Overspent American
Diane Levin, author, Remote Control Childhood
Adele Faber, co-author, How to Talk So Kids Will Listen and Listen So
Kids Will Talk
Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton, auxiliary bishop, Archdiocese of Detroit
Betsy Taylor, executive director, Center for a New American Dream
Aline D. Wolf, author, Nurturing the Spirit: In Non-Sectarian Classrooms
Michael Jacobson, co-author, Marketing Madness
Henry Labalme, executive director, TV-Free America
Alfie Kohn, author, No Contest: The Case Against Competition
Susan Karol Martel, writer, psychotherapist
Douglas Sloan, professor of History and Education, Teachers College,
Columbia University
Jane Levine, Ed.D., director and founder, Kids Can Make a Difference
Linda Coco, writer and researcher
Brita Butler-Wall, visiting assistant professor, School of Education,
Seattle University
Diane Morrison, research professor, University of Washington
--------------------------------------
Commercial Alert is a new project devoted to helping parents and
families defend themselves against harmful, immoral or intrusive
advertising and marketing, and the excesses of commercialism. For more
information about Commercial Alert, see
<http://www.essential.org/alert/>, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or
call (202) 296-2787.
To subscribe to Commercial Alert Notes send the message:
subscribe commercial-alert your name
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 15 15:43:23 1998
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:43:16 EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: family size,etc.
In a message dated 98-10-15 14:53:40 EDT, you write:
<<
Are you here stating that you are toeing the papal line and are
against any contraception outside the "rhythm method", in spite of
the oppression this can bring to women who die before their time as
a result of the bodily stress of having too many children, and the
devastation which our burgeoning population inflicts upon our
planet? Do you know what couples are called who use it? "Daddy"
and "Mommy" - by a slew of kids! Are you also opposed to abortion
when it is the woman's choice? How about in the cases of rape or
incest? As long as we do not demonstrate any reproductive wisdom
and self-restraint, we are no better than a mindless cancer sucking
the life out of the bosom of Mother Earth!
>>
Hi!
Joe, please keep in my here I never stated my own personal opinion about these
issues! But you make some strong defense for woman's reproductive rights? -
they have no right to reproduce and but they have a right to pro-create (so
which Right do they have - they have a right to sex but no right to life?)
Again, I was merely saying that trying to control those reproductive rights
is NOT the a viable answer - so implement the other answers - education,
awareness, etc.
Thanks!
Angela
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 15 16:33:11 1998
From: "Joe E. Dees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:33:15 -0500
Subject: Re: family size,etc.
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date sent: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:43:16 EDT
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: family size,etc.
> In a message dated 98-10-15 14:53:40 EDT, you write:
>
> <<
> Are you here stating that you are toeing the papal line and are
> against any contraception outside the "rhythm method", in spite of
> the oppression this can bring to women who die before their time as
> a result of the bodily stress of having too many children, and the
> devastation which our burgeoning population inflicts upon our
> planet? Do you know what couples are called who use it? "Daddy"
> and "Mommy" - by a slew of kids! Are you also opposed to abortion
> when it is the woman's choice? How about in the cases of rape or
> incest? As long as we do not demonstrate any reproductive wisdom
> and self-restraint, we are no better than a mindless cancer sucking
> the life out of the bosom of Mother Earth!
>
> >>
> Hi!
>
> Joe, please keep in my here I never stated my own personal opinion about these
> issues! But you make some strong defense for woman's reproductive rights? -
> they have no right to reproduce and but they have a right to pro-create (so
> which Right do they have - they have a right to sex but no right to life?)
> Again, I was merely saying that trying to control those reproductive rights
> is NOT the a viable answer - so implement the other answers - education,
> awareness, etc.
>
> Thanks!
> Angela
The question stands: are you against all but procreational sex?
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 15 17:06:40 1998
From: "Joe E. Dees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:06:47 -0500
Subject: Re: family size,etc.
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date sent: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:33:15 -0500
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Joe E. Dees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: family size,etc.
> Date sent: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:43:16 EDT
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: family size,etc.
>
> > In a message dated 98-10-15 14:53:40 EDT, you write:
> >
> > <<
> > Are you here stating that you are toeing the papal line and are
> > against any contraception outside the "rhythm method", in spite of
> > the oppression this can bring to women who die before their time as
> > a result of the bodily stress of having too many children, and the
> > devastation which our burgeoning population inflicts upon our
> > planet? Do you know what couples are called who use it? "Daddy"
> > and "Mommy" - by a slew of kids! Are you also opposed to abortion
> > when it is the woman's choice? How about in the cases of rape or
> > incest? As long as we do not demonstrate any reproductive wisdom
> > and self-restraint, we are no better than a mindless cancer sucking
> > the life out of the bosom of Mother Earth!
> >
> > >>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Joe, please keep in my here I never stated my own personal opinion about these
> > issues! But you make some strong defense for woman's reproductive rights? -
> > they have no right to reproduce and but they have a right to pro-create (so
> > which Right do they have - they have a right to sex but no right to life?)
> > Again, I was merely saying that trying to control those reproductive rights
> > is NOT the a viable answer - so implement the other answers - education,
> > awareness, etc.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Angela
>
> The question stands: are you against all but procreational sex?
It would certainly explain your reluctance to consider overpopulation
as a global problem or ecofeminist issue, and your inability to see
contraception and family planning as increasingly necessary in our
overcrowded, progressively resource-barren and toxin-strewn world.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 15 18:01:28 1998
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:57:25 -0500
From: Alec Brownlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: (no subject)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Niels Hooper
Publication: November 5th, 1998 (212) 807-9680
ANIMAL GEOGRAPHIES
Place, Politics and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands
EDITED BY JENNIFER WOLCH & JODY EMEL
Each year billions of animals are poisoned, dissected, displaced, killed
for consumption or held in captivity to be discarded as soon as their
utility to humans has waned. This reality is mostly obscured by the
progressive elimination of animals from everyday human experience and by
the creation of a thin veneer of civility surrounding human-animal
relations. Jennifer Wolch and Jody Emel argue that animals have been so
indispensable to the structure of human affairs that we have been unable
to see them clearly. A broad-ranging collection of essays, Animal
Geographies contributes to a much-needed, fundamental rethinking about
our relation to animals.
Animal Geographies first explores the diverse ways in which animals
shape the formation of human identity. Victorian zoos, for example,
often served to naturalize colonial rule and the oppression of native
peoples, while exclusion of live meat markets in Victorian cities was
linked to an emerging urban identity associated with standards of
civility, public decency, sexual license, and norms of compassion, in
opposition to rural stereotypes. On the American frontier, the
construction of masculinity was intimately connected to the brutal
eradication of wolves, whose supposed savagery, cowardice, and lack of
mercy contravened standards of male behavior. In today’s world cities
with many immigrant communities, practices involving harm to animals,
such as religious animal sacrifice or "pet"-eating, help construct the
human-animal divide and racialize particular racial/cultural groups.
>From questions of identity and subjectivity, Animal Geographies moves to
a consideration of the places where people and animals confront the
realities of coexistence on an everyday basis, arguing that human
practices now threaten this world as never before. Cities are growing
faster than ever, consuming natural habitat and further distancing
people from animals. Urbanization-driven increases in interactions
between people and mountain lions in California, for example, have led
to political and scientific controversy, shifts in how urban residents
think about mountain lions, and new ideas for how to coexist with large
predators. In the nature-culture borderlands of San Diego, golden eagle
rehabilitators and wildlife educators turn away from traditional
environmental politics involving battles between real estate interests,
scientists, and urban growth managers. Instead, they have developed a
politics of care imbued with notions of motherhood and family, which
attempts to assert the agency of wildlife in defining paths to
human-animal coexistence. Could the image of zo(polis – an ideal city in
which animals live in harmony with people – foster a purposive
reintroduction of animals back into the city, help recreate networks of
care, friendship and solidarity between people and animals, and further
the cause of coexistence?
The book then examines the ways in which animals figure in the ongoing
globalization of production and mass consumption. The Pacific
Northwest’s northern spotted owl, for instance, simultaneously became a
symbol of the nation’s biodiversity and wilderness patrimony, a vehicle
for internationalization of the forest products industry, and emblematic
of the elimination of a traditional rural way of life. The emergence an
internationalizing livestock sector in Rajasthan has intensified
political-struggles between India’s Hindus and Muslims, as well as
fundamentally altering notions of caste identity, private property, and
the traditional bargain between people and domesticated animals.
Agroindustrialization in the America’s Midwestern livestock sector,
driven by consumer demands and factory farming, has created an emphasis
on lean meat production and alterations in genetics, feeding regimes,
facilities, and management – all of which are refashioning the interior
geography of animals for profit, and raising serious questions about
animal welfare.
Finally, Animal Geographies takes up legal and ethical approaches to
human-animal relations. In the Islamic world, animals have a legal
‘right to thirst’; in contemporary Pakistan this religious imperative
has stimulated the emergence of animal rights and welfare activities. In
comparison water law in the American west is silent on the question of
duties to provide water to animals, revealing its moral inadequacy and
stimulating efforts to expand human duties to animals. More generally,
the idea of geoethics is introduced, showing how the concept of the
‘geographical community’ can be used to resolve difficult ethical
questions involving coexistence among people, animals, and the rest of
nature.
Animal Geographies compels a profound rethinking of the history of our
relations with animals and suggests how, by looking through geographical
lenses, we may be able to shed light on animals as central agents in the
constitution of space and place, and reconstitute a relationship with
them on a progressive basis.
Jennifer Wolch is Professor of Geography at the University of Southern
California.
Jody Emel is Associate Professor of Geography at the Clark University
Graduate School of Geography.
Publication: November 1998 Paper ISBN: 1-85984-137-6 Price: $14/$18CAN
Cloth ISBN: 1-85984-831-1 Price: $40/$60CAN
