Re: introduction
On Tue, 20 Sep 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, my name is Paige Brown, I have an MS in Environmental Economics, @ BA's - English (where I did Feminist film studies) and Ag. Economics. I currently live and work in Washington DC at the World Resources Institute my area of work is forestry and global warming. I was strongly inculcated with free market ideology. I am interested in the connections between patriarchal social systems and the subjugation of women and the degradation of the environment. I think there is no way of separating them; both are, in patriarchal systems, viewed only for what man can take from them, not what they may have to give or what man can give *back.* Regarding Bob A's question what is ecofem, again there seems to be several schools of thought. I am uncomfortable with the more spiritually based side of ecofeminism and am opposed to what I would term the essentialist expressions of ecofeminis. I think it is problematic to associate women with nature, (and here I am thinking specifically of Vandana Shiva's works). I find Shiva very interesting, but fundamentally disagree that women are "naturally" more nurturing, nature-connected etc... Haven't read Shiva, but the point you are making is valid. Women are no more(and probably no *less*) nuturing, connected to nature, or whatever, than men are. Being connected to nature and being nuturing are combinations of personality traits, possibly inborn tendencies, and conscious will.
Re: ECOFEM digest 54
On the abortion and breast cancer link--I think the risk goes up from .4 per 1000 to .6 per 1000, froman article in the Chicago Tribune. Sara Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ECOFEM digest 50
Paige, the Great Rite thing I mentioned was an *example*--you know, one of those things people occasionally say to illustrate a point without necessarily indicating said experience occurred. I find it very interesting that you assumed I meant a women's spiritual gathering. All the Pagan spiritual gatherings I have attended, and most of those I hope to attend, have had plenty of people of both genders in attendance, which is just the way I like it. I did not, at any time, state I felt oppressed, or anything else. Sara Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Survey
I apologize in advance for anyone seeing this more than once...I'nm trying to get it spread fairly widely Paganism and Environmental Politics Survey Information: This survey is intended to help me do a research project studying how Pagan beliefs affect political viewpoints and actions in regard to the environment. I will honor all requests for anonymity and requests to use only Craftname and first name(please state preferred identification at beginning of your response.) I am looking into making the results or end paper available when finished. Take as much space to answer as is necessary; don't feel constrained by the formatting of the survey. PLease send responses, questions, etc. to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or Sara Keating, Box 989 Knox College, Galesburg, IL, 61401. Thank you for taking the time to fill this out. Blessed be! 1. Please briefly describe your Tradition/spirituality/beliefs and how long you have been involved with them. What regional/ethnic backgrounds does this arise from(eg Celtic, British, Nordic, Native American)? 2. What is your opinion of how the environment is treated in modern politics, both in talk(speeches, campaigns, etc.) and in action(legislation, enforcement of existing laws, etc.)? 3. Does your religion/spirituality affect the answer to the previous question? If so, please describe. 4. How do you, as a Pagan, regard other world problems? Do you think these problems are linked to environmental issues? If so, please explain. 5. Do you think Pagans should be doing something about environmental issues? If so, what should they be doing? 6. Do you consistently practice small-scale efforts to help the environment?(eg recycling, taking public transportation) 7. Do you consistently practice large-scale efforts to help the environment?(eg lobbying, protesting) 8. What is your age? 9. What is your gender? 10. What is the highest level of education you have currently reached? 11. What is your current occupation? 12. Do you live in an urban or rural area? If urban, small or large? 13. What is your nationality? 14. How did you become involved with Paganism? Were you a member of another religion previously? If so, which? 15. What are the top five influences on your religious worldview(books, people, personal experiences, etc.)? 16. Are you considered clergy or do you consider yourself such? If so, what does this entail? 17. How do you think the general public would regard your views on environmentalism? 18. If there are any other issues or aspects of an issue you'd like to raise, or comments you'd like to make, please write about them. Sara Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestion
On Wed, 28 Sep 1994, Teresa Flores wrote: I have a humble suggestion for this list because it is getting difficult to handle too many messages. I mean, the list should be restricted to: 1. Women, and men who want to be women. ??? Why should men want to be women, and why should we restrict the list to women? Men are not "the enemy"; the "enemy" is those people, male and female, who want to force everyone to live under their beliefs and in their system. 2. Women who already sympathizes with ecofeminism and knows its principles or basic ideas. You'll throw off ninety percent of the list, and besides, we haven't even reached agreement on what ecofeminism *is*? I found that the discussion on epirituality on sperituality is wonderful, as weell as the contribution of many subscribers, but why in this list we have to read pre-ecofeminist ideas (and very old ones) again and again. Because old ideas still have things to contribute and are still useful. Sara Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: to eat or not to eat
On Mon, 26 Sep 1994, Goddess of Disco wrote: I have read in several different sources that humans are NOT designed to be carnivores, becasue (1) our teeth are desinged for grinding and meshing plant-derived foods, not ripping and tearing flesh; (2) our Explain canines. saliva is like that of other herbivores, and not as acidic as that of carnivores; (3) our digestive track is the same ratio to our torsos as are herbivore's (carnivores are different); (4) our stomach/ digestive acids are the same strength as that of herbivores (carnivores' is stronger), and (5) carnivores sleep longer than humans because digesting meat is a very energy-taxing process. Not to mention the fact the we are, to my knowledge, the only "carnivores" to die of high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. at such an alarming rate--because our bodies simply aren't designed to properly process the meat the we eat. It's not that we *eat* meat that is the problem. It is that we eat too much of it and too much of other kinds of unhealthy foods. In other words, it's *how* we eat what we eat, not *what* we eat. ^ Sara Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: animal rights
On Mon, 26 Sep 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A Modest Proposal For those who want to live without destroying anything, plant or animal, because all living things have rights, I suggest eating only what doesn't have rights, is not "alive" and is completely expendable for the sake of increasing human utility: the human fetus. It's the only thing we can kill with a clear conscience, knowing that our benefit more than compensates for its death. All other living things, animal and plant, are more important, and worthy of our deepest respect. Anyone want to join me? H.C. Ellis There isn't enough of your average fetus to make a good meal out of, that's why. Sara Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: feminine role in nature
On Wed, 21 Sep 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is interesting that many of us have responded (often negatively) to the concept of the feminine being somehow closer to nature. While I do not necessarily agree with this, nor do I believe that it is right to assume that the most wonderful thing a woman can do (hence, her most vital function to the world) is to have a child, I do not find it offensive either. It seems that we are quick to reject the important function of the creation of life, whether the "birther" be a woman, an animal, a plant, or Mother Earth. An understanding of what has been traditionally called "feminine" and an acceptance of the feminine as a good thing is, IMO, important for BOTH men and women. (while at the same time not rejecting that which is "male" either) I wouldn't so much consider it as rejecting the creation of life, as rejecting the concept that the creation of life is solely a woman's job and ability. I don't believe we should focus on the differences (whether biological or socially constructed) between men and women. However, we must acknowledge their presence, and learn to accept both the "male" and the "female" sides of each person. Agreed. I'm sorry, I think I lost my train of thought about five lines ago. Forgot what I was talking about :) Don't worry, I lost mine months ago and tthe tracks too!!!
Re: introduction
On Tue, 20 Sep 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, my name is Paige Brown, I have an MS in Environmental Economics, @ BA's - English (where I did Feminist film studies) and Ag. Economics. I currently live and work in Washington DC at the World Resources Institute my area of work is forestry and global warming. I was strongly inculcated with free market ideology. I am interested in the connections between patriarchal social systems and the subjugation of women and the degradation of the environment. I think there is no way of separating them; both are, in patriarchal systems, viewed only for what man can take from them, not what they may have to give or what man can give *back.* Regarding Bob A's question what is ecofem, again there seems to be several schools of thought. I am uncomfortable with the more spiritually based side of ecofeminism and am opposed to what I would term the essentialist expressions of ecofeminis. I think it is problematic to associate women with nature, (and here I am thinking specifically of Vandana Shiva's works). I find Shiva very interesting, but fundamentally disagree that women are "naturally" more nurturing, nature-connected etc... Haven't read Shiva, but the point you are making is valid. Women are no more(and probably no *less*) nuturing, connected to nature, or whatever, than men are. Being connected to nature and being nuturing are combinations of personality traits, possibly inborn tendencies, and conscious will.
