Women and Nature

[KichigaiNeko]

Here's a revealing essay on ecofeminism:

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/bron/PDF--...lution.pdf

The essay lists several sources for further discovery.

What I got from this is that ecofeminism was first coined in the 1970s and calls for considering the 'oppression of nature' as another example of misdead foisted upon reality by the Western patriarchal system. The author, Hobgood-Oster, quotes from Ruther's book New Woman/New Earth:

Women must see that there can be no liberation for them and no solution to the ecological crisis within a society whose fundamental model of relationships continues to be one of domination. They must unite the demands of the women’s movement with those of the ecological movement to envision a radical reshaping of the basic socioeconomic relations and the underlying values of this [modern industrial] society.

Based on this limited research I agree that the idea is a croc.

Thank you cato...much appreciated!

[Darth]

I absolutely hate that sort of question. I've had to do some psych units, and social psych and qualitative research were just so full of that sort of thing. I went into uni thinking 'Oh yeah, though It's not my chosen path I can certainly see why people would want to study psych, it would be interesting' to 'omg what a load of nonsense, why would people continue studying this?'

To be fair I wasn't doing all their units, only a select few, but wow. You may think I'm poo-pooing a science, It's not me, it was the qualitative instructor who was doing that =P. Went on about how bad quantitative methods were (stats n stuff, which they condensed down one semester's worth into half a semester to make room for qualitative) and how good your own bias and subjectivity as a researcher are for almost the first full lecture. We* stopped attending eventually, was all about feminism, post-modernism, blah blah blah, same as my brother's art's degree pretty much, he shows me some right nonsense (and I lost the right to mock him after he stumbled across my lecture notes for that class )

I would have thought geoscience was a hard enough science to not have to deal with that sort of thing.

*we, us non psych students, I was one of the last to leave, I was sat almost by myself by the end.

ugh, I tried reading that essay, ugh.

[KichigaiNeko]

I did read the essay Stue, and found this....

Marie Wilson, member of the Gitksan-Wet’suwet’en Tribal Council (British Columbia) explains her perspective on this issue:
At the risk of sounding scornful or derogatory I have to say that the Indian attitude toward the natural world is different from the environmentalists. I have had the awful feeling that when we are finished dealing with the courts and our land claims, we will then have to battle the environmentalists and they will not understand why

A rather interesting statement which led to this.... Utah American Indian Tribes

---

Tiberius, I am of the opinion that there is a general consensus in the population that females are "closer to nature" just as they are more prevalent in the "community support services" possibly because of their genetic role as nurturers?. Why this is so I have no idea and perhaps this is why it has been included in the essay question??

[All Knowing Hippie]

my experience,i met lots of girls (13-16) and i tell you that guys are way more eco friendly.But girls change rapidly so when they will be like 25 they will change

[KichigaiNeko]

my experience,i met lots of girls (13-16) and i tell you that guys are way more eco friendly.But girls change rapidly so when they will be like 25 they will change

The essays and links talk of "Women" honey; not girls

[All Knowing Hippie]

my experience,i met lots of girls (13-16) and i tell you that guys are way more eco friendly.But girls change rapidly so when they will be like 25 they will change

The essays and links talk of "Women" honey; not girls

dame it

[KichigaiNeko]

You ARE learning little one!!

---

It's a bit long but an interesting read non-the-less

http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/moyle/ch1.asp

---

What role does religion play in shaping our attitude towards the natural world? One answer was proposed in 1967 by UCLA History Professor Lynn White, Jr., who wrote an article entitled, "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis" (Science 155(3767):1203-1207, 1967). In this article, he said that the Western world's attitudes towards nature were shaped by the Judeo-Christian tradition (he also included Islam and Marxism within this overall tradition). This tradition, White wrote, involved the concept of a world created solely for the benefit of man: "God planned all [of creation] explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes." Along with this, Western Christianity separated humans from nature. In older religious traditions, humans were seen as part of nature, rather than the ruler of nature. And in animistic religions, there was believed to be a spirit in every tree, mountain or spring, and all had to be respected. In contrast with paganism and Eastern religions, Christianity "not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God's will that man exploit nature for his proper ends." White noted that Christianity was a complex faith, and different branches of it differ in their outlook. But in general, he proposed that Christianity, and Western civilization as a whole, held a view of nature that separated humans from the rest of the natural world, and encouraged exploitation of it for our own ends.

A follow on from my other thread regarding this issue.... another interesting read

http://cache.zazna.com/selection/jzTyYmNlMj,proxy.html

---

And yet another interesting study and read
http://www.modern-cynic.org/SEV_Reports/...h2012).pdf

---

Nullius in Verba Says:
June 5th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
There are plenty of conservatives quite prepared to take climate change seriously. They would require:

1. Before any redress can be made, the damages would have to be both proven and quantified, with the quality of evidence normally expected of the judicial system in cases where such sums of money are concerned. That would mean fixing the science.

2. Finances for adaptation should be raised using instruments dependent on climate outcomes – e.g. bonds that pay out with a high interest rate on a certain date unless sea level rise exceeds 1 metre.

3. That once the case is properly made we go nuclear first, and switch to solar or other technologies only when they are economically viable without subsidy. Regulatory and planning obstacles should be cleared away.

4. That the burden should fall on all parties and nations in proportion to their emissions. The climate doesn’t care where the CO2 comes from. Differential responsibilities distorts markets and leads to emission exporting and other cheats. And there are to be no carbon offsets – they’re too easily subject to fraud, and they’re essentially paying poor people to take the consequences of your policies.

5. That advocates for reduction lead by example – without purchasing offsets, and especially without purchasing offsets with taxpayers money. That means all future climate conferences and talks are to be conducted online, for example, and governments and environmental organisations conduct their business without using fossil fuel energy. Show us how it is possible, within your existing budget.

I could go on, but you get the idea. First fix the science and prove what you claim, then take only the most efficient, effective measures, pay only for real results, and no offloading the consequences of your policies onto other people.

Taken from HERE

---

I am thinnking that the SummerQueen may have posted this before but many in S-E Asia are taking this concept seriously.
Green Cities

---

Biosolids

Water Corporation WA

Got a fetiliser problem? You MAY have a Chook deficiency

Chook Tractors

For your perusal
Climate Deniers

[ElijahDrew]

It's the long hair...

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

You may think I'm poo-pooing a science,

Not at all,psychology is a 'soft science' at best. At worst sheer crackpottery.

Read say Carl Jung's autobiography. I was also shocked to find out there is no empirical evidence to support Freud's model of consciousness, with its trinary system of ego,id and superego. I won't even start on some of the more popular alternative models.

I make a clear distinction between the practice of psychology and psychiatry,which has at least some empirical base.


As Herr Doktor Freud famously did NOT say (but should have)

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar