EnviroLink Forum

Page 1 of 1

Author:  Fosgate [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Spamming

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... highlight=

The following text is found in 3 separate posts made within a 17 minute span:

Ranka wrote:
Thomas-Adams. Pornography, Hunting, and the Anxiety of Control. Joel Thomas-Adams, 1993, 197pp w/ 38pp Biblio/Notes. An extension of ecofeminist thought exploring masculine sexuality in two extremeand dominant forms–pornography and hunting–as connected to environmental explotiation and degradation.


http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/cour ... warrn.html

Many ecofeminists have focused on uncovering empirical evidence linking women (and children, people of color, the underclass) with environmental destruction. Some point to various health and risk factors borne disproportionately by women children, racial minorities and the poor caused by the presence of low-level radiation, pesticides, toxics, and other pollutants (e.g., Caldecott and Leland 1983; Salleh 1990, this section; Shiva 1988; Warren 1991a). Others provide data to show that First World development policies result in policies and practices regarding food, forest, and water, which directly contribute to the inability of women to provide adequately for themselves and their families (e.g., Mies 1986; Shiva 1988; Warren 1988, 1989 1991a). Feminist animal rights scholars argue that factory farming, animal experimentation, hunting, and meat eating are tied to patriarchal concepts and practices (e.g., Adams 1990, 1991; Kheel 1985; Slicer 1991). Some connect rape and pornography with male-gender identified abuse of both women and nature (e.g., Collard with Contrucci 1988; Griffin 1981). Appeal to such empirical data is intended both to document the very real, felt, lived "experiential" connections between the dominations of women and nature and to motivate the need for joining together feminist critical analysis and environmental concerns


By the time of the biblical story of the Garden of Eden, a totally new world view had emerged. Both a woman and an animal were by this time depicted as the source of all evil in the world. And "Man," above all other forms of life, was claimed to have a special relation to the divine.
Today, the heroic battle against unruly nature is reenacted as ritual drama in such masculine ventures as sport-hunting, bullfights, and rodeos. A similar mentality can be seen in the ritual degradation of women in pornography and rape. As Susan Griffin points out, pornography is ritual drama. [9] It is the heroic struggle of the masculine ego to deny the knowledge of bodily feelings and one's dependence upon women and all of the natural world.
The second image of nature appears less heroic but is equally violent in its own way. It is the image of nature as mindless matter, which exists to serve the needs of superior, rational "Man." In this image, animals are depicted as having different, unequal natures rather than as wild or evil creatures that must be conquered and subdued. They are not so much irrational as nonrational beings. Along with women, they are viewed as mere "matter" (a word that, significantly, derives from the same root word as "mother").

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

Two of the three are now gone, thanks. There was also another post from another site that was a violation, which was also removed.

Author:  Sandra John [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:49 am ]
Post subject: 

Weren't the extra posts quotes? If so are we to remove all long quotes or what?

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:14 am ]
Post subject: 

Sandra John wrote:
Weren't the extra posts quotes? If so are we to remove all long quotes or what?

No, same poster replied using same message three separate times in 17 minutes on this thread. The alternative should have been "See above" or something similar rather than repeating the same reference especially in the same thread and so close together.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group