Tuesday, April 20, 2004
What I found interesting about the Canadian site is that they seem to be mirroring the spin of the internal American site. In light of Ken's insight to the behind the scenes this is even more interesting.
The part of the Canadian site that I also found interesting was the "charter" that they posted.
(Special Bruce disclaimer here - - before you start throwing tomatoes at me for what follows, please read all the way through. I am in no way anti-female, nor do I condone the oppression of women. as a matter of fact I support several groups that fight for these rights)
In the charter, the Sierra Club of Canada states that they promote the empowerment (Can we officially embargo that word already!) of women. They feel that this will lead to higher educational levels and economic clout for women, which in turn will result in environmental gains through lower birth rates, and sound environmental practices.
My question is...really? Have these effects been seen in any other society. For example, in most of the Western World birth rates have been decreasing, while educational, political and economic levels for women have gone up, yet at the same time the Western world has seen consumption levels also rise.
While few people would argue against improved standards for women, writing them into an environmental charter, smacks of the same type of special interest take-over as does the anti-immigration lobby in the American chapter.
This said, if anyone knows of any research that bears out the above, please let me know, it just seems like a large leap to me. And if it isn't true, isn't a group like the Sierra Club risking its reputation by promoting any alleged tie-in to the environment?
This past summer I was involved in a minor dust up with a local environmental group. The group, which I held in the highest respect had removed a few books by the same author from their book store shelves. When i asked why, I was given a list of reasons why this had happened. Most of these were of a ethical/environmental root. Being a fan of these authors, I checked into the allegations and found that all of them were unfounded. I went back to the environmental group with 5 - 7 questions thatI hoped would clarify a few things, including whether any other books were being reviewed against the same criteria (There weren't) - Anyway none of the questions were answered and the only response I got was a threatening email (what it threatened I can't say...use your imaginations). Finding myself in a lose/lose situation I agreed to back off...and was quickly invited to a "sensitivity session" sort of thing - - which still cracks people up around here.
My point is that even though you may follow a certain group they have to measured the same way you judge those groups you oppose.
The part of the Canadian site that I also found interesting was the "charter" that they posted.
(Special Bruce disclaimer here - - before you start throwing tomatoes at me for what follows, please read all the way through. I am in no way anti-female, nor do I condone the oppression of women. as a matter of fact I support several groups that fight for these rights)
In the charter, the Sierra Club of Canada states that they promote the empowerment (Can we officially embargo that word already!) of women. They feel that this will lead to higher educational levels and economic clout for women, which in turn will result in environmental gains through lower birth rates, and sound environmental practices.
My question is...really? Have these effects been seen in any other society. For example, in most of the Western World birth rates have been decreasing, while educational, political and economic levels for women have gone up, yet at the same time the Western world has seen consumption levels also rise.
While few people would argue against improved standards for women, writing them into an environmental charter, smacks of the same type of special interest take-over as does the anti-immigration lobby in the American chapter.
This said, if anyone knows of any research that bears out the above, please let me know, it just seems like a large leap to me. And if it isn't true, isn't a group like the Sierra Club risking its reputation by promoting any alleged tie-in to the environment?
This past summer I was involved in a minor dust up with a local environmental group. The group, which I held in the highest respect had removed a few books by the same author from their book store shelves. When i asked why, I was given a list of reasons why this had happened. Most of these were of a ethical/environmental root. Being a fan of these authors, I checked into the allegations and found that all of them were unfounded. I went back to the environmental group with 5 - 7 questions thatI hoped would clarify a few things, including whether any other books were being reviewed against the same criteria (There weren't) - Anyway none of the questions were answered and the only response I got was a threatening email (what it threatened I can't say...use your imaginations). Finding myself in a lose/lose situation I agreed to back off...and was quickly invited to a "sensitivity session" sort of thing - - which still cracks people up around here.
My point is that even though you may follow a certain group they have to measured the same way you judge those groups you oppose.
