Mary et al:
Okay, I'm a sexist. ECOFEM's resident sexist, available for
recreational bashing.
Now that we have that established, let's get to the heart of the
matter. (By the way, what is the definition of "essentialism"?)
At this point, I'm totally confused. ECOFEM is what, bringing the
insights of feminism to environmental philosophy? What is
feminism? Doesn't it hinge on the differences between men and
women? But when I bring up differences, y'all (you guys? - what's
politically correct here?) tell me not to emphasize the
differences, that we're all the same.
If men aren't the prototypes that feminists are patterning
themselves after, then why are they distinctively acting like men?
Feminists clearly want to do everything men do (and, with few
exceptions, I agree), but a lot of the things men do, like boxing,
are clearly masculine. And, frankly, dumb.
If we can't look at feminine characteristics, like nurturing, to
help with the environmental philosophy, then where's the "FEM" in
ECOFEM?
Feminists seem to be copying the domineering characteristic of men.
(It's very difficult to talk to hardcore feminists.) I think
that's a mistake. Y'all (you persons? you folks?) should try to
replace the mean system that men have put in place with something
better, like the partnership model Riane Eisler talked about. Get
into high office (and you are making progress, although feminists
have lost the support of many women in America) and CHANGE things.
Don't become Margaret Thatchers and Jean Kirkpatricks.
A lot of women in America don't WANT to be like men. That's one
reason ERA failed. Biologically, WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME. Cold,
hard fact.
So here's a paradox. Scientifically, people are not the same. But
our moral code establishes that we are equal. It's clearly a very
bad idea to let books like "The Bell Curve" drive public policy.
Absolutely no doubt in my mind. We need to avoid racism, sexism,
and all forms of tribalism. (Someone recently posted that
"polarization is good." I couldn't disagree more. Polarization
causes fights, and we should avoid it. Heck, even the advocacy
form of our legal system leads to outright lies in court, because
each attorney is focused on winning. How do you get justice from
lies?)
How can we sort this out? Let's not throw away all the biological
differences and tendencies - some of them, like love and caring and
needing each other, are good. And downright necessary in this
crazy world. Everybody wants to be independent, but we're NOT. Six
billion people simply cannot go back to the way things were 10,000
years ago.
Let's deal with the paradox, and try to reach consensus on which
biological realities we'll let dictate things, and which (like
differences in skin color) we'll ignore. Being "colorblind," for
example, is an excellent unscientific principle to have. [By the
way, I'm the Affirmative Action/EEO rep for 186 people in my
Division. I HAVE to stay up on the AA debate. Which is another
job related aspect of ECOFEM. I'd like to hear y'all's (you
humans'? you cybermanifestations'?) thoughts on AA/EEO.]
Ignoring all differences, though, is impossible and unhealthy.
Recognizing differences in ability is very important for sorting
out the myriad jobs that have to be done for civilization to
continue and prosper. And, damn it, womyn tend to have a better
approach to environmental protection, and I want to follow that
approach.
aVr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. Good point on the entropy thing. I didn't mean to say that life
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics; just that it works at odds
with them. Life does an incredible job of making order out of
chaos, but ultimately depends on a continuous flow of energy from
the sun.
