Richard,
thou art the savior. :) No, seriously, this is the first decent post that
has graced the list in some time. Some of the so-called ecofeminists on
this list would do good to (a) read *and* comprehend this post, (b) read
Warren, Plumwood, Adams, etc., and then (c) thoroughly *think*,
*re-evaluate*, and *revise* their previously held utilitarian,
anthropocentric, selfishly individualistic, pro-capitalist, etc., etc.
beliefs. I, like Richard, feel very alienated on this list, but find
myself in whole-hearted agreement with *the* ecofeminist writers mentioned
above. How is it that people call themselves ecofeminists and/or subscribe
to this list, yet have little to no knowledge of ecofeminism and its
principles?
-Susan
P.S. Excellent thread name! Keep up the good work, Richard. :)
On Fri, 5 Jul 1996, Richard Twine wrote:
> Why is it that I read all the major ecofeminist writers such as Karen Warren,
> Val Plumwood, Carol Adams (feel free to contend this list) and I feel like I've
> really found a home for my thought~feelings, then read some messages here
> and feel alienated? It can get real childish saying who is or who is not an
> ecofeminist-but there would be no point in having ecofeminism if it didn't
> stand for anything. Stephen's critique of moral purity is spot on - I think it is
> a Christian relic. So Stephen why do you then proceed to give us a list of the
> ways we can purify our lives??? WE DON'T HAVE TO use nature as a mirror to
> guide human behaviour - this discourse of 'Nature as order' which some of you
> are using to legitimise meat-eating is identical to the essentialism deployed in
> sexism and racism. And Stephen, we are simultaneously part of nature AND distinct
>(not
> superior!!).
> Ecofeminism, I think, is the worst nightmare of the political right.
> It refuses the resourcing of nature, it contends the 'currently reigning' definition
> of humanity, and is obviously feminist, antiracist, anti-individualistic (sorry
> Betty) and anti-capitalist. I would personally add that it does not judge by
>appearance.
> You could also say that it was concerned with the
> promotion of an earth-based spirituality, rather than religion......
> One could imagine a future when eating meat was not so tied up in the destruction
> of the environment and worker-exploitation etc, but this still would not,
>personally,
> be enough for me. Inflicting pain is violent and sadistic, I feel.
> A new thread would be nice.....
> Richard
> P.S. Sue Grubb, you keep me sane!!, thanks.
>
>
>
