> 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!!).
Oops, didn't mean that to be a list of how we can purify our lives. I
was just pointing out ways in which our daily choices can damage the
environment or contribute to oppression. If eating meat is to be a
deciding factor in who is or is not an ecofeminist, why not these
other things? If we start drawing lines, where do we draw them? I
too dislike the notion of "to be an ecofeminist you must...." We
should decide for ourselves what we must or must not do.
I don't think that we are distinct from nature. We may have more of a
capacity for reflection and choice in our lives than most animals do,
but those choices are a part of nature and affect nature.
> Ecofeminism, I think, is the worst nightmare of the political right.
Goddess I hope so! My partner read to me today one of the carrots in
Ms. magazine. Apparently women are giving up meat at a much higher
rate than men, and at a high enough rate that the meat industry is in
a tizzy trying to figure out how to win back those mouths and
stomachs.
Stephen
