There seems to be a underlying thought to many of these responses that
presupposes moral superiority and judgements are a bad thing. On the
contrary, they are very necessary. We all judge people every moment of
the day. If I am unwilling to judge a mass murderer as being morally
inferior to me than how am I to gauge my own behavior and act
accordingly? Judging Hitler's actions as bad, and, for example, the
Dalai Lama's as good, helps me decide on my own morality.
What is wrong, IMHO, is using these judgements to justify actions. Just
because I may feel morally superior to someone does not entitle to me
one iota of anything special from the universe. Nor does it entitle to
me to force my beliefs on someone who I think is morally inferior. I
don't think we should confuse necessry mental activity with the actions
that follow them.
My moral judgement of meat eaters as being morally inferior to
vegetarians and vegetarians to vegans is a belief. As such, I am careful
not to base any actions on it since my beliefs can be as wrong as
anyone's. However, it is a fact, and not a belief, that meat eating is
environmentally destructive as an institution in today's society. I do
not see that as disputable. Some people are willing to accept that
amount of destruction for the privilege of eating meat. That is their
right even though I disagree with it.
Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. This is starting to get off topic so I would be happy to continue
talking with anyone off list.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 8 02:24:51 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 18:25:38 +1000
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Scott MLC)
Subject: Re: sex differences
>hi toni
don't know how old your listing is because I've been away for a month,
but I've been studying ecofeminism for my honours paper (on ecofeminist
activism in Australia) and have been just saturated with ecofeminist
writings for months... the question you raise is one I've been pondering
alot too
I mean, I'll read Vandana Shiva for example and think yeah the woman nature
link IS THERE whether it be historical, cultural, biological or more
probably a mix of the lot. and lets not DENY it just because we'll get
labelled as biological determinants promoting essentialism
then I'll read some other brilliant convincing writer and think it's
absolutely essential that we as ecofeminists do not promote essentialism,
biological determinism that we've been fighting against as feminists for so
so long... man/woman, nature/culture, lesbian/straight, they're not REAL
categories but our culture's story right? not to say we don't have to work
with them though
and personally i think of the great men even if few in my life who are
living and believing and acting on an ecofeminist wavelength and feel so
much more connected to them then say my female relatives who are pretty
earthblind, and i know it's not ever simple
and i read criticisms of ecofeminism that send me into reels of confusion
and self-examination
for example, one article which criticised that women in the Third World were
actually more involved in environmentla action, like the Chipko movement so
oft quoted...saying that women DIDN'T organise and motivate etc Chipko, and
gave a huge account of what he saw as happening, and looked at numerous
cases where women hadn't supported environmental peace in the Third World...
so that I just had to question it all,
I could write scads more on this
are you still interested in it?
earthpeace
jarrah freewoman
>
