>At 11:25 AM 8/15/96 -0700, S. Grubb wrote:
>>I thought ecofeminists rejected the notion of "development?!"
>
>hmmm, well, i suppose 'some' ecofeminists reject it on a critical level
>because it creates a dichotomy between developed and nondeveloped, or
>possibly because it assumes that those who are developed can manipulate
>others, but in the end if one feminist stopped acting because anothe
>feminist 'rejected' their idea, feminism would NOT exist. infighting among
>feminists is probably the biggest reason that they dont mobilize.
Jason, you talk about feminists as 'they'. so you aren't one. what are you
doing on an ecofem list?
One of the things that feminism has had to address since day one, and it
seems we still have to explain is that women are not 'other'. men it is
accepted are different from each other. women have been modelled to be the
same other, a category but not normal. let me inform you that women are
just as different from each other as men are from each other. this
sameness has been extended with vigour to the feminist movement in order to
discredit it.
Jason, there are many women who are feminists. there are also some men.
feminists are not all the same. wanting equality is the basis from there
there are many viewpoints on what this means and how to get it.
Liberal feminists for example appear to believe that women should get the
same as men in there class. this of course denies women of colour and
working class womn. liberal feminists also reject the notion of changing
the system and also reject language changes.
Radical feminists believe that the system needs to change for equality to occur.
there are also lesbian feminists and many others. within each of these
categories are people who will disagree. this does not make what they are
arguing about any less valid. it does not make one woman a feminist and
another not.
similarly with ecofem there are many views. some think that meat eaters
are not ecofem's. i think this sort of fighting is pointless and we should
first attempt the larger things. we are losing rainforests which are
fragile and irreplaceable.
if feminists in early 1900 had first tackled language eg using him to refer
to all and left the vote to after i think they wouldn't have got anywhere.
we must go one step at a time.
now in the 1990's we can tackle language and keeping our forests.
this is one feminist ecofeminists opinion and does not mean that anyone at
all will agree.
Kylie
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
