To clarify things for all those terribly upset people out there:
> What is meant by a "patriarchal concept of rights"? I have my own ideas,
>but I'm curious as to whether there is some generally held notion referred to
>here. Does the author of this thread refer to "paternalism" of some sort, and
>should that be construed as synonomous with "patriarchal," especially when
>(or only when?) referring to "animal rights"?
A "patriarchal concept of rights" is the one that emphasizes the 'rights of
man'. It developed originally to protect the commercial middle class from
the aristocracy. It developed slowly to include other groups of society,
later including all men, then all women. What I meant is that the animal
rights movement makes animals the next link in the chain. It doesn't mean
giving the right to vote to animals but other rights that humans have such
as life and protection from harm. However, just as all good feminists know,
simply extending extra rights to a discriminated group is no cure for the
problems that that group suffers. As far as I understood, ecofeminism is
about redefining all the relationships within the patriarchal system.
Instead of preserving the hierarchy, with those who have power being nice
enough to extend a few little rights to those that don't, we start from the
beginning and presume that all creatures are equal.
> A more general and more difficult (at least I hope it's more difficult)
>question concerns the second generalization here -- that "Feminism and Animal
>Rights" are somehow incompatible. What is "Feminism" meant to stand for in
>this usage?
I apologize for being unclear. I understood feminism to be opposition to the
patriarchal system and the redefining of the relationships between men and
women. There is no reason at all why a person can't support both feminism
and animal rights. It is just that in my opinion there is a contradiction in
ideologies. Since, ideologically, the animal rights movement is a part of
the patriarchal system of relationships it cannot fit ideologically with
feminism.
A type of feminism that ignores these details is ignoring the reasons behind
the oppression of women.
> One more question. What does the author of this thread think is the
>justification for insisting there are, indeed, "animal rights"? Is it such a
>thing that would also include rights for trees? I'm not being facetious here,
>by the way. I really want to know the basis for these claims.
I wasn't saying that there are animal rights. A right is something relative
and is only a function of the amount of power that a particular group has.
Trees have the same rights that big businessmen have, the only difference
being that trees don't have the power to saw the heads off of big businessmen.
Thanks a lot,
Ben.
