i tried to post this several days ago from another account, but it didn't seem to get through. sorry for the delay in my response. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 94 23:36:04 PDT From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Janet Biehl's RETHINKING ECOFEMINIST POLITICS On Wed, Oct 19, 1994 Monique Flannagan posted a request for a critique of "The Neolythic Mystiique" similar to the one published in "Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics" by Janet Biehl (South End Press, 1991). On Thu, Oct 20 I posted an initially sarcastic response to Monique's request, stating that I had some serious problems with Janet Biehl's critique of ecofeminism because: (1) "her critique" seemed to be a regurgitation of her mentor/lover Murray Bookchin's positions (as outlined below); (2) Biehl was more interested in arguing against ecofeminism and more interested in recruiting for Bookchin/Biehl's Socialist Greens. I then suggested that Monique read Rosemary Radford Ruether's GAIA AND GOD and Naomi Wolfe's FIRE WITH FIRE because while their critiques that complement Biehl's chapter "The Neolythic Mystique", RRR's & NW's main objective is to strengthen feminism. I then ended my post by saying read Biehl & READ EVERYTHING WITH DISCERNMENT. The postings that followed contained accusations & counter-accusations of heterophobia & more pleas for diversity. On 10-21-94 Dorceta Taylor posted that "She (Biehl) has committed no scholarly crime by quoting her partner" and "discussing her sexuality & political agenda won't be an adequete response." Let me reinterate: sexism--not sexuality--is the problem; analysis--and then action--is the solution. Taking up my copy of RETHINKING ECOFEMINIST POLITICS (hereafter REP), I note that: 1) The opening line thanks Murray Bookchin 2) In the concluding sentence of the intro, Biehl states: "I hope to carve out a space for woman who are working in the ecology movement so that they can free themselves from "the ecofeminist imperative"--indeed, to resist its moralistic obscurantism--and to think for themselves." 3) According to the REF index Biehl quotes Murray Bookchin at length on pages 5,21,22,31,34,86,107,108,109,111-112,113,116,117-124,125-129,132,135,143,146-47 and then she directs the reader to "social ecology" (the movement which Bookchin founded) on pgs 3,4,5,6-7,22,105,117-127,150-157. (NB--REF is 157 pgs long!) 4) Biehl ends REF by saying "In the ecology movement, thinking women must, if only to realize their own human potenitalities, either join with thinkinking men in developing a new politics, rationality, and science--or they are likely to follow the ecofeminist path toward a narrow parochialism, primitivism, and irationalism that will ultimately mystify and support the status quo rather than transcend it by achieving a free ecological society." Because of the length of this post, i'll end here. Thanks! Jennifer Gagliardi ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
