Oh my...I will reread and give the last 3/4 of this post more attention later. But not before I suggest some corrections or reconsideration of this post's definition of "ecofeminism." Wilbur (as I glean from the segments you quote) maybe has something to offer. Maybe not. But his definition of ecofeminism is completely off mark, and it w…
Oh my...I will reread and give the last 3/4 of this post more attention later. But not before I suggest some corrections or reconsideration of this post's definition of "ecofeminism." Wilbur (as I glean from the segments you quote) maybe has something to offer. Maybe not. But his definition of ecofeminism is completely off mark, and it would appear that your arguments, having sprung from Wilbur (regardless of agreement), are flawed or incomplete. You have allowed his misapplication of horticulture in this discourse. As such, you reach conclusions about how power or what has been in power throughout the life of civilization that are not reflected in historical reality. Subsequently, intentionally or not, you skew or distort ecofeminism.
Ecofeminism arose in the 1970's when some feminists began to explore the intersect of race, class, and gender. Ecofeminism links the subjugation of women AND others to humanity's oppressive relationship with nature. It takes intersectional feminism a step further, examining the “rape” of our ecosystem as a symptom of male dominated values, no different than how histories of peoples whose identity and autonomy and value were raped by the forces of colonization and capitalism, also male. Much like the (well established) link between sexism and racism, ecofeminism draws heavy parallels between the subjugation of women (and of all those persons and cultures who have been injured and dismantled by male - dominated thinking and privilege) and the domination of nature (and the ongoing ecological degradation). But the base of the system (patriarchy or matriarchy) cannot be conceptualized as economic or production based. At least not to the extent that your post reads. That way oversimplifies ecofeminism and, quite frankly, is an example of how the patriarchy would prefer to define and dismiss. Ecofeminism calls our attention to the interconnection between us—as a species, us as human animals—and nature. And that there has been a nearly forever domination of anything and everything by men. Much like the consequences of racism and sexism, this male domination over nature makes us all, men included, a victim.
I must also point out that it is not accurate to equate ecofeminism with Marxism. At least it is not wise to do that without acknowledging that ecofeminists come in all varieties. That they criticize capitalism is not synonymous with Marxism. Rather ecofeminism (and some would argue many who seek healing and caring for the environment) requires a transformation in the way we, in western capitalist society, define ourselves in relation to nature. Lastly, to attempt to “split” men from patriarchy is not necessary and only advances an argument that it is not men who oppress women. Yeah it is; HOWEVER to the extent that men, as well as everyone else and every grain of sand, are either shaped by patriarchal forces or are the well scripted actors that keep the largest and most influential theatre up and running, it is not any one man’s domination that can be blamed for the withering environment or the inequitable distribution of privilege. And yet it IS any one man’s oppression that can be held accountable. As one who has spent many years knee deep in learning how social and political and cultural systems create the lives and the narratives of individuals, the bidirectional relationship cannot be ignored.
You are right that the role of women in production and its economic +/- consequences for women and society has some pre and post industrialism faces. But assigning so much weight to production is in some ways the antithesis of ecofeminism and, quite frankly, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If the status of horticulture bears responsibility for who reigned, patriarch or matriarch, then we would have a slave-iarch system. WHO does the producing is NOT and NEVER has been equivalent to WHO does the ruling. To the extent that men may oppress or dominate reflexively from a learned position throughout history, that they may be puppets of this patriarchy with a capital P and therefore share the burden of damage with the PATRIARCH is what many systems of feminism have been arguing. It never has been JUST about men hurting women (or Indigenous, etc.). Feminists have been screaming for decades that it is the patriarchy that is the demon; and feminism of the second wave and the humanism and ecofeminism movements have been trying to get you and others to hear this. Though some strains of feminism and some earlier feminists were ridiculously punitive and demeaning and blaming…. But like, what you said, it is not women against men. Feminists have thought for a long time now that boys and men suffer equally under this system. But when you say the system is fickle, I have to say, that MUST be a perspective held by a white man who has not the intimately personal and painful relationship with the system. If ONLY it were about that. If ONLY production power could tip that imbalance. But men are constantly co-creating and re-designing the System so that they can rule without producing anything. The problem, some say, is that “the system” and men and all of us fail to VALUE what women can produce on the one hand, and are motivated to keep them from deriving the privileges associated with the belief that “he who produces and contributes is given a seat at the table.”
Men, and ecofeminists would say, capitalism has cleverly managed to keep our attention away from actually seeing the value and benefit of “female – oriented” roles. As a man, you are part of the system just as a priest is part of the church more than he is part of God. As such you are always somewhat protected by the system. It brings me no pleasure to point out the obvious: those with a penis are those in power and that is NOT because there is some “other” force. This is not a trinity. Another “force” argument diminishes the ONLY tangible hope that any of us have that men can actively lead themselves and us out and away from men’s unsolicited but very deeply held thoughts, biases, and behaviors that oppress others. Women are not against men; but they are realistic enough to know that if it is not men who step out and beyond the Patriarch they are and always will be an appendage of the Patriarch and share the burden. That third force is no more than the home in which white male identity as power is protected and actively reinforced. (now if you want to argue Ancient Egypt and the reversal of power, much in the hands of women, that would be interesting).
Oh my...I will reread and give the last 3/4 of this post more attention later. But not before I suggest some corrections or reconsideration of this post's definition of "ecofeminism." Wilbur (as I glean from the segments you quote) maybe has something to offer. Maybe not. But his definition of ecofeminism is completely off mark, and it would appear that your arguments, having sprung from Wilbur (regardless of agreement), are flawed or incomplete. You have allowed his misapplication of horticulture in this discourse. As such, you reach conclusions about how power or what has been in power throughout the life of civilization that are not reflected in historical reality. Subsequently, intentionally or not, you skew or distort ecofeminism.
Ecofeminism arose in the 1970's when some feminists began to explore the intersect of race, class, and gender. Ecofeminism links the subjugation of women AND others to humanity's oppressive relationship with nature. It takes intersectional feminism a step further, examining the “rape” of our ecosystem as a symptom of male dominated values, no different than how histories of peoples whose identity and autonomy and value were raped by the forces of colonization and capitalism, also male. Much like the (well established) link between sexism and racism, ecofeminism draws heavy parallels between the subjugation of women (and of all those persons and cultures who have been injured and dismantled by male - dominated thinking and privilege) and the domination of nature (and the ongoing ecological degradation). But the base of the system (patriarchy or matriarchy) cannot be conceptualized as economic or production based. At least not to the extent that your post reads. That way oversimplifies ecofeminism and, quite frankly, is an example of how the patriarchy would prefer to define and dismiss. Ecofeminism calls our attention to the interconnection between us—as a species, us as human animals—and nature. And that there has been a nearly forever domination of anything and everything by men. Much like the consequences of racism and sexism, this male domination over nature makes us all, men included, a victim.
I must also point out that it is not accurate to equate ecofeminism with Marxism. At least it is not wise to do that without acknowledging that ecofeminists come in all varieties. That they criticize capitalism is not synonymous with Marxism. Rather ecofeminism (and some would argue many who seek healing and caring for the environment) requires a transformation in the way we, in western capitalist society, define ourselves in relation to nature. Lastly, to attempt to “split” men from patriarchy is not necessary and only advances an argument that it is not men who oppress women. Yeah it is; HOWEVER to the extent that men, as well as everyone else and every grain of sand, are either shaped by patriarchal forces or are the well scripted actors that keep the largest and most influential theatre up and running, it is not any one man’s domination that can be blamed for the withering environment or the inequitable distribution of privilege. And yet it IS any one man’s oppression that can be held accountable. As one who has spent many years knee deep in learning how social and political and cultural systems create the lives and the narratives of individuals, the bidirectional relationship cannot be ignored.
You are right that the role of women in production and its economic +/- consequences for women and society has some pre and post industrialism faces. But assigning so much weight to production is in some ways the antithesis of ecofeminism and, quite frankly, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If the status of horticulture bears responsibility for who reigned, patriarch or matriarch, then we would have a slave-iarch system. WHO does the producing is NOT and NEVER has been equivalent to WHO does the ruling. To the extent that men may oppress or dominate reflexively from a learned position throughout history, that they may be puppets of this patriarchy with a capital P and therefore share the burden of damage with the PATRIARCH is what many systems of feminism have been arguing. It never has been JUST about men hurting women (or Indigenous, etc.). Feminists have been screaming for decades that it is the patriarchy that is the demon; and feminism of the second wave and the humanism and ecofeminism movements have been trying to get you and others to hear this. Though some strains of feminism and some earlier feminists were ridiculously punitive and demeaning and blaming…. But like, what you said, it is not women against men. Feminists have thought for a long time now that boys and men suffer equally under this system. But when you say the system is fickle, I have to say, that MUST be a perspective held by a white man who has not the intimately personal and painful relationship with the system. If ONLY it were about that. If ONLY production power could tip that imbalance. But men are constantly co-creating and re-designing the System so that they can rule without producing anything. The problem, some say, is that “the system” and men and all of us fail to VALUE what women can produce on the one hand, and are motivated to keep them from deriving the privileges associated with the belief that “he who produces and contributes is given a seat at the table.”
Men, and ecofeminists would say, capitalism has cleverly managed to keep our attention away from actually seeing the value and benefit of “female – oriented” roles. As a man, you are part of the system just as a priest is part of the church more than he is part of God. As such you are always somewhat protected by the system. It brings me no pleasure to point out the obvious: those with a penis are those in power and that is NOT because there is some “other” force. This is not a trinity. Another “force” argument diminishes the ONLY tangible hope that any of us have that men can actively lead themselves and us out and away from men’s unsolicited but very deeply held thoughts, biases, and behaviors that oppress others. Women are not against men; but they are realistic enough to know that if it is not men who step out and beyond the Patriarch they are and always will be an appendage of the Patriarch and share the burden. That third force is no more than the home in which white male identity as power is protected and actively reinforced. (now if you want to argue Ancient Egypt and the reversal of power, much in the hands of women, that would be interesting).