Alright gentlemen ('boys'?), on to more substantive issues.
As for this 'girl' (oh, and in the Southern part of the US, women are
generally referred to as 'ladies' and girls as 'young ladies'), I've been
doing some research into the policy viability of ecofeminism, in particular,
the ecofeminist ethic of care. One of the *common* (ecocentric/animal
rights) policy approaches to dealing environmental protection is to reduce
the rights of nature to the level of infants and the mentally challenged
(nature is allotted rights such as protection against wanton suffering). I
find this problematic in that it seems to slip back into the anthropocentic
paradigm that champions value dualism, where there exists a distinct line of
demarcation between nature, and natural hierarchy, nature is inferior
(rather than different from) to humans.
So, I wonder if the ecofeminist ethic of care can offer a more satisfying
alternative. Ecofeminism, while not rejecting rights, generally does not
focus on rights because of the above mentioned problems. The problem becomes
how can care be politicized in a meaningful, more positive way. (I say more
positive because rights-based theories are generally constructed on the
assumption of conflict and competition). Comments? Suggestions?
L.S. McLeod
Department of History and Political Science
Fleming House
Columbia College
Columia SC 29203
USA
At 03:53 PM 1998.11.07 +0000, "Richard, an ecofeminist 'bloke' who even
loves football, and quite likes beer.......:-O" wrote:
>There are surely women subscribed to this list so I would
>expect the next reflexive step would be for you to ask why the vast majority of
>people who actually post to this list are male? Why are the women subscribers
>not interested in posting?
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|