My answer would focus on not the species or individual plant or animal
within an environment but rather it's composite ecological & functional
needs and roles. Freedom from pain is only one issue of concern regarding
other life. Certainly suffering of animals is a great danger to both the
dignity of the animal and the perpetrator of harm, but this is really
something that varies between animals in particular and the human that is
interacting with the animal.

The criteria for a feminist policy entrenching care as an overarching
priniciple would be that ecological systems require protection since the
integrity of each habitat, process is connected and critical to all other
processes and systems. Ecological integrity is not an anthropomorhic based
valuation but is capable of being monitored and assessed without a
difficulty later in interpretation through a 'real consensus'. Therefore as
Martin Heidegger states in Being and Time, Care is authentic concern. Care
as a mode of being is the continuous concern, interest in that which lives.
It is a primary or primitive intuition regarding the self in relation to an
object of love and expresses itself in an 'active life', or the basis of
what the mystics [Evelyn Underhill] calls the 'Unitive Life'. Care is not
something that can be switched on and off on a 'nine to five basis' but is
more like grass in the yard - it always grows when there is sun and water
and warmth.

The policy consideration would be based on a scientific understanding that
fully functioning ecosystems and processes are essential for all life [most
important] and as such any policy which prioritizes the health or integrity
of the entire ecosystem is and could be ecofeminist based. This is the same
as looking at nature from behind the blind [no tampering] and asking nature
to show herself so as to understand and ultimately to protect.

John



At 11:04 AM 11/8/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>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?
>>
>
>
>
>
        



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%