Warren, in The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism, outlines the intriguing concept that a truly comprehensive environmental ethic is incomplete without a feminist perspective, and likewise true feminism requires an environmental perspective. This argument is sure to ruffle some feathers, particularly I would imagine amongst groups which hyperfocus on one of the issues in question. Whether Warren’s assertion is applicable to every instance is something I am still grappling with personally, but I can understand her underlying motivations.

The true power and purpose of interdisciplinary and integrative approaches like the one Warren is advocating for, in my opinion, is in their effectiveness at identifying institutional issues. Warren makes it clear that the patriarchy, and its culture of domination, is what props up the “twin oppressions” of both women and nature. Assuming this, it is obvious that the issues are interlinked, and therefore it logically follows that organizations addressing each issue are best served by targeting their actions and thoughts at both.

One issue I see arising from this is the idea that identity drives much of political and grassroots action. People latch onto causes that they deeply identify with, and many of the most ardent environmentalists only want to focus on environmental issues (the same is true for some of the most ardent feminists). I don’t think its wise to alienate staunch supporters of each of these causes by claiming they must integrate other aspects into their practices. I think I feminist that is specifically focusing on the overturning of roe v. wade is doing essential work, and distracting them with environmentalists issues isn’t always productive. Of course, there is great merit in seeing the interconnected nature of the problems we face today. But it seems to me that any activism is good activism.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My outdoor reflection for this week took place this morning. I had just showered and dressed, and had begun to make some breakfast. I had been feeling anxious for much of the morning, for no obvious reason other than the fact that I had stayed up late and didn’t sleep particularly well, and felt the need to step outside of my apartment to get some fresh air. The back of our apartment isn’t particularly picturesque or beautiful; open our door and you are greeted with a parking lot, wire fence, and gravel alleyway. But there is a pretty cottonwood tree, and of course you can see the sky and the clouds and hear birds calling. I took particular notice of a tree several yards down, turning a vibrant shade of red. I find the changing of the leaves during fall to be a particularly quiet and reflective sight. The year has been long, and it is an annual comfort to see the leaves changing and signaling that the quiet of winter is imminent. What would I do, I wonder, in a place without seasonali...
Read more
My outdoor reflection this week was in an unconventional location; in the cabin of an airplane thousands of feet in the air. I always choose the window seat when I’m flying because I enjoy looking outside at the networks of houses and roads and forests, the interplay between human made structures and the sparse patches we have left for other things. Flying over Chicago, I was struck by the sheer scale of our communities, grids upon grids of neighborhoods stretched for what looked like an eternity to me, with the city itself looming over it all. But, as I looked for longer, I began to realize just how small Chicago looked compared to the vastness of the landscape and the sky. One of the largest cities on earth seemed like nothing but an anthill compared to the even larger stretch of the horizon, and for a moment I felt as if we humans are not as dominant on this planet as we think we are. Flying over Nebraska, and then into Colorado, I was struck by the dryness and loneliness of the ...
Read more
Considering the many implications of bringing an extinct species such as the Woolly Mammoth back to life is a fascinating and complicated endeavor. Sherkow and Greely in “What If Extinction Is Not Forever” provide a useful discussion of the pros and cons of de-extinction. The benefits, to them, include “scientific knowledge, technological advancement, concrete environmental benefits, justice, and wonder” (33). They see the risks as including “animal welfare, health, environment, political, and moral” (32). I personally find myself intuitively against the idea of bringing back extinct species from the dead, and had previously considered many of the risks involved, including that of animal welfare/morality and the potential effect such an action could have on the broader environment. But what I hadn’t considered as much, and what Sherkow and Greely bring up, are the legal and political risks associated with such action. I personally am very interested in the applications of the Endange...
Read more