humanity questions 1135 ct13

In general, there are three kinds of modern feminism:

1. "Liberal" or mainstream feminism, which does not want to overthrow capitalism, governments, etc, but just wants a bigger slice of the existing pie for women;

2. "Socialist" feminism, popular in the 1970s and still today on many campuses; it sees capitalism as the main obstacle to women's equality; and

3. "Radical" feminism, which sees deep and systemic causes for sexism (such as patriarchy, Christianity, as well as capitalism) and calls for a complete overthrow of society as it is so we can start building again from the roots up ("radical" is from the Latin word for "root.") In other words, a whole new pie.

An easy way to differentiate "radical" from other kinds of feminism: most feminists will ask, "why can't a woman be president?" A radical feminist will ask, "why do we need presidents?"

Radical feminism has many varieties, some of which are anarchist or lesbian or even nihilist. But its major form today is "ecofeminism." This idea arose only around 1980, when a few radical feminists (Elizabeth Dodson Gray, Mary Daly, Carolyn Merchant) began to see and write about a deep connection between the way our society treats nature and the way it treats women. A lot of ecofeminism's theory is drawn from Bookchin's social ecology, so it will look familiar to you.

key words: domination and hierarchy.

Ecofeminism is based on a certain view of history: in prehistoric times, and perhaps for hundreds of thousands of years, humans lived in small semi-nomadic "matricentric" bands or tribes. Women did not "rule" - people had not yet invented domination - but they occupied a central place; they were 'religious leaders' in that Mother Earth was seen as feminine and women were more "in tune" with her than men; and as in today's few remaining matricentric tribes, people were seen as belonging to their mother's family rather than their father's. Most (not all American Indians were matricentric; so were some Africans and Asians; ecofeminists argue that all humans once lived that way. At the beginning of history, when people began to settle down in farms and villages, population grew, and so did division of labor. Somehow (there are many theories) the idea of "power over" replaced the idea of "power to," and domination was born. For whatever reason, that power was in the hands of men - so patriarchy was born as well. Just as humans were learning how to dominate nature (by farming, mining, etc), men were also learning to dominate women: so these two dominations have been intimately linked from the beginning, all the more so because nature herself was feminine. The purpose of ecofeminism is to undo that mistake; to kill two birds with one stone, as it were.

This view of history is controversial, to say the least; much of the ecofeminist position is based on the work of the archaeologist Marija Gimbutas (see links) who claimed to have found evidence of matricentric cultures all over prehistoric eastern Europe and the Middle East. A prime symbol of the movement has become the "Venus figures" (see the photo) which are found in vast numbers throughout the region - probably representations of the fertile Mother Goddess. Many ecofeminists have turned away from politics and back to a mother-goddess paganism as the solution to both the feminist and ecological problems. This is another huge topic that you may or may not want to write about in the forum (yes, I know witchcraft freaks some people out); but look at the page on neo-paganism before you go on to the discussion forum.

The Death of Nature  is the title of a book published in 1980 by Carolyn Merchant, an eco-historian. That's her in the photo at left. Merchant was trying to show that at the end of the Middle Ages, as the Renaissance began, Western civilization learned to "commodify" everything - that is, put a price tag on resources, land, feudal service and tenure, even human beings. Nature was no longer magical and alive, an entity to be respected and worked with. It was now just a resource, something that one could make a profit from. This began the irresponsible plunder of Nature that has continued down to our own time. Merchant also argued that just as Nature was devalued, so were women: as they did not control much wealth (as compared, on the average, to men), they were pushed down to second-class status and treated like property. Thus the domination of nature and the domination of women are linked - and perhaps always have been, since the beginning of our civilization; but the situation got worse in the Renaissance. New wealth meant new technology, which made it easier and more deadly efficient to exploit resources and other human beings. The Renaissance era produced the slave trade, the deforestation of Europe, the theft of two continents from the Indians, a shift in priorities from the spiritual to the material, a rise in violent crimes against women, witch burnings, and a host of other examples of the "commodification of everything."

Some characteristics of a matricentric culture:

· nature is alive, sacred, and female

· women carry the prime responsibility for continuing the culture

· property is owned by the group or tribe, not the individual

· economies are based on trade or barter

· highly democratic; very little centralized decision-making

· everyone is considered more or less equal, that is, society is organized horizontally

· time moves in cycles, not in a 'straight line'

· the world is "multivalent" - there are many possibilities, and no clear line between 'right' and 'wrong'

· people organize in networks, not hierarchies

· the environment must be respected and worked with, not controlled

· people follow tradition and custom, not written laws

· you belong to your mother's lineage, not your father's

Ecofeminism wants, of course, to recover some or all of these characteristics. . . .

Some characteristics of a patriarchal culture:

· nature is a resource, to be used to make our lives better

· economic activity emphasizes money and profit, not "production for use"

· men hold the greater responsibilities

· people are organized vertically, that is, into classes or ranks

· governments are centralized and authoritarian

· you worship gods or, more likely, a single God

· the world is "bivalent" - everything is right or wrong, black or white, yes or no

· people are essentially separate from (and above!) nature

· custom exists, but it is 'outranked' by law codes and constitutions

· you belong to your father's lineage, not your mother's

. . . And many of these ideas are seen as destructive to nature, humanity, the planet itself (or herself).

And finally, this is what Indian ecofeminist Vandana Shiva thinks an ecofeminist society would look like:

1. All species, peoples, and cultures have intrinsic worth.

2. The earth community is a democracy of all life.

3. Diversity in nature and culture must be defended.

4. All beings have a natural right to sustenance.

5. Earth democracy is based on living economies (that is, living ecological systems) and economic democracy.

6. Earth democracy is based on local economies: economies that provide direct subsistence from nature rather than from extractive global markets.

7. Earth democracy is a participatory democracy in which people have knowledge and power to influence actions that effect their lives and livelihood.

8. The human cultures of an earth democracy promote peace and create free spaces for the practice of different faiths and identifies.

9. Cultures in an earth democracy are life nourishing.

10. Earth democracy globalizes peace, care and compassion.

Rather than give you a long exposition of ecofeminist theory, I'd like you to read some of the articles and websites listed below. The two interviews listed first are especially good. For more about the necessary link between ecology, anarchism and feminism, click on the followoing link to read the article by a certain dangerously radical college professor.

· Article - The Convergence of Archism, Feminism and Ecology