Why do male ecologists neglect to integrate feminism in
their philosophy? Claiming that "ecology consciousness
is traditional woman consciousness," Doubiago chastises
them for their failure to learn from the wealth of available
feminist wisdom.
One woman compared the situation to that of
the dominant culture, smug in its ignorance of others, while
people of color have to know the white worldview inside-out
in order to survive. In a similar vein, Doubiago labels such
male myopia "ecomasculinism." She sees it surface
in their belief that contemporary problems stem from such
sources as industrialism, Eurocentrism, or capitalism, all of
which are historically and philosophically subsumed under
patriarchy.
Why, we wondered, do people become so apoplectic
over the "P" word? Why are gender relations given
such short shrift? How are paradigmatic shifts in
consciousness ever going to take place, one woman asked, when
the very "isms" being scrutinized are themselves
patriarchal constructs? It's sort of like convening AA
meetings in taverns.
Even when deep ecologists attack
anthropocentrismcertainly a radical stanceKheel's
essay uncovers gender bias. To quote Kheel, "Whereas the
anthropocentric worldview perceives humans as the center or
apex of the natural world, the androcentric [male-centered]
analysis suggests that this worldview is unique to men.
Feminists have argued that women's identities, unlike men's,
have not been established through their elevation over the
natural world." Kheel examines the work of three male
philosophers who explore their identification with nature
through hunting. They write of merging with the animal in
order to realize the Self, an act Kheel maintains is
distinctly masculinist. Further, she claims their desire to
hunt is "of greater importance than the life of the
animal they kill."
One woman voiced whether Kheel's
extrapolation of three men's experience is applicable to all
men, since all men do not hunt. Other women responded that
the sublimated act of hunting appears in other male
activities such as soldiering and sexual pursuit/conquest.
Perceiving this response as yet another generalization, the
same woman questioned whether men really go around equating
women with nature.
Many of us exclaimed that it happens all
the time. On a mundane level, hurricanes were once named
after women. On a more profound note, anti-choice proponents
regard women's reproductive capacities as natural resources
to be controlled. The inference is that women's sexuality
should be confined to procreation, as it is in the (nonhuman)
animal world.
Several women criticized the authors for singling out men
per se. Most women also buy into patriarchyand surely
male ecofeminists exist somewhere on the planet. One woman
was very clear that whenever a discussion of gender relations
takes place, the operative word needs to be
"identified." A patriarchal world view is a male-identified
world view, and axiomatically, it is not one held exclusively
by men. This is a colossal distinction.
On a comparable
level, another woman expressed extreme frustration with
people who constantly confuse patriarchy-bashing with
male-bashing. The frequency of this gross misunderstanding by
both women and men is astounding and agonizing.
Our discussion predictably turned to the phenomena known
as the men's movement. Robert Bly, male ecologists, et al,
recognize an ecological urgency for men to reconnect with the
feminine principle.
Despite the privilege all men derive from
institutionalized male power, we agreed that men are also
hurt by male supremacy. The readings, however, clarified for
us the dilemma posed by men who expand their feminine self
without concomitantly incorporating a feminist consciousness.
Male privilege buffers men from experiencing or deeply
feeling women's oppression under patriarchy, even on a
vicarious level.
We welcomed men's development of their
nurturing side, but wondered whether they intend to translate
their inner growth into concrete improvements in our
daily lives such as equal pay, day care, reproductive
freedom and other basic rights. Pul-leeze, we don't
need a kinder, gentler patriarchy.
Back to Essay Topics