Ecofeminism

The readings for Ecofeminism did not significantly change my views (I have read about it in the past), I did particularly enjoy Eisler's historical analysis.

Spretnak, and to a lesser extent, King seemed to be clinging to the somewhat lopsided view that women are not just equal to, but superior to men. This is just a feeling I get from the over-articulation of Goddess worship. I liked Eisler's analysis that "the answer to men dominating women is not women dominating men." I huess this might sound somewhat defensive, but I don't mean it this way. To accurately follow the social ecology proposed by ecofeminism, both sexes must receive equal treatment. That is, both have unique and necessary responsibilities and contributions for society. I believe, as these readings suggest in a roundabout way, that neither sex really has any specific predispositions to violence or peace. Just that some unique set of circumstances near the end of the Neolithic period led to male dominance.

Interestingly National Geographic Magazine has an article about Bonobos (Pan paniscus) this month. It had been widely accepted that the Bonobo, a somewhat slighter but distinct species from the common chimpanzee, was a lover, not a fighter. That is they tend to resolve conflict and anxiety with consensual sexual activity, and their social order features female "dominance." Dominance is not entirely accurate as the groups that Bonobos live in are not nearly as rigid as those of common Chimpanzees. The article in the magazine revealed that the Bonobos do in fact have more aggression that was originally thought, but that the different environmental conditions in their range is what has resulted in their distinct social strategy. That was long-winded!! - Anyway, here is a link to the article  - http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/bonobos/quammen-text - make sure to look at the great photo galleries and other media with this story!

Green Democracy

So...out of the approaches covered by the readings for Green Democracy, I have to say that I disagree most with the "Earth First" approach. I think that by provoking anger in such a way is in-fact counter productive. With the ultimate goal of equality among species and the greatest possible health of the biosphere, we are not going to get anywhere by blowing up equipment. In order to even begin to approach the goal I mentioned above, the entire human population must have a relatively equal understanding and commitment to the goal.

That is why I found the Ten Key Principles of the Green Party the most useful out of the concepts in Green Democracy. While I think that it may be true that minorities are often the recipients of environmental injustice, it is ultimately useless to focus on the immediate impacts of pollution, etc on these populations only. In line with the Green Party Values, impacts from waste & pollution, while felt locally at first, are in fact global. Additionally, the DECENTRALIZATION value of the Green Party addresses most of the grievances described in the Bullard reading - because minorities are only minorities on a national scale. Within states, minorities are quite often majorities.

The only issues I might take with the Green Party is the numbering of their values - Does this order of values reflect relative importance or urgency? Surely they think that one or several of their core values are the most poorly represented in today's society.

Oh - and Yes - I already voted for local Green Party candidates in the election last year.