Write a critical position paper on the topic ‘Ecological Feminism’.1.) Use Warren’s article as your starting point then you will need to explain what she says, identify and discuss the arguments she makes to support her position, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these arguments, consider what might be said to make her position stronger, consider what might be said against her position or against any of her particular arguments (preferably by discussing what is said against her view by other authors), and then end with your assessment of what you have just discussed. Is this a reasonable position? Is it necessary for or does it contribute to environmentalism? Is it more or less effective than other approaches?2.) The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism by Karen J. Warren is attached.Write up-to approximately 2000 words and APA citation for the paper.
Write a critical position paper on the topic ‘Ecological Feminism’. 1.) Use Warren’s article as your starting point then you will need to explain what she says, identify and discuss the arguments she
KARIN I. WARRII'{ The Power and the Promise of Ecologlcal Feminism Karat J . Warren is prdessor oJ philosoplry at Macalester College. (Source: From Karen J. Warren, ‘The Power and the Promíse of Ecolog¡cal Feminism,” Environmental Ethics 12 [1990]:125-144. Repnntedby permission oJ the author and the publísher.) . . . [E]cological feminism is the position that there are important connections-historical, experiential, s)’rnbolic, theoretical-between the domination of women and the domination of nature, an under- standing of which is crucial to both feminism and environmental ethics. I argue that the promise and power of ecological feminism is that it provides a dis- tinctit e Jr amew orh b oth f or pr econcav ing J eminism and for developing an ertvironmental ethic which tahes sen- ously connectíonsbetween the domination of women and the domination oJ nature. . . . Feminism, Ecological Feminism, and Conceptual Frameworks . . . For ecofeminism, that a logic of domination is explanatorily basic is important for at least three rea- sons. First, without a logic of domination, a descrip- tion of similarities and differences would be just that-a description of similarities and differences. Consider the claim, “Humans are different from plants and rocks in that humans can (and plants and rocks cannot) consciously and radically reshape the communities in which they live; humans are simi- lar to plants and rocks in that they are both mem- bers of an ecological community.” Even if humans are “better” than plants and rocks with respect to the conscious ability of humans to radically transform communities, one does not thereby get any morally relevant distinction between humans and nonhu- mans, or an argument for the domination of plants ,and rocks by humans. To get those conclusions one needs to add at least two powerful assumptions, viz., (A2) and (A4) in argument A below: (Al) Humans do, and plants and rocks do not, have the capacity to consciously and radically change the community in which they live. (A2) Whatever has the capacity to consciously and radically change the community in which it lives is morally superior to whatever lacks this capacity. (A3) Thus, humans are morally superior to plants and rocks. (A4) For any X and Y, if X is morally superior to Y, then X is morally justified in subordinating Y. (A5) Thus, humans are morally justified in subordi- nating plants and rocks. Without the two assumptions tha| humans are morally supenor to (at least some) nonhumans, (A2), and that supenonty justifies subordination. (A4), all one has is some difference between humans and some nonhumans. This is Írue even f that difference is given in terms of superiority. Thus, it is the logic t23 124 FirstPrinctples’ TheEnvironment of domination, (44), which is the bottom line in eco- leminist discussions of oppression. Second, ecofeminists . . . claim that, historically, within at least the dominant Westem culture, a patri- archal conceptual framework has sanctioned the fol- lowing argument B: (Bl) Women are identified with nature and the realm of the physical; men are identified with the “human” and the realm of the mental. (B2) Whatever is identified with nature and the realm of t[e physical is inferior to (“below”) whatever is identified with the “human” and the realm of the mental, or, conversely, the lat- ter is superior to (“above”) the former. (B3) Thus, women are inferior to (“below”) men; or, conversely, men are superior to (“above”) women. (84) For any X and Y, if X is superior to Y, then X is justified in subordinating Y. (B5) Thus, men are justified in subordinating women. lf sound, argument B establishes patnarchy, í’e., the conclusion give4 at (B5) that the systematic dom- ination of women by men is justified. But according to ecofeminists, (B5) is justified by just those three features of an oppressive conceptual framework identified earlier: value-hierarchical thinking, the assumption at (B2); value dualisms, the assumed dualism of the mental and the physical at (BI) and the assumed inferiority of the physical vis-á-vis the mental at (B2); and a logic of domination, the assumption at (B4), the same as the preüous prem- ise (A4). Hence, according to ecofeminists, insofar as an oppressive patriarchal conceptual framework has functioned historically (within at least dominant Westem culture) to sanction the twip dominations of women and nature (argument B), both argument B and the patriarchal conceptual framework, from whence it comes, ought to be rejected. Of course, the preceding does not identify which premises of B are false. What is the status of premises (Bl) and (B2)? Most, if not all, feminists claim that (Bl), and many ecofeminists claim that (B2), have been assumed or asserted within the dominant West- em philosophical and intellectual tradition. As such, these feminists assert, as a matter of historical fact, that the dominant Westem philosophical tradition has assumed the truth of (BI) and (B2). Ecofeminists, however, either deny (B2) or do not affirm (B2). Fur- thermore, because some ecofeminists are anxious to deny any ahistorical identification of women with nature, some ecofeminists deny (pI) when (Bl) is used to suppofi anyüing other than a strictly histori- cal claim about what has been asserted or assumed to be true within patriarchal culture-e.g’, when (Bl) is used to assert that women properly are identified ‘ with the realm of nature and the physical. Thus’ from an ecofeminist perspective, (Bl) and (B2) are properly üewed as problematic though historically sanctioned claims: they are problematic precisely because of the way they have functioned historically in a patriarchal conceptual framework and culture to sanction the dominations of women and nature. What all ecofeminists agree about, then, is the way in which th¿ logic oJ domination has functioned historically within patriarcfry to sustain and justify the twin dominations of women and nature. Since all feminists (and not just ecofeminists) oppose patri- archy, the conclusion given at (85), all feminists (including ecofeminists) must oppose at least the logic of domination, premise (B4), on which argu- ment B rests-whatever the truth-value status of (BI) and (B2) outside of a patriarchal context. That allfeminists must oppose the logic of domi- nation shows the breadth and depth of the ecofemi- nist critique of B: it is a critique not only of the three assumptions on which this argument for the domi nation of women and nature rests, ü2., the assump- tions at (BI), (82), and (84); it is also a critique of patriarchal conceptual frameworks generally, i.e., of those oppressive conceptual frameworks which put men “up” and women “down,” allege some way in which women are morally inferior to men, and use ttiat alleged difference to justify the subordination of women by men. Therefore, ecofeminism is necessary to any feminist critique of patriarchy, and, hence, necessary to feminism. . . . Third, ecofeminism clarifies why the logic of dom- ination, and any conceptual framework which gives rise to it, must be abolished in order both to make possible a meaningful notion of difference which does not breed domination and to prevent feminism from becoming a “support” movement based primarily on shared experiences. ln contemporary society, there is no one “woman’s voice,” no wom6n (or human) simplicíter: every woman (or human) is a woman (or human) of some race, class, age, affectional orienta- tion, marital status, regional or national background, and so forth. Because there are no “monolithic expe- riences” that all women share, feminism must be a “solidarity movement” based on shared beliefs and interests rather than a “unity in sameness” movement based on shared experiences and shared üctimiza- tion. In the words of Maria Lugones, “Unity-not to be confused with solidarity-is understood as con- ceptually tied to domination.” Ecofeminists insist that the sort of logic of domi- nation used to justify the domination of humans by gender, racial or ethnic, or class status is also used to justify the domination of nature. Because eliminating a logic of domination is part of a feminist critique- whether a critique of patriarchy, white supremacist culture, or imperiali5¡n-s6ofsrninists insist that natunsm is properly viewed as an integral part of any feminist solidarity movement to end sexist oppres- sion and the logic of domination which conceptually groundsit…. Ecofeminism as a Feminist and Environmental Ethic . . . [A]n ecofeminist ethic involves a reconception of what it means to be human, and in what human ethi- cal behavior consists. Ecofeminism denies abstract individualism. Humans are who we are in large part by virtue of the historical and social contexts and the relationships we are in, including our relationships Karen J. Warren . The Power and the Promise of Ecologícal Feminism 125 with nonhuman nature. Relationships are not some- thing extrinsic to who we are, not an “add on” feature of human nature; they play an essential role in shap- ing what it is to be human. Relationships of humans to the nonhuman environment are, in part, constitu- tive of what it is to be a human. By making visible the interconnections among the domi4ations of women and nature, ecofeminism shows that both are feminist issues and that explicit acknowledgement of both is vital to any responsible enüronmental ethic. Feminism must embrace ecolog- ical feminism if it is to end the domination of women because the domination of women is tied conceptu- a and historically to the domination of nature. A responsible environmental ethic also must embrace feminism. Otherwise, even the seemingly most revolutionary, liberational, and holistic ecologi- cal ethic will fail to take seriously the interconnected dominations of nature and women that are so much a part of the historical legacy and conceptual frame- work that sanctions the exploitation of nonhuman nature. Failure to make visible these interconnected, twin dominations results in an inaccurate account of how it is that nature has been and continues to be dominated and exploited and produces an envi- ronmental ethic that lacks the depth necessary to be truty ínclusive of the realities of persons who at least in dominant Western culture have been intimately tied with that exploitation, viz., women. Whatever else can be said in favor of such holistic ethics, a failure to make visible ecofeminist insights into the common denominators of the twin oppressions of women and nature is to perpetuate, rather than over- come, the source of that oppression. . . . QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION I 2 What is ecological feminism? What role does a logic of domination play in eco- feminism? What assumptions do those who draw moral distinctions between humans and nonhu- mans need to make? What connects the domination of nature to the domination of women? How does ecological feminism seek to overcome the domination of nature? Stroup, Baden, and Fractor and Warren disagree sharply about a number of issues. Which dis- agreements are fundamental? How might Stroup, Baden, and Fractor critique Warren’s üew? Compare ecofeminism to deep ecology. How are they similar? Where do they diverge? 5. 6. 3. 4.
Write a critical position paper on the topic ‘Ecological Feminism’. 1.) Use Warren’s article as your starting point then you will need to explain what she says, identify and discuss the arguments she
A CRITICAL ESSAY ON ECOLOGIAL FEMINISM 9 Surname 9 A Critical Essay on Ecological Feminism Bilal Ansari Phil 375 – AU Assignment#3 A Critical Essay on Ecological Feminism Ecofeminism makes one of the latest forms of feminism, and it comes out as one of the most significant varieties. The combination of ecological concerns and feminism brings about a unique appeal that presents the opportunity to end the suffering and oppression of women, along with nature oppression. Ecofeminism leans towards the fact that human culture has contributed to the development of a connection between nature and women, which has some consequences. Nonetheless, even though ecological feminism seems logical and appealing, the argument presented by Ecofeminism has some problems. The problems associated with the point of view of Ecofeminism challenge the status of ecological feminism as a defensible philosophical ideology. In this sense, this essay seeks to critically evaluate the idea of ecological feminism by focusing on its strengths, weaknesses, along with consideration of Karen Warren’s perspective of ecological feminism. ‘The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism’ presented by Karen Warren (1990) points out an explanation that defends Ecofeminism and all issues associated with ecological feminism. Warren explains and argues in favor of the Ecofeminism perspective and she opines that humans are wrong in taking control of nature whether partly or wholly. The ecological feminism point of view presents that dominating nature is wrong just like dominating women by subjecting them to the purposes and will of men. Karen proceeds to explain that feminists must come forward and object to domination of women and nature since both are one and the same and are founded on similar domination logic. The continuous enlightenment of women promoted the start of discrepant varieties of feminism. It offered a model that points out the wrong of men’s domination of women as a form of injustice. However, from this perspective, nature domination cannot be linked to the domination of women by men in society. Karen Warren (1990) presents an argument that feminism and ecology are interconnected and are based on the notion that ending the oppression of humans will consequently end nature exploitation. Ecological feminism draws from the ecology branch that maintains that abuse of non-human nature is brought about by the culture-nature connection that is essential to the world’s culture. The idea that human culture stands to be superior compared to non-human nature, from a moral perspective, justifies the fact that humans dominate and mistreat nature. Ecofeminism makes an argument that the association of women with nature brings about the consideration of women as an inferior party to the masculine party. Such an argument makes its point in the sense that since nature is contemplated as inferior to culture in the culture-nature connection, then women are considered inferior in the women-men connection. For this reason, the two connections both contribute to the oppression of women and the abuse of nature as they are both considered inferior. Therefore, it becomes impossible to achieve the objectives of feminists without tackling the issues of nature exploitation. In other words, nature and women’s connection cannot be altered, and to end the oppression of either, and then both must be accomplished in society. The goal of ecological feminism, as presented by Warren (1990), is to establish a new attitude when looking at nature, an attitude that perceives the association between nature and humans rather than viewing nature as a resource meant to facilitate the needs of humans. The motive behind coming up with such an attitude is to eliminate the abuse of nature and oppression of women. The interconnection between nature and women, as presented by the Ecofeminism argument, is brought about by patriarchal ideology. In this sense, any framework that confirms the existence of a connection between the two is also confirming the existence of the patriarchal ideology. Such an argument may seem unreasonable, but it is a credible logic as it turns on the identification of some characteristics of a patriarchal model as describing and other features as opportunistic. On the contrary, the feminist frameworks stand to challenge the patriarchy as a system that destroys the ideology. For this reason, any framework that affirms the existence of a connection between nature and women ceases to be feminist. In this sense, it is logical to reject some theories that tend to support Ecofeminism while acknowledging the fact that a patriarchy ideology exists along with the interconnection between women and nature. Several reasons can be presented in rejecting the Ecofeminism ideologies. To begin with, evidence points out that the claim that women are better nature carers due to their feminine features is wrong. The nature of women and their ways of life itself contributes to the abuse of nature. For example, the spray cans that women use for their hair contributes to the damage of the ozone layer due to the fumes (Pellow, 2014). Additionally, the fact that cosmetics are usually tested on animals points out why the Ecofeminism theories do not stand a chance to be accepted. In this sense, the idea that women who are feminists are closer to nature and treat nature desirably compared to men is wrong. Argument Against Ecological Feminism Ecofeminism is an ideology that seeks to unify the concern for ecology and its future, along with the concern for women’s status in society. However, this essay presents an argument against ecological feminism by pointing out that it comes out as a false seduction and a philosophically irrational framework. The central claim made by ecological feminism is that due to socio-historical connection involving nature and women, feminism and ecology are interconnected. For this reason, both must take in and contemplate the other’s ideology and objectives to be politically active or philosophically absolute. The ecological feminism claim can be argued against from two central criticisms. First, that the argument of essential embracing is not actual. Secondly, that the claim made by Ecofeminism is not complete and displays some inconsistency. The first criticism of ecological feminism is based on the theory’s provision that feminism and ecology must work hand in hand to accomplish the set objectives. That is, the oppression of women will not be eliminated without eliminating abuse of nature and that abuse of nature cannot be eliminated without doing away with the oppression of women. Such an argument from ecological feminism is simply not valid since it is possible to think that the ecology objectives can be met without meeting those of feminism (Kogilavani & Leelavathi, 2014). Additionally, it is imaginable that society can come to the comprehension that people can avoid the destruction of self if the people change the way they treat their natural world. Moreover, it is also conceivable that, due to this understanding, people can change their behaviors, reforming behaviors that bring destruction to nature. As an illustration, people can reduce the use of electricity, eliminate the production of harmful chemicals, and execute recycling initiatives. For this reason, it is imaginable that such procedures can be completed without ending the oppression of women in the least. In reality, if the role of feminism is maintained and expanded to harbor the modifications, the lives of women in society could end up becoming worse. Similarly, it is conceivable that the objectives of feminism could be reached without meeting the ecology objectives. However, there is a possibility that the occurrence of feminism or the ecological revolution may positively influence either. Even so, this does not change the fact that the interconnection of nature and women does not have to happen at the same time. The second criticism opposes the argument that the nature-women connection needs the domination of nature and women to be done away with at one time, but for different? reasons. Such a proposition is inconsistent with the first claim of ecological feminism that the nature-women connection is entirely sociological and historical. In this sense, if the connection between women and nature has been created by sociological processes, then it should be dismantled in a similar way (Cuomo, 1992). Even Karen Warren points out that the feminist ideologies that fail to affirm the interconnection between nature and women are incomplete and cannot be considered. Both criticisms point out the incomplete nature of the ecological feminism theory and present the philosophical unsoundness and the fundamental flaws of Ecofeminism. Ecological feminism should be considered, particularly feminism. The revelation and examination of the nature-women connection have a significant to establish the feminist ideology. For instance, on a simplistic magnitude, the ideology proposes an easy answer for the ending of women’s oppression in the sense that, if the oppression of women is brought about by their connection with nature, then eliminating that association will mean that women will not be oppressed. Additionally, on an in-depth magnitude, ecological feminism points out that all feminist theories must focus on the connections between attitudes regarding the issue. Ecological feminism is not the answer but should be contemplated at all times. Ecofeminism contributes to environmentalism in the sense that it views environmentalism along with the nature of women relationship as a basis to the practice of ecological feminism. Ecofeminism provides an observation of the reasons for the oppression of women and the abuse of nature. Perhaps, ecological feminism can be best comprehended as an interesting observation that offers more regarding society challenges. In conclusion, Ecofeminism, as presented by Karen Warren, comes out as a promise of other ways of conceiving that affirm instead of critiquing the ideology of feminism and ecology. However, several issues must be covered under the issue of ecological feminism. For example, besides presenting a world that considers changing the definition of nature, its essence to humans, and how it is dealt with the framework must present how and why such should be dealt with to offer a solution to end the oppression of women in the society and the abuse of nature. Solving the issues that affect nature can contribute to solving the issue of the oppression of women in society. In this sense, ecological feminism tends to provide a solution to solve severe societal problems, which are the abuse of nature and oppression of women. Meeting the objectives and goals of ecology will contribute to the meeting of feminist goals. In summary, ecological feminism seeks to present new ways that help the world to reason for a creative conceiving procedure to come up with prosperous ways of dealing with modern societal and environmental challenges. References Cuomo, C. J. (1992). Unraveling the problems in Ecofeminism. Environmental Ethics, 14(4), 351-363. Kogilavani, B., & Leelavathi, M. (2014). The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism in Gloria Naylor’s Novel “The Women and The Brewster Place” and” Mama Day. “. IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Literature, 2, 169-172. Pellow, D. N. (2014). Total liberation: The power and promise of animal rights and the radical earth movement. U of Minnesota Press. Warren, K. J. (1990). The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Environmental ethics, 12(2), 125-146.




Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.