Ecofeminsm blog for beginners

Hello,

This week we are going to try to think up an idea and enact a way that will allow us to participate in active ecofeminism. It will be exciting to see our new found knowledge put into action, but create so many different ideas depending on how we have interpreted what ecofeminism is to us.

What I plan to tackle is government, Because I believe it can be a double edge sword. It seems based on statistics and analysis taken on countries, it finds countries with more women in office are generally more pro-environment. Not only that, but women are usually a minority in office being around 22% in Americas parliament. I feel not only would this help pass more environmentally friendly laws, but also there should be around 50% of women in parliament anyway because that is around the population of women in most countries. So, I feel this would help in the fight for more equality for every person, organism, and bit of matter. Which if we demand it and women more support it, then it is worth at least trying. Does not seem having majority of men in parliment has really worked out the best, probably having an even ying and yang of men and women truly fighting to provide the best tools to the kids in their society and world, and best support they can provide to those who need it.  Overall, based on statistics, more women in power=environment is being fought harder for, as well as puts women in a more equal position of parliament power as men making it a less of a patriarchy and more of equalarchy.

I Plan on doing this by being more vocal about how more women should be in office. I plan on doing this in three ways. One, paying more attention to my government at every level and staying informed to be more aware when women are in the running and if they do speak more for how I want to live, which is with everyone only bending down to lift someone up. Which I have said before that governments job is to redistribute wealth fairly, that no matter how much you contribute to society you will be cared for and able to be alive and not just live. Hopefully, the current pandemic helps wake us up to our faults and teach us that we need to slow down and start thinking/ respecting more and doing less. Two, I plan on vocalizing this through social media and spreading awareness. Finally, I plan to start living the best life I can with the most respect for everything including and starting with myself.

Till next time,

stay powered for the people by the people.

We are all our own oppressors, every issue we ever had and will have is in our own heads!

This week blog post has me thinking a lot! I have for a while now realized everything is related. The first reading on Intersectionality has made me realize that feminism has started action rather than thought. Such as in how science is the act of discovery and engineering is the act of doing. Feminism is the act of thinking how to solve issues, while perhaps intersectionality is the act of enacting that thinking and testing it out. It may be confusing why I have a picture of a food chain and then a food web on an ecofeminism blog, but as I said everything is related.

The reason these images are shown, is because it depicts a change in the way of thinking. In biology, the food chain was how the transfer of energy and hierarchy was perceived. Plants produce, something eats the plant, and something eats the thing that eats the plant. Over time though, it was realized that a food web is a more realistic depiction of the transfer of energy, that there is no hierarchy. Which can be related to how humans think and to a point still do. That not only are we the top of our food chain, but leaders are at the top of the human hierarchy. The issue is that there is no food chain and hierarchy. There is nothing more important than another, maybe more vital such as how plants are more vital than tigers in sustaining an ecosystem, but that is because plants are the base, they are the producers. Such as how farmers are the producers for civilization. If we never were able to produce excess food, then peoples would never have been able to do anything more than food production. It is not a bad way of living, but not the most prosperous. With the birth of society/civilization a food chain was formed. The leaders were at the top, with a single chain linking down the order of commands till you get to the proles or general masses, till you get to the source, the farmers.

What I believe ecofeminism is trying to point out is we are not a food chain, but a food web. Humans are part of the web of life, we are nature and in that we take from others, but also give. We give water to the plants we eat, we give our bodies back to the earth, our composite of body that remains after death goes back to the earth. Not only are we part of the grand, continually changing, food web of life and existence, but we are also in the food web of the human “hierarchy”. In which it was believed Leaders were better than their people. That A king was chosen by god to lead the people. Using religion as a tool to order people and explain why they are in their place in life, such as how Hinduism promotes the caste system. In truth though and I would say since the American government was made, people realized they can govern themselves, that leaders are not chosen by god, but there to help the people.

I would argue that like in a food web, the classes of society exist, but one is not more important than the other. We has a people have put stigmas on others, taking the dominant as what everyone else should be. Either you are “us” or you will never be accepted as us. The issue is that “us” has been made into a singular. Today “us” is an in-shape, white, christian, wealthy, male. It is almost God like in goals to meet that criteria. It is something few can ever be and even fewer actually be. I feel what ecofeminism is trying to obtain is to get people to realize that everyone is important, not only that, but in truth the general masses, the ones working the stigmatized jobs of retail life/grocery stores/”non-career” type jobs and more vital jobs such as farmers and doctors are the more important ones.

It is funny to think in history that women are often seen as the less powerful, which is true in leadership positions such as “government”, but in the day to day life women hold most and almost all the power. That is what we have been reading, how Women are the caretakers of children and nature, doing the farming and when deciding to, planting millions of trees and make a movement last. Not only in those abstract power positions, but even on an American plantation there is stories of men having to ask his wife for the keys to a shed, having to ask permission to gain access because the women ruled the household. Unfortunately, men ruled the world and did not stop to care about the womens’ opinion. Creating the shift we have today. Though I continue with my stance that each individual is as important as the other, The president is no more powerful than the people they lead. That the people producing the food, the infrastructure, and wealth is where a nation’s wealth comes from. That although the president and congress are vital in helping to maintain order and redistribute wealth, that the American government was made realizing that it is not the leaders who are important, but the people. As father time moves forward, the people are starting to include more and more faces, not just the white Christian land owning male.

Essentially, intersectionality, the combination of anticategorical and intercategorical, will be what establishes that everybody is different and comes from different back rounds and that we cannot forget that, but that does not mean we separate ourselves from others because we are all the others. We all have dominate and subordinate features in us, and that there is no one way, as we see in corporations that strive for diversity. They realize it is more beneficial to have people that think differently trying to steer the bus in opposing directions rather than everybody thinking the same and just driving the bus merrily along never being challenged.

Intersectionality, I believe will be the engineering of society, the applicable side of ecofeminism, and that the problem it is fighting, which has been subdivided into many categories, will really be solved by one solution. As said in the readings, we cannot be equal till we are all equal. That by oppressing one group, whether it be based on nature rights, women, race, religion, and anything else that makes us different, we are only oppressing ourselves.

In one of our first readings, Warrens introduction to ecofeminism, it talks about dualism thinking and how it is bad. I have never so quickly disagreed with a way of thinking, that dualism in a sense is the society we are trying to make. There is constant argument that we live in a patriarchal society, and that it is one of domination. This could not be anything but true, and though we are trying to fight it with femininity, it will always be a continual struggle. Such as the Daoist symbol, there is ying and yang, men and women, masculinity and femininity. That the fight is subdivided into the rich Vs poor, black Vs white, this idea Vs that idea, but the true fight is in a sense men Vs women. That our dominating society is only half successful, because all we do is dominant. We do not approach with much femininity and try to help the different people, species, and world. I agree completely women will never be liberated in a society of domination because that is a mans world. Women will only be liberated when their voices are heard and we live not only in a society of domination/ masculinity, but in a more balanced society that will constantly battling between masculinity and femininity. That we need both, it needs to be a WoMens world, not just a man’s world or a woman’s world. A man’s world will only ever represent one man and a woman’s world will only ever represent one women, but a world where both are present and active will be able to better represent a world that needs balance.

I always find it crazy that we have seen our abilities to create and destroy and not think we are not gods. That we can create a wilderness and society that does make perfect harmony. Perfect harmony can be constant, it will just be constantly changing. Imagine a world, where every soul is truly working to only ever bend down to lift others up. TO truly recognize the importance of all those that contribute and help those that can’t. When we are living in a world where everybody not only focuses on bettering themselves and helping themselves, which many cannot currently do, but also helping everyone else whether they are like you or different from you, then truly there would be one god instead of 7 billion deities. Not to say that we will always agree, but at least then we would all be striving for the betterment of all peoples, organisms, and everything that exists.

“The People” often in conjecture with government (government for the people, by the people) are no longer in power nor have they ever been given power.  In more “modernized nations” also known as rich nations such as America and European nations, the people generally have a right to protest/ make their voices heard even when it opposes the government. In many nations however, to speak is to risk death, even with fear instilled in these people, they are willing to speak up and make the change they want to see.

Reading about The Chipko Movement was aww inspiring. It was a protest sprung by the people in one village to save the trees. This movement spread like wild fire all across India demanding rights of trees and protection of forests and livihood. In fact India today is fairly progressive with its environmentalism, trying to skip over fossil fuels and invest in green energies.

In the excerpt Speak Truth to Power by Wangari Maathal, it was again inspiring to see the people rise up, even with everything pushing them down they stood tall and fought and won for their believes. They started a movement in Kenya that spread to many other African and more foreign nations leading to the growing of trees. Kenya has planted more than 15million trees, putting food protection and environmental conservation into the peoples’ hand.

In places like America, many kids grow up not know where their food comes from other than a grocery store. Many more grow up without proper nutrition eating the cheaper faster food that conveniences the fast pace lifestyle. While many Americans and people in general go about trying to live their lives, they are lost to the fact that so much power has been taken from them. We have grown as a society to rush and get everything done as quickly as we can, almost being content with how life is currently being lived. Many women have woken up to how themselves and the environment are being oppressed along with the masses of people un able to help themselves. The goal of any government is to protect the people and give “The People” the tools to help them help themselves. In places like America we have become less self-reliant and more dependent on our government. With people like Maathai standing up and trying to give power to the people, and trying to pull the fear out of them instilled by the government, then maybe we can all wake up and one day realize that we are the government. We are all powerful and able, we just need to be moving to not only make constant progress, but to also always slow down and appreciate the progress made, to enjoy today and lift everyone up, because tomorrow is what counts.

Gender Equality And State Environmentalism written by Kari Norgaard and Richard York is an argument that tries to correlate women’s’ oppression and environmental oppression as one single entity. Though their arguments are focused on how oppressed women are and not the bigger picture of how oppressed the poor are, they make some excellent points on bettering equality and diversity. To start one statement I feel is incorrect is when talking about how women in the global south have been left to suffer while men benefit from cash crops. I am not fully aware of the issue, but I would argue that maybe more responsibility of the household has been left to the women, because the men are out providing income for the house. Essentially, men are not benefitting from it, but the family unit is working to make an income and the men have taken on more of the responsibility in making money while the women are left to tend to the household duties. Essentially mixing a village lifestyle with a capitalistic goal.

I do strongly agree with their arguments of parliament and observations of women, that majority of world governments are not providing enough representation of women. Even our own 116^th congress is only 22.7% filled with women. While this continues all over the world in our systems of representation, the rest of our societies are constantly pushing for diversity and having a rough micro representation equal to the macro statistics of races and sexes. They overall make a good point on how more women in government tends to increase environmental efforts with 30% being the bare minimum of women needed to get real change to start. Though with women being around 50% of the population why do they continue to not have that percent seen in our government? The authors also state how women are observed having different values as men finding that women are generally more aware of the environment than men, even when accounting for social statuses. Also, finding that women are more risk averse choosing not to follow through with a decision that will affect others negatively. Such as how female scientists with the same professional standings as their male counterparts are usually more weary of nuclear power and waste with the risks it imposes on others. I would argue if you perceive women as chaos (meaning the future, not being good or bad, but just the unknown) and men as order (the now and being the known better known as the present), then it would be easy to see that women are generally more risk adverse because they think in terms of the future. With nuclear energy as an example, a man might think oh wow, this can produce a lot of energy and be really beneficial right now, while a women might think well it is useful but the by product is nuclear waste and so what damage will that do in the future. I would say men are more prone to weighing the immediate pros and cons while women are more prone to weighing the long-term pros and cons. Both are useful, but both need to be equally represented to be at peak efficiency.

In the paper it is argued that capitalism is not ecologically sustainable, and in truth capitalism is not sustainable at all if we do not consider sustainability. Capitalism is an economic system that one could argue is order. It demands to do everything as quick as you can with the presently most optimal way of doing it without regard to cons, that if it will maximize profits then do it. Well with an economy based on order, then government needs to be based on chaos. That capitalism is good, but it is so quick and produces a lot of progress, but only considers the immediate pros and cons. Government which is a separate system should be pushing for chaos. It should consider the needs of today, but not forget to plan for chaos. To not pass unsustainable bills that will only work for the short terms. Now in the times of the great covid-19 scare, it can be seen more than ever. Our government has been living in order, working for corporations and allowing to put aside tomorrow for today. If our governments were more for the people, it would be better prepared for natural disasters, for plagues, and economic relief for the people in need, not the corporations being put at slight risk. Overall, one could argue with women’s more evolutionary role to nurture and think for the future not only should women be more prevalent in government, but the majority between men and women in government. Women would be more willing to think for the people, like Nancy Pelosi’s desired stimulus plan which included environmental regulations on business that was quickly denied by republicans. Not that democrats are better than the republicans, but they are just two different ways of thinking with one sticking its neck out more for the people directly.

In Hawkins writing, it has come to my understanding that perhaps we are looking at abortion wrong. That maybe instead of saying every life deserves a chance, that we should consider that all the lives currently present deserve a chance. Essentially, allowing abortion allows for population control and in our ever growing population, we have not only allowed most of our fellow humans to suffer, but all other life is being displaced, diminished, and ignored due to our allowance on believe that the world is here for us. In environmentalism, one believe is being stewards, basically we are not owners of the planet, but we are responsible for our planet. we are able to change the face of our planet and yet we decide to further hurt our brothers and sister and let the planet be invested with a plague of humans rather than let it thrive with the God in every human.

I fully agree with Hawkins that we do have too many people and his argument on how it has curved population growth is a strong one. My personal stance on abortion has always been a mix. I strongly believe that life starts at conception, but it is still ok to abort. I would say the first trimester is the best time to do it, but the fact is if you do not believe you are killing a human, you have to at least believe you are killing a human potential. Also, it made me a little sick to read that the far left believe that the babies right to live may not even start immediately at birth. I can only think the argument is that the baby cant care for itself or is still not developed enough so it is still not allowed rights. Though where you draw that line is wild, because with the argument of post birth development, it could be stated until after puberty you could be aborted. If the argument is that the baby is not developed enough/ cannot care for itself, then yes, all children could be aborted too, as well as the bed written elderly and anybody injured. I would argue the real argument is not when is it a living human (because that is unarguably at conception) but when are people comfortable with killing a living thing. Though there is already so much life we are neglecting and not taking responsibility for, that Hawkins is basically arguing why should we bring more responsibility into the world, when we are not even being responsible for the life already here.

Overall, I would argue that humankind does need to start taking more responsibility not only for our fellow human, but all our brothers and sisters in the game of life. If that means taking more extreme measures, then maybe it is time to really step in and make people take responsibility for their actions rather than coming up with inefficient blanket solutions. Realistically there probably can be 12billion people on this planet with out as much of an issue as there is now. The people that are living in a big house, with all the newest gadgets and hoarding acres of land is a much bigger threat to the environment the the 10 person family living in one house reaping what they sow of the land. What we really need to learn is not each family needs its own house. That we are meant to share. That humans especially in this age can live in city like clusters with all the suburban and most of the rural area given back to the earth. Essentially I would argue that our population is a large issue, but the real issue is not that we cannot handle our population size, but that we are abusing our resources. That if we created city state like world, where people gather in the cities and all homes are apartments/ condos in huge sky rises, where businesses are in walking distance and we build large backyards that are shared and not private, that we could support our large size. of course we would need large chunks of land for farming, factories, and ect, but that space essentially rural areas are ok to have. Truly we could have less of it, but in truth we need to abolish the suburbs. The cities is where most humans belong, about 90% of humans should be in cities, the rest would be what is called the blue collar worker, being what allows the cities to be sustained and exist. In conclusion, Abortion is a step in helping curve population size, but that is not the only issue within it, because as we advance and consume more, we hurt our planet worse, so not only do we need to curve our size, but we need to change our way of life.

A lot of advertising sexualizes and stereotypes their audience to make them feel the product will make them feel better or fit what stereotype they are supposed to be. In the readings, I feel it makes it sound as women and animals are both horridly oppressed and consumed. I would argue that there are issues of oppression in the division of sex, but I would not compare it to animals. I feel the I agree with Carol J. Adoms that” Within two months of becoming a vegetarian, I realized there was a connection between feminism and vegetarianism, and ever since then, I’ve had my work cut out for me!”. I would say there is a connection between the two movements, but I feel the point is missed. The connection is respect. A vegetarian or even more extreme version, a vegan who eats no meat or animal products, do so because they respect the animals. What a vegan wants for animals and what a feminist wants for women, or people in general, is equal respect. On page 13 ten statements are made about the feminist-vegetarian belief and the first statement is that meat eating societies gain male identified societies. Which I feel is only partly correct, that it is not what you eat, but what you think. It has become clear that men are also victims of our culture. Advertisements are being used to sexualize food, attracting men, making them feel they need that product or they are not a man, or not good enough. I personally never quite consciously thought this, but I can definitely see how the advertisements have made me feel I need to go get that burger to feel more manly. Again, it is not what you eat, but what you think, and we in our current society have forgotten what to think. Eating meat is not the issue, but the idea which is the papers premise that how we view meat is the issue. We have lost touch with where our food comes from and have lost respect for our food. In farming communities and remote villages still practicing their ancient believes, they celebrate their food. They will celebrate the harvest of crops, they will celebrate the respect of an animal with bloodletting ceremonies. They know how vital their cattle are and how important it is to give them respect. Our society has become overly masculine and we as a whole need to take a moment and realize masculinity and femininity are equally vital and should both be utilized. The pictures below not only make me feel disgusted that these companies have discovered they can so easily manipulate a man by making him think he needs to eat meat to feel a man, or the meat is sexy and give arousal to get you to buy their product, but also in the fact it disrespects animals and women in sexualizing them. We all know sex sells, and it is clear that it works due to the over sexualizing of many commercials. I think what really needs to occur is a new awakening. I feel the feminist movement can do that, they roughly believe from my understanding that all life needs to be recognized as important and treatment of all others needs to have standards. Cows should not be mass produced, but respectfully cared for till it is time to use them for food. As should the earth not be used as our personal resource, but with respect to the robust balance the earth and life provides. So to directly answer the three questions posed to me, women and animals are being objectified to make men feel they want a product they do not need to better sell goods. The sexualization of animals as womanly and sexualization of women is effective at getting products directed at men to sell. I would most importantly highlight that the consumer are the people allowing this type of advertising to occur as well as the companies doing the advertising and that the consumed are the women and animals being used as a means to make money, as well as those with the insecurities’ falling for the lies that the product will fulfill their desires.

Though the caption is opposing what the image depicts, the caption itself is inherently negative. The image shows a women in a meat grinder showing how women and meat are essentially the same thing. The caption though says women will no longer be seen as just meat. Which is good for women, but still allows for a way of thinking that animals/ food is just a piece of meat and not something to respect. A better slogan is are women will be respected like all organisms should be.

Foster Parrots- The New England Exotic Wildlife Sanctuary has become a new home of mine over the past year. I volunteer here every Monday and always get excited when it is bird day. I look forward to cleaning up the very messy animals as well as feeding them. At first glance they can be intimidating and are always loud and many ask why birds? Well, birds outside of their beauty and high intelligence, are freedom. To fly means no obstacle can stop them. Their whole perspective is one from the sky. Here these birds are cared for, because many people think they are a fun pet. They are beautiful, but can live to 80 and is the equivalent of caring for a 7-year-old. In the readings, especially in Kingsolvers, it talks about a place such as the forest being a place of inspiration and importance. I do agree with that, but I would also say what makes a place is the inhabitants.  Kingsolver states she loves to keep to her hollow and is as content there more so than anywhere else. It is not only the place that she talks about, but also the brief interactions with neighbors and the animals that come by. A place can have beauty and feel special, but what really helps in understanding places is how everything works. How animals use the trees for homes or to find food. That like the birds there is a pecking order and you do not leave your perch and hop onto another’s unless you want to overthrow the order.  In Williams, he states “place+people=politics”, as well as living in place with our neighbors. He understands too, that a place can be beautiful, but the inhabitants are what makes it so much more wonderful. His main points seem to be how people have altered the landscape and the fights on how to use lands. There is a movement to save what is still left and around before the damages of the industrial age, but there are the “sagebrush rebels” who are fighting to allow more and more wilderness to be tamed. Used for their cattle and to allow themselves to continue their way of life. In truth, it is hard to say who is just, how important is it to protect nature Vs protecting the people. Obviously, both need to be considered and recognizing the importance of nature for the rebels and recognizing the importance of the rebels to the EPA. Not only is nature beauty, but it provides for our existence; it gives us water, protection, and resources. We need to realize that we are part of nature and we are allowed to use it, but we need to use it with respect and care. To comment back on place+people= politics, I feel is a blank statement. This essentially means people gathered in a place will argue over how to use it. All politics is is just people deciding the best way to live.  As much as we have separated ourselves from nature, we have only become more dependent on it. Now more than ever is a time in which we need to rethink the importance of nature and how to live.

Women in the global south are effected by environmental degradation by the fact that women are generally in charge of water supply and the household. With challenges of obtaining water and sanitation, it becomes harder for women to do anything more than their Housley duties. As necessities become more easily obtained, then the people in charge of obtaining and doing the chores with the necessities will slowly be able to have more time to focus on more than the fundamentals.

Agarwal makes strong points about how since women are generally more in nature to gather the resources needed, they would be more engaged with it. Also there is an argument on how each persons’ experience creates the views of how nature is seen. “At the same time, in the course of their everyday interactions with nature, they acquire a special knowledge of species varieties and the processes of natural regeneration.”(pg8) The quote I would say is essentially saying every one has their own experiences and their views are based on subjective experiences. I would go as far to say that most of existence is subjective and groups of people can have the same experience, but have entirely different truths of what happened. In previous readings there is a believe that women and the environment must unite and demand fundamental socioeconomic change. In Agarwal, she argues there needs to be decentralization and include people from the bottom up. Including all peoples and inform and help them in a process to better their environment and lives.

Overall, I believe every approach needs to be utilized. Incorporating all ideas and testing what seems to work best, which in truth will be a combination of a few ideas. Just like in renewable energy, there is more than one way to solve a problem.

The imagine depicts a faceless humanoid that I believe is supposed to be male, carving into what appears to be a hunk of cooked pork. In short I believe this image was presented to us, because it is supposed to reflect upon our reading assignments of this week. Which to my understanding were arguments about how meat eating is associated with masculinity as well as how the poor treatment of farmed animals for food and in general any animal in a cage can be associated with the oppression of said animal and humans alike. This week we read three materials tittle Meat Heads: New study focuses on how meat consumption alters men’s self-perceived levels of masculinity, Ecofeminism on the Wing: Perspectives on Human Animal Relations, and Contextual Moral Vegetarianism.

Meat Heads is a Huffington post article written by Zoe Eisenberg, who starts off by talking about how steak and salad are stereotyped with men and women respectively which are examples of gendered foods because of the general association they have. She then states, “This visual paints the picture that plant food is for ladies, and perhaps cows, but men? Not so much. For many men, meat is an inarguable symbol of masculinity. We’ve been fed this idea for decades. If you are what you (m)eat, and you’re a man, then you eat meat.” Which makes me feel that the author is biased towards men, because her phrasing makes it sound as if eating plant matter is a negative connotation, being associated with cows, which seems unrelated at all to the topic material except to make the statement feel negative towards women, because being associated with a cow is generally an insult. The latter part of her statement about men makes it sound like meat is associated with masculinity, but that masculinity is a bad thing. To tangent that previous statement Zoe Eisenberg’s fourth paragraph talks about how in a study it found meat is better at lowering a man’s anxiety after feeling threatened as compared to a non-meat option. Zoe Eisenberg then states that the study concluded off this that this is due to the “masculinity-symbolizing power of meat. Or, in layman’s terms: eat a steak, feel more like a man.” I feel this conclusion can be argued, because it could also be a physiological factor. Perhaps it is the high protein content in meat that lowers the man’s anxiety, which meats are also associated with increasing a man’s testosterone level which would make sense that eating meat can help lower anxiety, because it will help boost testosterone which is associated with boosting serotonin productions or happy chemicals. I feel overall the author is making it sound as if eating meat is the bad thing and not the fact that not eating meat can make you feel less than a man to some men.  She later argues how a big trend going around is meat free diets and how many men are doing it and say they do not feel less of a man. One lifelong vegan saying, Howell says he has never felt his manhood was under siege when others learn he eats no meat—other than the typical scrutinization he gets for being vegan in general.” Which makes me feel the focus should not be on men, but people who scrutinize veganism. Perhaps that is men, but it also feels like the author is doing to men what she is asking not to be done to her. She sounds as if she is ostracizing masculinity and men who feel they have to eat meat to feel like a man, when in truth there is nothing wrong with being of masculine traits. Overall, I do agree veganism is a healthy option, and it is definitely more environmentally friendly, because it save way more land than a meat eating society. Animal farming is a lot more energy than plant farming, because not only do you need so much land for the cattle, but you also need land to grow food on for the animals as well. I would also state that is ok to eat meat, maybe cutting down meat consumption could be a middle ground.  In the other two readings, I do believe they make some valid points on animal care and veganism, but also go a bit extreme.

In the paper, Perspectives on Human Animal Relations written by Greta Gaard, She makes a great point about treatment of pets and how poor it can be. The care for poor Bella should be better, and I think how a lot of people care for their pets can be a good argument for having them at all. I will also agree Zoos and Aquariums can be argued over its existence, because some animals are meant to never be kept in a cage. I feel Greta has a lot of sympathy for Bella and she even relates this animal oppression to helping support the oppression of certain races, women, and peoples of differing sexual orientation. I feel like her argument to not allow animals to be kept or that they are enslaved is a bit raunchy. I feel like it is not about the keeping of the animals, but about the respect. There are so many animals that can be pets, or working animals, or even farm animals. I feel like the issue is respect and understanding. Which is an argument made in Contextual Moral Vegetarianism by Deane Curtin, when he talks about people that respect the animals they eat and keep. I believe it is the responsibility of the people when getting a pet to do their research. For instance, some animals when you research will really make you realize it should not be a pet, but a cat or a dog, truly can be happy in your home. I think what to be weary of there is overbreeding. I would take any mutt over a purebred any day. Also, I do work with exotic birds, and I do agree they do not deserve to be locked up, they are smart, noisy, and live longer than you if you get a large bird like a macaw. A parakeet can be a pet, as can a reptile, and it should be the responsibility of the owner to give it the best living conditions possible, and if it can not be provided, then you should not have the pet.

Overall I found the reading interesting and a bit extreme, I will say being educated and aware of where your food comes from would be a big step. That if you can not or really do not want to be vegan or vegetarian, that is ok. That even if that is a more environmentally movement, it does not mean it is right in every sense of the word. In truth, farm animals that are not massed murdered, but respectively kept and cared for I would say is morally acceptable too. I think we do need to step back into nature and reawake to the equality we all should recognize. I would not say you have to stop eating meat, but maybe stop capitalization on it. Maybe go to a farmers market, take your kids to a farm and show them where there food comes from. Maybe try to support the places that you feel can fit in your moral compass.

Ecofeminism is a term used that now includes many groups that diverged from the idea that environmental issues and woman’s issues are the same issues and can be solved together. Many issues today surround human rights and cleaning our world. Nature has a lot of aspects to it that consist of feminine and masculine qualities. Though in the readings, the argument of dualism is seen as bad, I would say it is vital to recognize. Saying dualistic hierarchies need to go because they are “patriarchal structures justify their dominance..”  I feel misses the point. Dualistic approach such as ying and yang are vital for balance. The issue in dualism that I would say needs to go is the idea that either one side or the other is better. I will say through history feminism has been lost and a society based on domination has come in its place. Older cultures were definitely aware that the woman is as important as a man, and what naturally occurs should not be shamed or hidden, but celebrated. What needs to be recognized is that both sides are integral to allow growth and prosperity.

In western societies, industrialism and capitalism has won, it drives our economies and how we perceive the world. It has caused a lot of damage in the way of human rights and environmental damage. Though it has also done a lot of good. It brought us into this age of medicine and global connection. It is allowing “non first world countries” to catch up and develop themselves into the new upcoming powers. A great example is India, its economy is almost skipping using fossil fuels and investing in cleaner energies, developing its economy with out dirty fuel. Also with the global connection we now able to connect even the most remote villages and they are able to obtain energy and knowledge.

I would argue overall what we lost in industrialization and the patriarchy domination is the other side, the feminist side. Meaning we as a people pushed forward, developing a world that only cared about profits and bettering our technologies and capabilities. The patriarchy in all this progress forgot to accept its other half, its feminist half as important. It forgot to stop and think and to say we are making all this progress, but what is being harmed and abused in this “forward movement”.  Which what is being harmed is the rights of nature, the rights of all to be respected and recognized as important.