This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet
and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs
told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.
In this edition we have a serious website trying to tell us what ecofeminism is. Just reading this it's unbelievable that people actually follow this. Even the experts can't get away from just chatting a load of bollocks.
__________________________________
http://www.thegreenfuse.org/ecofem.htm
__________________________________
I'd just like to say that I think this idea is ridiculous. All I can see at the moment is another excuse for social justice warriors to whinge about how their life isn't fair, and blaming it on something that clearly isn't the problem. Oppression of women and the exploitation of nature have nothing to do with each other, and to be fair I don't see women under threat from extinction because they haven't got equality. It's a bit funny that although women would claim the benefits from using the environment, the natural world still seems to be being exploited, so it begs the question of what this theory is really about. Going eco friendly will do jack shit for the treatment of women, as if anything mankind has become less eco friendly and more supportive of women. The whole premise of this theory just doesn't make any sense.
However I do like the idea that this group takes equality out of the picture; I do think it should be that way. maybe because I can't relate to women I don't understand why they need to be liberated. I understand that women might want to undergo a personal quest, much like the Native American 'Spirit Quest' where they would become one with nature, but why does that apply to a whole gender? I'm pretty confident that many women worldwide couldn't give a shit about your liberation, and so I can only see this as a pursuit for individual needs. As far as I can work out it's punishing the majority for the benefit of a select few. For once I find myself agreeing with conventional feminists, and I think this regime would cause unnecessary oppression and halt any progress humankind has made as a species.
Oh no my mistake, I could have sworn you said this wasn't about equality in the last paragraph, but we find out here that it actually is, and has absolutely nothing to do with liberating women. "In Western society women are treated as inferior to men". Really, would you like to back that up with evidence, because being protected by the same laws, having equal rights and being a valued member of society is not inferior in my books. You can't base a whole theory off of a sweeping accusation like that, even if it is a theory that stems from the stupid idea that nature is portrayed as feminine. Surely that's completely subjective; being social and sensitive does not mean you associate yourself with nature. I see nature as a hard and unforgiving place, so how does being overemotional tie in with that? I don't see why I should change my ways to benefit a minority because of a perception.
The first proof we get that this article is just tedious uninformed crap is when we suddenly decide to ignore science. The fact that this theory emphasizes the common misconception that the menstrual cycle is linked to the lunar cycle just shows how moronic your argument is. How anyone could think that was scientifically possible is another matter, but the only similarity they have is that the phrase 'menstrual' originates from a translation of the word 'moon'. Please, just give me some facts to work with; without them your concept looks like sentimental bullshit that has no relevance to anyone but yourself.
Oh fuck, even the expert can't help me as they just contradict what I've been moaning about. What hellish vegan, eco friendly dystopia are we suggesting here? I have nothing against people who choose to be vegan or want to be environmentally friendly, but please don't force it onto other people, or it will make you look like a bit of a hypocrite and a massive bigot. We then reject any form of hierarchy, which is also another hint that this is about equality, and also suicidal. Are they seriously suggesting that humankind could survive without any form of power structure? Even the structure of great apes has a hierarchy as it couldn't survive without one. Their society is primitive compared to that of humanities, and so imposing this system would ensure that we were in a state of anarchy, and I'm sure that civilization itself would soon crumble. Sharing power is one of the most stupid things I've ever read; with the selfishness of humanity that would never work. There's always going to be people that abuse power, and this radical movement has no strategy to combat that. Their theory just isn't sustainable and poorly thought through. Why the hell should I watch my species crumble so that a minority of morons can find power from within?
I just get the sense these people are completely missing the point. I wonder why male qualities are valorised? Is it because they've been vital to the survival of humanity as a species? Yes, and that's more than anyone can say for being associated with nature. How the fuck does that help anyone? Why shouldn't we valorise reason and intuition? Shouldn't they be considered positives from society as opposed to being emotional. It's times like this that patriarchal dualism sounds like a good idea. The whole thing is just a massive clusterfuck; especially that last paragraph. What the fuck are they going on about? How does fear of mortality and nature lead to inequality? It just doesn't make any sense. I've never considered women as a constant reminder of death, and I don't see anyone else punishing them because life's too short in their presence. There's just this ignorance towards the attitude of men throughout the whole website. Just because men didn't excrete the child doesn't mean they have no connection with it. Why should women be automatically associated with the child? As a man I have a biological connection with birth, so for ecofeminists to just shit all over that is pretty damn insulting. This whole generalisation is inadvertent sexism, and the overall theory is one of the most stupid and hypocritical things I've ever had the displeasure of reading.
I'll tell you how we can re-evaluate these qualities. Instead of whinging about them why don't you go and do something about it? Look at people like Ronda Rousey or Angela Merkel. I've never heard them wining about the patriarchy; they just get on with life and reap the benefits of their hard work. It's all very well telling men to promote female qualities, when you yourselves have been slagging off their qualities in every single paragraph. It's just annoying that everyone must stick to their stereotypes for this system to work, and of course it has to be men that make the commitment, the self centered bastards. It then just starts up with the random bollocks again. I must have missed the part of history when men were alienated from the domestic world. I never remember any stories of cavemen househusbands, but instead male warriors who would hunt for food because that was the most efficient way, not because they became alienated. This theory is just incredibly stupid, and it gets even worse.
Simple unbelievable, not only has this started the teachings of religion and cults, but it's just making stuff up to try and justify a point that was flawed anyway. There are still hunter gatherer tribes in the world, and they do the exact opposite of what you're suggesting, and have a male orientated society. And don't start banging on about how the patriarchy has been effecting them because some of them have no contact with the outside world. With this logic and evidence it can be said that if we did go back to a primitive time then the exact opposite would occur to what you're suggesting. I'm confident in saying that competition almost certainly was preferential during that time period of rival clans, or you're going against the very idea of tribalism and natural selection. Just look at other families in our genus, they live in a clan lifestyle that very much values the males over females, yet to apparently get equality we must become more like them. I just can't believe that according to this I must revert to poverty, for something that would apparently bring about equality; and how nature comes into that is still a complete mystery. As somewhat of a hedonist I find this completely bonkers, but then we get a taste in the next paragraph of what this theory is really all about.
Yes that's right, this theory is really about fucking spirituality, the very pinnacle of bollocks. I ask myself is there anything that spirituality can solve that conventional science can't; and most probably the answer is no. Ecofeminism it seems is on this unfortunate path, and whilst I have nothing wrong with people wanting to be spiritual or creative, I do have a problem with ecofeminism forcing it on people. The world works just fine with conventional methods and logic, and so the idea of being thrown back to before history is not a concept that should be taken seriously. If civilization has to be destroyed so that a minority can be spiritual then genocide might be the only option, and even then equality still wouldn't work.
No comments:
Post a Comment