Caring for Nature: An Ecofeminist's View of Rolston on Eating, Hunting, and Genetics

摘要: This chapter examines several of Holmes Rolston’s views through an ecological feminist lens. I argue that although some specific conclusions, particularly those regarding domesticated animals and sport hunting, are highly problematic, much what he says is not only consistent with, but also relevant to, central within feminism. shall conclude given his other more general views, should reconsider earlier positions domestic hunting. begin with a discussion the aspects work clearly problematic from standpoints, then show how other, broader fall right in line key insights. argument for why Rolston change on both treatment by pointing out think feminists such as myself, Rolston, can learn each other. Ecological feminism term covers many different (Warren 1994). In fact, disagree issues, making it to call any one position or approach view. However, most agree dualistic thinking has permeated traditional western world contributes domination nature oppression women various men. A dualism kind “super dichotomy” which difference transformed into radical difference, category seen morally superior Val Plumwood argued reason/nature undergirds frameworks, whatever falling under “reason” considered be radically “nature” (1993). forms fault basis construction variety dualisms reason/emotion, masculine/feminine, civilized/primitive, name few. case, represents reason thought nature. Hence, men “reasonable” “emotional,” this justifies sexism, while civilized/primitive imperialism. Justifications system American slavery included fact Africans were supposedly primitive, like animals, therefore less capable than white northern Europeans.