Monday, May 18, 2009

Why Ecofeminism?: Part 1

I recently participated in the second annual Young Women and the Word Conference, entitled "Adventist Women and the Earth: A Response to Ecofeminism," sponsored by the Women’s Resource Center and La Sierra University. I believe that ecofeminism isn't even on the radar for the majority of Adventists and, I must confess, I too was skeptical at first. I've considered myself a feminist since I was a child, but I was somewhat unsure of what to make of the union of ecology and feminism. Initially, it appeared that the link was tenuous at best. However, after further investigation, I believe the connection is crucial to understanding the structure and function of the world around us.

In a very broad sense, feminism and feminist critique assert that women--through the use of patriarchy--have been dominated and, consequently, abused throughout human history, and that this misogyny is highly detrimental to the growth and progress of humankind. Ecology focuses on the interconnectedness of organisms on planet Earth, and the philosophy of deep ecology proposes that humanity is an integral part of the environment and that greater value should be placed on all living creatures and the importance of their contribution to a healthy ecosystem. Therefore, ecofeminism is the amalgamation of feminism, ecology and deep ecology in such a way that correlations between our abuse of the earth and the degradation of the status and lives of women are established for the purposes of raising awareness and calling for action.

While it may seem that this ideology is reserved only for feminists and "tree-huggers," this is far from the case, as Dr. Rosemary Radford Ruether aptly noted in her keynote address at the conference. Radford Ruether explained that ecofeminism clearly identifies the hierarchies inherent within human societies, and that in this awareness it sees the disparity not only in the treatment of women throughout human history, but also that of children, minorities and the poor. It is also in this recognition that we can see how patriarchy not only touches human lives, but how it has aided in the destruction of the planet. When we--even subconsciously--allow ourselves to see one classification of life to be held so far above others that we are highly neglectful of the necessity and importance of all others, we not only become forces of destruction but poor stewards of the earth we have been given.

Ecofeminism is not intent upon reverse persecution based upon gender, class or race, as many claim or fear. Instead, it aims to identify that which
destroys our humanity and inhibits us from acknowledging the profound interconnection between all forms of life and the environments that support them, and how our ignorance and/or rejection of these linkages degrades and destroys these integral connections. Ultimately, ecofeminism demands that we fearlessly examine the way(s) in which we participate in oppressive structures, ideologies and relationships so that we might learn to dismantle them, in a mutually beneficial manner, for the good of all.

14 comments:

  1. I want to make it clear that I am FOR many forms of feminism. What I observe glaringly absent from the "Christian" forms of feminism is the recognition that Christianity itself is largely responsible for the oppression of women in the Western world for the last 2000 years.

    It is written and supported in the Bible itself.

    "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church...."
    (Ephesians 5:22–23)

    "These [redeemed] are they which were not defiled with women; . . ."
    (Revelation 14:4)

    "How then can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?"
    (Job 25:4)

    And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Ironically if a unborn child is accidently killed by a blow to the mother, the party responsible is fined. Normally in cases of accidental death the person had to run to a city of refuge for a trial to see if it was murder. There is no consideration for the rights of the mother.

    Even the 10 commandments themselves represent women as property.

    So, yes, lets fight oppressive structures and ideologies and the writings the support them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your thoughts, Richard. I wholly agree with your support of fighting oppression. However, in my personal experience, I have not found feminist reticent to call Judeo-Christianity to task for the religious structures that oppress and limit women. But, the majority of the sources I have consulted have been specifically academic in nature. Often, in many other venues, I think women are afraid or nervous about expressing such blatant outrage.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am well aware that most forms of feminism are not afraid to directly express outrage about the Bible's blatant misogyny. My point was that when I have read Christian women speak about feminism they seem to completely ignore the "elephant in the room" so to speak. And that elephant is the culture of Christian belief and the Bible itself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For those Christians who see the Bible from a fair and realistic perspective, and follow Christ's teachings over the teachings of those who claim to represent him, there is no elephant in the room. I would argue that this culture of Christian belief you speak of is really a culture of exploiting Christ to add weight to ones own beliefs. And it is not representative of all "Christians".

    ReplyDelete
  5. "For those Christians who see the Bible from a fair and realistic perspective"

    How is not realistic to address the numerous references to women as property within the Bible?

    How is it not realistic to recognize that we are trying to make sense of an Iron age moral system?

    To me, trying to make the Bible out as this superior moral system is unrealistic.

    Until you directly address the problems with the Bible's view on women, stating that I am somehow being unrealistic is avoiding the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the problem comes when we try to completely legitimize, or completely delegitimize, the entire Bible. It was written by a lot of people over thousands of years.

    Each writer was certainly influenced by the cultural environment in which they lived. This should always be considered when reading the Bible. Touting positives in the Bible as evidence that every single word is God-breathed is certainly a mistake. To reject ALL biblical influence because of SOME negative aspects doesn't make much sense either.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "To reject ALL biblical influence because of SOME negative aspects doesn't make much sense either."

    I'm not rejecting anything the Bible says that is intelligent and insightful. I'm rejecting the idea that it is god breathed at all. Or if it has SOME inspirational content, this doesn't make it more important than any other source of inspirational content.

    The reason women have been marginalized is because the Bible has had this sacred position. I find nothing in the Bible that couldn't have been conceptualized by men. In fact the marginalization of women indicates that it was conceptualized by men. No woman would have come up with those ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm curious then, is your rejection of any Biblical inspiration based specifically on what is contained in the Bible, or is it based on a broader rejection of the existence of inspirational, or God-breathed literature?

    I'd also be interested it know if in your opinion, male domination was historically unique to Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious culture.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I'm curious then, is your rejection of any Biblical inspiration based specifically on what is contained in the Bible, or is it based on a broader rejection of the existence of inspirational, or God-breathed literature?"

    I don't find it likely that literature could contain anything Divine. It is simply a technology and not a very precise one at that.

    "I'd also be interested it know if in your opinion, male domination was historically unique to Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious culture."

    Male domination is not unique to Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture, but currently it is the form that seems to have gained the power to define culture. And, the Bible/Koran continue to be used to sustain and legitimize male domination.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The Bible/Koran continue to be used to sustain and legitimize male domination."

    I can completely agree with that. And there are many Christians, like myself who reject that approach as an appropriate use of the Bible, and reject some of the fundamentals that validate it. We want to engage others within Christianity and hopefully start to gain at least some ground in getting Christians to recognize where there fundamentals are actually in direct opposition to the principles Christ taught. Unfortunately it's a huge challenge, and things aren't going to change overnight.

    ReplyDelete
  12. BrainV posted...
    "We want to engage others within Christianity and hopefully start to gain at least some ground in getting Christians to recognize where there fundamentals are actually in direct opposition to the principles Christ taught."

    I think its impossible to use to the Bible to try and determine what Jesus really meant. There are some serious doubts that Jesus was even a real person.

    Now that doesn't mean that the principles the are reported to have come from Jesus don't present us with some good ideas.

    I think what makes them good ideas are because they work and appeal to a natural morality that many people resonate with, not because Jesus said them. And certainly not because they are in the Bible.

    That is a leap the most people aren't willing to even consider. So there may be some value in trying to do this from the inside.

    I think ultimately organized religion will eventually be marginalized unless one dominant view, again, uses violence and political force to suppress all other voices. And that's the problem with the Bible. Within its pages are the roadmap and God's blessing on doing this very thing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Bible is not unified. There is a pretty major evolution of ideas presented, and the philosophy of the New Testament is quite a contrast to the Old Testament.

    Is it really the Bible that's the problem, or a twisted culture that claims it's inerrancy, while using it selectively to support it's goals?

    As a person of faith, I personally find a lot of value in reading the stories of people who searched for and tried to understand God.

    ReplyDelete
  14. BrainV posted...
    "The Bible is not unified. There is a pretty major evolution of ideas presented, and the philosophy of the New Testament is quite a contrast to the Old Testament."

    I'm not contesting this. I am very willing to look at the Bible as an evolution of religious thought.

    "Is it really the Bible that's the problem, or a twisted culture that claims it's inerrancy, while using it selectively to support it's goals?"

    Well, it's obviously the responsibility of people.

    "As a person of faith, I personally find a lot of value in reading the stories of people who searched for and tried to understand God."

    Joseph Campbell would find a lot to agree with. And I'm in agreement as long as we consider the Bible as myth. Its when there is some sort of consideration given to the Bible as something other than a creation of men that I find problematic.

    ReplyDelete