Talk:Ecofeminism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KJNW.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jnash96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hasmit06.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marilynmatthews.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dallas831.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cprieto8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Plans to add

I have made plans to edit this article, here is what I hope to do: Add to the spiritual ecofeminism section of the page Add how different religions view women and the environment and how these are interconnected and how this is reflected in today’s society The section on material feminism is also short so if I have time I would also like to add to that section You can view my user page sandbox to see my contribution plans and my sources. Here is the link to my sandbox Sandbox Hasmit06 (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

New Changes

Hey, I just wanted to say that I will be working on this article for my class. I added some information to the overview section that I thought helped clarify what ecofeminism is! If you have any questions or suggestions I'd be happy to hear them!Hasmit06 (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

See this previous version. Why was all of that removed? The main text now contains no links, and consists almost entirely of one big unattributed quote. This appears to have been done by one user who hasn't edited anything else. Should this article revert back a couple months? ~leif 10:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A quick reading of the previous suggests a disorginized... well "load" is the word that comes to mind. (says an anonymous editor)

Thanks to Wiki's editing and revisioning system, the old text still exists at that link in the history of the Eco-feminism article (which is now a hard redirect here). If someone wished and were willing to do the work, these two articles could be merged to here.

The current wiki entry on ecofeminism is very poor - its skewed toward american spiritual ecofeminism. readers are better off using www.ecofem.org for information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.80.32.8 (talk • contribs) .

Wiki articles, especially Wiki articles about hot political topics, and especially articles about hot political topics near-and-dear to lefties, tend to turn to shit over time. When the article is first created, it is often cogent and clear, but as information accretes onto the article, it becomes disjointed and chaotic. This is especially true with political articles where opponents keep lobbing in grenades, editing in a little dig here and a little "balance" there while the folks who actually care about the topic try to hold back the tide with the reverts and compensating edits.

Eventually, the ony solution is a massive reworking of the article by a single editor (or a small cadre of similarly-minded editors). Maybe that time has come here? You know what they say: be bold!

Atlant 14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think so? It does have some problems, and is a bit speculative. I think the "views on technology" is a bit moderate for many ecofeminists, and would be better to incorporate other viewpoints. I don't see the article as especially tinged towards "American spiritual ecofeminism". If anything, it could use much more content in that area, as well as in others. In particular, this article is lacking the ecofeminist viewpoints opposing development and production in general, which seems to me to be one of the philosophy's most fundamental tenets, if not necessarily shared by all ecofeminists. Sarge Baldy 21:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article is a mess. It reads like a term paper written by someone who believes that the limited material s/he has read represents the whole of the topic. From the second sentence -- which links ecofeminism to deep ecology when, in fact, more ecofeminists have been critical than supportive of deep ecology -- the article gives a very skewed perspective, leaving out some important trends and focusing too heavily on some topics (such as technology). And then there are the unsourced assertions (beginning with "ecofeminism has been called misandrist" and continuing throughout the article. I vote for a complete rewrite. I'm willing to help. 67.142.130.41 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The recent addition to "See also"

Someone added this under the "See also" header:

EcoFeminism & Globalization: exploring culture, context and religion. Edited by Heather Eaton & Lois Ann Lorentzen

I certainly don't object to this being in the article but because it doesn't appear to be a Wikilink, it probably doesn't belong under the "See also" header, nor is it (yet) and "External link". Perhaps it should go under a new "Refernces" header instead? Would the editor who inserted it care to comment?

Atlant 20:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverting a large deletion of text

ok I do it, and I have NPOV a little because there are several streams in ecofeminism- sorry for my english (I don't create a account). hope that page will be improved ! a+ --213.189.162.148 17:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"southern people"

could someone explain what that is supposed to mean? thanks 217.237.149.162 16:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

People in the Southern Hemisphere, basically meaning Africa, India, and other parts of southern Asia, as well as South America. Basically places that are growing a lot of food, and still have a healthy environment, but are said to be exploited by the North, meaning the developed (or overdeveloped, in the view of ecofeminists) countries.

You might say that "Southern people" simply refers to people in developing countries, although ecofeminists hate that term for a number of reasons, one being that they believe development is impossible in these countries because development requires the exploitation of others and there's no one left for them to exploit- (this is what Maria Mies calls "the myth of catching-up development"), and thus it's seen as a pro-growth political term. Sarge Baldy 22:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Let us upgrade

For the year 2006-07, let us concentrate on upgrading the contents of this page as decided: Wales to upgrade quality of Wiki. Thanks. --Bhadani 00:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

I just removed

"And some "spiritual" ecofeminists can't be accused of inconsistency: they have an epistemological analysis of the Enlightenment, want to place the spirituality in immanent world and then practice modern activism, discuss economical and political issues while working with the power of Great mother earth (metaphorically or magically according to their tendencies)."

I don't know how that could be encyclopedic, but in the event that someone can, and wishes to salvage it, I'll leave it here. Eirein 03:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

References

Carolyn Merchant

Might be good to add something about her. (historian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.50.78 (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Schools of Feminist Thought

It's hard to tell which claims are made by authors cited or by Wikipedia editors and first person is inappropriate. Also, this should probably be renamed Schools of Ecofeminist Thought. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This whole section reads like an opinion piece and is badly in need of a healthy dose of objectivity and editing 152.23.85.150 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Anthologies

Three entries at the end are actually journal papers and not anthologies and so should probably be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction has been tampered.

Someone went in and edited in some pretty juvenile comments in the introduction. It's pretty obvious what doesn't belong but if someone has a untampered version they may want to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.145.30 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is questionable

This isn't a very good article. If someone has the time/desire to re-do it completely, I think a lot of people would welcome that. The "ecofeminist analysis" is very poorly cited and misrepresents what many people understand as the practice as ecofeminism-- this understanding is represented not in scholarly articles but in many widely available ecofeminist anthologies and books by thinkers such as Carol J. Adams and Susan Griffin. There is also a dearth of information on what many believe to be the very important link between ecofeminism and animal rights, especially veganism and anti-hunting. Someone should expand the human/animal relations section, as it's very important, and delete or limit the technology section, as there's no real consensus on that, and few ecofeminists see that as a main issue. I'm surprised it's even in there; perhaps an editor was overly interested. Perhaps a good place to start re-doing the article would be combining these issues in "schools of thought" or an "ecofeminist concerns" heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.180.222.243 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

To add to this, I found the Ecofeminism Critique section heavily biased towards those particular positions. I suggest someone with more knowledge of those specific sources go in and rewrite this portion of the article. It seemed to attack these views, rather than presenting information in the way that encyclopedias normally do. (Cprieto8 (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

This article lacks cohesion

This is a good article with really excellent sources. It appears that authors have tried to expand descriptions of this school of thought to different areas such as animal rights and hunting debates. Going through the source list and contributing more information from there would be great to improve the article's depth and to create appropriate boundaries for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcalder (talk • contribs) 19:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Sources: Adding Content and Context

-http://homepages.gac.edu/~lbrammer/Ecofeminism.html - http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/bron/PDF--Christianity/Hobgood-Oster--Ecofeminism-International%20Evolution.pdf -http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dss4/merchant1.pdf -http://media.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/courses/ecowarrn.html -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NQbMVyPzRg -http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~evanderveen/wvdv/environment/ecofeminism.htm -http://books.google.ca/books?id=CELoA2k7gIYC&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=ecofeminism&source=bl&ots=GoOWZHzVEJ&sig=qjPdZu-txb5AA19XMr3TIejlOzY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zopzT9XFMon10gGh6cX_Ag&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAzge#v=onepage&q=ecofeminism&f=false -http://prezi.com/tiuac0oqwf3n/ecofeminism/ -http://prezi.com/tiuac0oqwf3n/ecofeminism/ -Also, google has a neat tool called trends, it tracks the popularity of a particular word. Here is the results for ecofeminism; http://www.google.ca/trends/?q=ecofeminism. Mta.crk (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To improve upon this article I will revamp the definition which is muddled and much to long. I will include the coining of the term and what it was first used to refer to. From there I will explain ecofeminist intersections between the spiritual, ecological and feminist philosophies and schools of thought. Broad generalizations will be extracted. Schools of thought will be more organized, criticisms will have a seperate heading. A section on theorists may be added. Thank you all for your feedback and comments for improvement on this article. Mta.crk (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition section, as it currently stands, could stand improvement. It focuses primarily on giving a history of the term, while the best definition it offers is that ecofeminism is a 'loosely knit philosophical and practical analytical set of concepts' which results in leaving a reader who was merely wishing to know what ecofeminism is without an answer. This also means the "Critiques for and against" fails to make particular sense, even ignoring the dubious biology is impossible without a clear set idea of what ecofeminism is in the first place. The more specific definition is either too jargony or Word Salad. I can't really address what issues are present in the criticisms section, aside from it being hard to tell if any of what is discussed are criticisms as I have no idea what ecofeminism is. 75.177.89.14 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Concepts" section lacks organization and completeness

The Concepts section of this page seems to be scattered and underdeveloped. All of the information listed in the section is well-constructed and cited, but it could be so much better represented if the points were more complete and organized. The topics that are covered seem to be: a summary of Ecofeminism (1993), the relation between medicalized childbirth and industrialized agriculture, and a sentence about the binary construction of oppression. These are good, but there is no definition between one concept and the next, as well as the concepts themselves being underdeveloped. Atvedt (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

vs. Feminism?

Ecofeminism is a type of feminism. There is no ONE stream that is "the" feminism, and other feminisms can be contrasted with. It can be contrasted with liberal feminism (seems to be what whoever wrote that is trying to say) or white feminism, but it doesn't account for the many, many other types of feminisms out there, making this paragraph pretty incomprehensible to any reader familiar with more than one feminist ideology. TMagen (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecofeminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001140008/http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?id=2669 to http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?ID=2669

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "Needs Changing" Bubble

I recently reorganized the article in order to create a more comprehensible flow. With that reorganization I moved multiple paragraphs under the sub heading "Major Critiques" that weren't there previously. There was a bubble saying that the critique category needed more expansion, and now that there are the new paragraphs I don't think it is needed. Is there a way we can remove that bubble notification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilynmatthews (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Marilynmatthews:, I just removed the bubble in question ;)

But I have noticed that there is a weird part in the introduction that starts with "Definition == In the 1993 essay...", which looks like it should go elsewhere. I'm not so familiar with this article (I'm actually rather working on its French equivalent right now), so I thought you might be better placed to move it where it belongs? Or anyone passing by who can help ;) Thanks --Opsylac (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Need more on intersectionality!

I think this article would benefit from expanding on the “intersectional approach” of ecofeminism. The article currently mentions how modern ecofeminism has focused on more “intersectional questions” briefly at the bottom of the Overview section, however it does not accurately describe what intersectionality is, nor does it explain what intersectionality would do to help understand ecofeminism. I think intersectionality is due its own separate section, as the gender essentialism currently present in the article discredits how women with multiple identities and different experiences can have very different relationships with nature and the environment. Environmentalist Leah Thomas coined the term, “Intersectional Environmentalist” which would be very helpful in gaining more information on how intersectionality and environmentalism correlate; her website, along with a paper written by scholar Giovanna Di Chiro are provided below. For further information see: Di Chiro, Giovanna. "Teaching Urban Ecology: Environmental Studies and the Pedagogy of Intersectionality." Feminist Teacher 16, no. 2 (2006): 98-109. Accessed November 11, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40545983. Intersectional Environmentalist (intersectionalenvironmentalist.com) Sequined Owl (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Sequined Owl

Wiki Education assignment: War and the Environment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emjwatson (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mtgravesande, Sparamin, Fujia0801.

— Assignment last updated by Karanaconda (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Idabelda (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Elksforest.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations of Feminism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Viviangaskin (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Happyhelper775.

— Assignment last updated by Happyhelper775 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Moving References Section

Hello All,

I am interested in this topic and assisting in improving the wiki page for it. I will be making a few edits for an assignment in my college class.

My main proposed edit is to move the "References" Section. It is currently listed as a subheading under the main section "Major Critiques" and before the next section "Further Reading"

I will be moving it to it's own main section at the end of the page, as well as adding some needed citations and information here and there in other sections.

Please let me know if you have any qualms! Idabelda (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey everyone!

I just want to share that I decided to move "Further Reading" back to coming after the "References" section once I reviewed other pages and saw that's the order they put them in too.

I also edited some fo the headings to be Page Titles so that they show as drop down menus on the phone version for more cohesive reading.

This concludes my edits for my Wiki Education assignment. It's been a pleasure working with you all. Best of luck to future editors Idabelda (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Origin of the term d'Eaubonne, Bookchin or others?

In his book "Post-Scarcity Anarchism", Murray Boockchin states: "So, too, is the importance of feminism — particularly ecofeminism, which has drawn a good deal of inspiration from the essay. Whether ecofeminism will go beyond the smallgroup syndrome that tends to marginalize it and bypass the liberal politics of the National Organization of Women (NOW) by becoming part of a larger, hopefully libertarian Green movement in the English-speaking world remains to be seen." (emphasis mine).

The edition I had in hand is from the 80s but the book is originally from 1971. This seems to predate d'Eaubonne book.

French version of the article quotes "Ecology or Catastrophe: The Life of Murray Bookchin" as a book supporting this idea too. Zwegenschen (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The quote is actually from the preface to the second edition from 1985. Therefore it can't be the first instance of the word, my bad. Zwegenschen (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)