In this unit, Clare suggested that I do research on Ana Mendieta. I went to listen to the podcast called "the death of an artist". There is a saying in it that she hoped to visualize the hidden continuities between our bodies and the natural world. From that sentence, I feel that I may spend a lot of time in the future Take a good look at the content of eco-feminism.

 

Ecofeminism is undoubtedly an important trend of thought in modern ecology, but in my preliminary opinion, ecofeminism is actually facing many serious problems.

 

The most important point of ecofeminism is decentralization, which compares anthropocentrism to the oppression of women in patriarchy. However, this analogy seems to me a bit far-fetched. There are some ecofeminists like Oberner who see both perspectives as manifestations of a deep-seated hierarchy, but they ignore some very important distinctions—the distinction between women and nature. Women are conscious subjects, nature is not, and this is very important. We can look at this issue from another angle. Many supporters of this doctrine will say that the coexistence of human beings and nature should be based on mutual benefit rather than under a human-dominated dominance system. There is a point here Very important - what is mutual benefit? The benefits to humans are quite obvious, but what about nature? This is a very difficult thing, and I think a better definition is beneficial to the sum of all sentient beings in this ecosystem.

 

 

We need to realize that the so-called ecological environment is not monolithic. The existence of some species will harm other species, and we can also regard human beings as one of the species that affects other species. For example, organisms that produce oxygen will inevitably pose a threat to the existence of anaerobic bacteria; then this is actually very similar to the impact of human existence on certain other organisms. And decentralization leads to de facto human paternalism. The second issue that I think is important is the concept of "Mother Earth" that is often mentioned in ecofeminism. This concept unknowingly confers an intrinsic value that does not exist in the entire ecosystem. Dinosaurs tens of millions of years ago would definitely not agree with this concept. For them, they should agree more with the concept of a "slayer of the earth". Macroscopically speaking, the ecology of the earth is a very dynamic thing. Billions of years ago, the so-called mother earth was a huge ball of magma. If we artificially give the earth such a status, then the earth becomes a moody individual, which is quite different from the description of "Mother Earth". This is the problem with this theory. All descriptions of the earth—that is, traditional objective objects are determined by observers. Oil and global warming are the result of the ecological environment, but for human beings, oil is a gift from "Mother Earth", and Global warming is the punishment - because it's bad for humans. If we start from the perspective of human observation, we fall back into the anthropocentrism opposed by ecofeminism, and if we do not start from the perspective of human beings, the concept of "Mother Earth" cannot exist at all-for most extinct animals, Earth is hell.

 

We might as well describe an ecosystem as a system driven by many complex causes, most of which are not of human origin, while human beings should try to maintain their own existence. I have always believed that the protection of the ecological system is very necessary. After all, the long-term interests of human beings depend on the current ecological environment, but ecofeminism should not be the way out.