|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ecofeminism article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
- 1 What happened to this article?
- 2 The recent addition to "See also"
- 3 Reverting a large deletion of text
- 4 "southern people"
- 5 Let us upgrade
- 6 POV
- 7 Carolyn Merchant
- 8 Schools of Feminist Thought
- 9 Anthologies
- 10 Introduction has been tampered.
- 11 This article is questionable
- 12 This article lacks cohesion
- 13 Alternative Sources: Adding Content and Context
- 14 "Concepts" section lacks organization and completeness
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 22.214.171.124 (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. 126.96.36.199 (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+ --188.8.131.52 17:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
could someone explain what that is supposed to mean? thanks 184.108.40.206 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
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)
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)
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 220.127.116.11 (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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2012 (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. 22.214.171.124 (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)
- see chapter 1 of "ecofeminism" Mies and Shiva, which applies to materialist and spiritualist ecofeminism
- see Starhawk