Ecofeminism and Animal Rights

Since the 1970s, the feminist movement has expanded in many directions. There are feminists solely concerned with equal rights for women who are part of the liberal wing of feminism. There are the romantic feminists who contend that women and men really are different, but that the superiority is on the side of women's socialization. Then there are the feminists who have connected more with international movements for social justice, sustainability, and ecological rights. The intention in this paper is to talk with a feminist involved with the animals rights movement, then briefly explore the connection through the literature.

(This interview is condensed and edited for length, but the gist remains the same. My subject is Ms. Williams who is involved with PETA.)

Ms. W: The initials stand for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Our basic principles emphasize that animals are living creatures who deserve equal treatment with human beings. They certainly do not deserve to be stripped of their skins in order to adorn fashion models. Nor do they deserve to be sacrificed by the millions in order to test new hair products, or even medicines.

Me: You yourself, or family members, probably use medicines derived from animal testing. What would replace that and isn't there a preference in your heart for humans, and for people you know?

Ms. W.: This is a complicated issue. Certain

Related Essays

Animal Rights/Liberation: An Ethical Defense .... Hawkins, RZ "Ecofeminism and Nonhumans: Continuity, Difference, Dualism, and Domination .... "Animal Rights and Animal Wrongs." Science 243 (10 March 1989): 1253. .... (2786 11 )

Animal Rights .... Hawkins, RZ "Ecofeminism and Nonhumans: Continuity, Difference, Dualism, and Domination .... "Animal Rights and Animal Wrongs." Science 243 (10 March 1989): 1253. .... (2781 11 )

developed systems in which the division of labor became more important, with men taking the dominant role. This dominant economic role constricted the freedom of women, while increasing the sense of men's superiority and entitlement. In the hierarchy which developed, wealthy men were at the top of the list, women and children near the bottom, and animals had no intrinsic value at all. They only had commercial value. This was not true for all earlier civilizations and cultures. Certainly, we are all aware of Native American cultures and there inclination to value animals spiritually, while also using them for food and clothing. They did not strip the natural world of meaning, in other words, but saw the natural world as part of the same family. With the movement of Europeans into this country, however, they brought a worldview that was primarily exploitative, and Christian. The Christian hierarchy was very clear to the early literalists who "subjugated" this continent. At the top was God (who was male), followed by the angels, then the human beings. The man was head of the family, while all of creation was subject to his decisions and stewardship. This places a lot of responsibility upon a human being, whether male or

Category: Science - E