|
My Place
in Feminism
Tenitia Hobson
I will admit it; I’m a self-proclaimed,
bonafide poster maniac. You know, you can tell
a lot about a person by looking at the posters
they put up. And I know that you are already wondering
what posters have to do with my place in feminism,
but bear with me, all will be revealed. As I said before,
you can tell a lot about a person by looking at the
posters they put up, and the ones that cover the walls
of my room and apartment say a lot about me. My
favorite poster, my pride and joy, depicts the
face of a beautiful woman being formed in the
waters of a lake at sunset. The outline of her
face is made by various flowers and vines, and
a small hummingbird flies around it. I believe
that this shows my ecofeminist side. To me, this poster
represents the ultimate merging of woman and nature,
and is immaculately beautiful to me. Another one of
my favorites illustrates a dragon with its body coiled
around the earth as its protector. I believe that
this shows the environmentalist and animal activist
in me, the dragon being such a strong symbol of
protection and preservation. I also have two posters
that could be considered religious in nature.
One is called Genesis, and depicts space and the
stars morphing into water, then land, and then
a cathedral. I believe that this depicts my willingness
to put some faith in the religion of Christianity.
My other religious one depicts an ankh, which
is a religious symbol in African and Egyptian
cultures. I believe that this depicts my curiosity to
explore religions other than Christianity. Also, I have
a Far Side poster and calendar in my room, to depict
the humorous side of me. Inside my room, you will
also find various alien and Star Trek posters.
I suppose this simply shows my deep interest in
science fiction. With all of that said, let us
move on.
When it comes to feminism, I would unquestionably
have to classify myself as an ecofeminist. I can
definitely relate to the view of earth as our
mother. Whoever the divine creator may have been,
they definitely knew what they were doing. In
nature, all things seem to flow together so freely
and naturally, and, "everything is connected,
as any ecologist, or any feminist, will confirm"(Forsey
49). But many people still fail to see, "the human
race as but on constituent in a living and organic universe"(Forsey
48). And I believe that the realization of this
fact is absolutely necessary "if we want to preserve
the rich diversity of nature and the treasures
it might still hold for us"(Tong 248).
I have always considered myself an animal lover
and a tree-hugger, so ecofeminism is a perfect
combination for me. However, upon doing some further
reading, I found some people with opinions that
greatly disturbed me. In Ecofeminism: Women,
Animals, Nature, it was stated that Peter
Singer, an animal activist author, hated to hear animal
activists say that they "love" animals. His
reason for saying this is that, "he fears that
to associate the animal rights cause with "womanish"
sentiment is to trivialize it" (Donovan 167). The
"womanish" sentiment mentioned, of course,
being love. In his eyes, to attach the animal activist
movement to "animal lovers" would further
discredit the cause because "all those who work
on the behalf of the interests of animals are…familiar
with the tired charge of being, ‘irrational,’
‘sentimental,’ ‘emotional,’
or worse"(Donovan 168). One of the main arguments
against the animal rights movement has always
been that its activist are just overemotional
and overly sensitive to the plight of animals, but I
still think Singer’s is a truly ridiculous opinion.
Not only that, I also find it highly offensive, being
an "animal lover" myself. You must have a
love of some kind for a cause in order to be concerned
enough to fight for it. If animal activists did
not "love" animals, they would not have become
animal activists in the first place.
Peter Singer’s "concern about being branded
a sentimentalist"(Donovan 168), and his "rejection
of emotion"(Donovan 168), exposes an "inherent
bias in contemporary animal rights theory toward
rationalism"(Donovan 168), reason being a more
masculine than feminine characteristic, and thus,
more desirable. Granted, reason can be a good
thing, but why do some feel that it is necessary for
the movement to focus only on reason? This seems to
be a very limiting and patriarchal view to me. And why
do some feel that it is necessary to rid the movement
of these supposedly "womanish" views in order
to be credible? Why can we not have a blending
of masculine and feminine views in the movement,
as many feminists already strive to do with everyday
life? In my opinion, this would greatly benefit
the movement by giving it more of a balance. As
I stated before, I do proudly consider myself
to be an "animal lover". In fact, I "love" animals
so much that I have decided to dedicate my life
to them and pursue a career as a veterinarian.
I believe that along with a "love" of animals
comes a respect for them, a realization that they
are something to be admired and protected. If he
wants to rid the entire animal rights movement of "animal
lovers" then it is going to get awful lonely out
there on the picket line.
Another issue that I have problems with is eating
meat. I do eat meat myself, but I still consider
myself an animal activist, the reason for which
I will further explain later. However, this is
an issue that troubles me, because there is a
kind of bias amongst radical animal activists and
ecofeminists to think that their fellow activists who
eat meat are hypocrites. The same bias can be seen in
feminism, amongst radical feminist who think that their
fellow feminists who have children are hypocrites.
"Whether or not all ecofeminists should be vegans
is in fact one of the current controversies within
ecofeminism"(Adams 195). To me, this is one of
the most trite and trifling concerns that I have
ever heard. As long as we are dedicated to our
cause of liberating both women and the environment,
why should it matter whether or not we eat meat? Someone
is obviously picking nits here. Thankfully, this is
not the belief of most ecofeminists, "many believe
that feminism’s commitment to pluralism
should prevail over arguments for vegetarianism"(Adams
195). I am obviously one of these many.
I believe that we can still use nature while respecting
it, we just have to do it in moderation. "People
should use only as much of nature as they need
to"(Tong 271). I also believe that it is necessary
for people to use nature for some things. For
example, at my home in Milan, we have a wood-burning
stove to warm our house instead of central heat
and air. Yes, we do cut down trees, but we do
so to warm our house. My uncle, the only male
amongst my grandmother’s children, does hunt from time
to time, but I can honestly say that he does not kill
simply to gain a trophy, whatever he kills, he will
bring it home and eat it. We also have a garden
in which we plant and gather several types of
vegetables, as well as a cornfield, so we rarely
eat store bought vegetables and thus do not contribute
to the problems that runoff pesticides pose in
mass farming. And I do not believe that I can
remember a time when we have had to buy eggs from
a store. We have always had a flock of chickens
who lay eggs at their own natural pace, some of which
we collect for ourselves and others we leave to hatch.
I know, my family is a bunch of country hicks, so sue
me. So regardless of the fact of whether or not
we eat meat, I still think we are doing better
than most people are. Overall, I think my family’s
way of living is much more environmentally sound
than that of most families.
Yet another issue that troubles me is the wearing
of fur. I have seen a real, live mink with my
own eyes, and I must say that it is one of the
most beautiful creatures that I have ever had
the pleasure to behold. And I also must say that
his coat looked immeasurably finer on him than
it ever could on any human being’s back. Anyway, some
believe that women, just as much as men, are responsible
for animal cruelty because much of the killing was
for material items, such as fur coats. It is argued
that women are to blame, "largely in their use
of luxury items that entail animal pain and destruction"(Donovan
168). This theory is formulated on the bias that
items such as fur coats are supposedly made for
use exclusively by women. This may have been true
many years ago, but not today. The last celebrity
I saw wearing a fur coat was a man. In this day
and age, men wear furs just as much as women do,
and the last person I myself saw wearing one was
one of our own CBU men’s basketball players
at the Lemoyne-Owen game. One need only consult Carmen
Mills to discover some of the seething remarks I had
for him.
Being a feminist has affected more areas of my
besides those that can be directly related to
ecofeminism. One of these areas is religion. This
semester I took a religion course in which we
studied most of the major world religions and
visited their local places of worship. As we studied
these different religions, I found myself asking questions
like, "How does this religion view and treat its
women?" I must say that my findings are not very
pleasing. I have a massive problem with Judeo-Christian
view of male superiority, and I have found that
this belief thoroughly permeates most of the other
major world religions as well, which is very discouraging.
I have never been extremely enthusiastic about
religion in the first place, and the attitude
of male dominance is extremely evident in the
church and denomination (Christian Methodist Episcopal)
in which I was raised. Women preachers are about
as abundant as scraps of meat after a shark feeding
frenzy. When one does emerge, she is usually a
guest preacher from somewhere else. Women in my
church are expected to sing on the choir, usher,
or be on the food committee. The men are expected
to be clergymen, and serve on the finance and other
decision-making committees.
Past experiences coupled with my recent observances
have been the final stride in putting me in a
kind of crisis of faith. I suppose you could say
that now I am leaning towards agnosticism, or
perhaps even spiritual ecofeminism. This in turn
can be traced back to my beliefs in environmentalism.
"Spiritual ecofeminists posit a close connection
between environmental degradation and the Judeo-Christian
conviction that God gave humans "dominion"
over the earth"(Tong 260). An extension of this
Judeo-Christian view is, "if man is the lord over
nature, if he has been given dominion over it, then
he has control not only over nature but also over
nature’s human analog, woman"(Tong 247).
For me, this just discredits religion all across
the board. But I have not completely given up
on Christianity yet. I am currently attending
a church with both female clergy and a female
pastor. They also have a much less restrictive view
of the world at large. So maybe there is hope for Christianity
and me yet.
Another aspect of how feminism has affected my
life is how it affects my day to day living, and
this comes in the form of a story that happened
over Thanksgiving. My sister, who is six years
old, wanted to accompany my uncle and his son,
who is eleven, on a hunting trip. My grandmother,
being old and set in her ways, told my sister that she
could not go because little girls are not supposed to
hunt. This of course struck a nerve with me, and I became
very upset. I was very adamant that my grandmother,
or anyone else, not tell her things like that,
because if she heard them enough, she would come
to believe them. I then reassured my sister that
girls could do anything that boys can, but that
she was too little and might hurt herself. For
my sister, this was nonetheless a defeat, because
she still did not get to go hunting. And it probably
did not matter to her the particular reason why
she did not get to go, but it mattered to me.
Anyone who really listens to me for any length
of time can almost automatically pick up that
I am a feminist and an environmentalist, and that
at times I can say some funny (but sometimes harsh)
things. The religious turmoil and sci-fi stuff
take a bit more digging. I realize that I have strayed
from a strictly feminist theme in this paper, but I
have done so because there is more to me than that.
Feminism, of course, is a big part of who I am, and
it also affects the other aspects of my life,
but it does not circumscribe who I am as a person.
I cannot accurately talk about me as a feminist
without discussing how my feminism affects the
other aspects of me. I am still trying to figure
out who I truly am, slowly putting the puzzle
of myself together; and each choice I make adds
another piece to the puzzle. But I rest assured
that when my puzzle is finally finished, feminism is
going to be a very large part of it. So let’s see now,
I am a feminist, environmentalist, future veterinarian,
animal activist, borderline agnostic/spiritual
ecofeminist, and science fiction fan. Yeah, I
think that about sums it up. And all of this we
figured out just by looking at my posters.
Works Cited
Adams, Carol J. "The
Feminist Traffic in Animals." Ecofeminism: Women,
Animals, Nature. Ed. Greta Gaard. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press, 1993. 167-194.
Donovan, Josephine. "Animal
Rights and Feminist Theory." Ecofeminism: Women,
Animals, Nature. Ed. Greta Gaard. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press, 1993. 195-218.
Forsey, Helen. "Back
into the quagmire: linking patriarchy and planetary
destruction." Alternatives 19.3 (1993):
47-50
Tong, Rosemarie Putman.
Feminist Thought 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview
Press, 1998.
|
