Green political thoughtEarth First!, is often criticised for ‘misogynistic proclivities’ and for being
‘saturated with male bravado and macho posturing’ (Seager 1993 : 226–7). Yet
many women are active within the green movement and opinion polls fre-
quently show that women are more concerned about environmental issues
than are men. Just as there is no doubting the important contribution
made by women to green politics, neither can the vibrancy of the burgeon-
ing ecofeminist discourse be contested, with at least four broad approaches
toecofeminism identifiable: liberal, cultural, social and socialist (Merchant
2005 ). Yet the lack of agreement about the central message of ecofeminism
may have diluted its impact on ecologism. The main source of conflict has
been the dominance within ecofeminism of the ‘difference’ approach, which
has been widely attacked within mainstream feminism.
‘Difference’ feminism, rather than seeking equality within the existing
patriarchal society, emphasises the virtues of attributes such as nurture,
kindness and care that are specifically feminine in that they are gener-
ally possessed by women (King 1983 ;Collard 1988 ). ‘Difference’ ecofeminists
claim that these feminine values and forms of behaviour are precisely what
will be needed in a green society, as opposed to the individualistic, instru-
mental rationality of patriarchal society, which, ecofeminists argue, is pri-
marily responsible for the current abuse of nature. In short, ecofeminists
identify a set of female traits, value them positively, and argue that the
environment would be better protected if everyone (men and women) devel-
oped these traits. Ecofeminists also draw parallels between the domination
of nature and the domination of women. They claim that, as women are
closer to nature, they can better empathise with and understand its prob-
lems ‘because we recognise the many faces of oppression’ (Collard 1988 :
97). Combining these arguments, ecofeminists claim that to solve ecological
problems we must first remove patriarchy.
The ‘difference’ approach has been attacked on a number of fronts. Many
feminists shudder at the way ecofeminists celebrate precisely the kind of
stereotypical female traits that most feminists blame for the subjugation of
women incontemporary society. Feminists might sympathise with the sen-
timent that the traditional undervaluing of female characteristics such as
motherhood needs to be rectified, and that men should be encouraged to
develop female traits – ‘feminising’ men. Nevertheless, there is a danger that
this may turn out to be a reactionary path which exposes women to strong
social pressures to conform to those subservient female forms of behaviour
that patriarchal society allocates to them. Moreover, the task of trying to
identify gender-specific traits may be fruitless. After all, men often display
so-called feminine traits and women exhibit ‘masculine’ traits. Even if we
could identify male and female traits, not all female traits (submissiveness?)
may be desirable, and not all male traits (courage?) undesirable (Dobson
2000 :191–2). Moreover, if feminine traits immutably belong to women
because of their biological make-up, how can men be expected to develop
them?