feminism needs to be ecological and environmental ethics should be feminist environmental ethics – both are needed to be adequate.
• Key ideas:
• A feminist issue is any issue that impacts women because of the social structure. She uses the
example of carrying water as a seemingly gender-neutral issue, however, since in most rural
societies men do not get the water, but women do, then a drought would disproportionately
affects women, making it a feminist issue. If men got water in equal measure to women, then it
carrying water would be gender-neutral – making it a culturally relative feminist issue.
• The heart of her article is the logic of domination. pg. 348-9, Warren provides the analytical
bones of arguments full of the logic of domination. See her quote, “[f[or any X and Y, if X if
morally superior to Y, then X is morally justified to dominate Y.” But if you are morally
superior – does that mean you have the right to dominate them? Think about the difference
between men and women. Historically, men have been treated as if they are morally superior,
and that is used to justify their domination.
• Warren uses two additional sections to develop err conclusion that feminism needs to be
ecologies and environmental ethics need to be feminist.
• See also Warren’s disagreement with Marilyn Frye, pg. 351-2, on the nature of love. Warren
believes love is not oneness but to value the relationship of differences. “The loving I knows