What are your scientific thoughts on Ecofeminism?

Due to the neurological disparities between men and women: Women are better at running societies, men are better at building them.

Being ecologically minded isn't purely a feminist trait.

Also egalitarianism's a superior nomenclature.

>>9136040
Also espousing an ideology that women should run things is equally as oppressive and representative of a "logic of domination." Feminists trying to dominate men and the patriarchal society. Hypocrisy.

>>9136040
I unironically hate hippies

>>9136040
It kind of smell like new age pagan wicca bullshit to me.

>>9136056

>Women are better at running societies

I dont need to make a joke because you are the joke

>>9136233
How? Matriatchal societies've done well historically :)

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-02 at 12.38.02.png (221KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1366x768px

What are your scientific thoughts on Ecofascism?

>>9136040
It's just another way for feminists to put feminism in everything. I don't understand it, or any feminism for that matter. But I get the impression that women should be treated special which is sexist. I disagree because I think eliminating bias is a good thing.

It's not a scientific thing anyway. Even regular environmentalism is not science, it's a set of beliefs about the environment. These beliefs may or may not be founded in science but they should be if one really cared about the environment. You can be an environmentalist with being an environmental scientist and vice versa.

>>9136362
>with
without

>>9136242

what is your definition of "done well"?

any society can just stay put and survive.

name one actually great matriarchal society.

> protip: you can't

File: menzoberranzan.jpg (136KB, 1680x1132px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1680x1132px

>>9136440
The Dark Elf society is "great" according to its own standards.

>>9136440
Does Catherine the Great ring a bell?

>>9136454
>A single lady with a government and institutions made of dudes counts as "matriarchal".

>>9136457
Like I said, men are better at building them.

>>9136460
Except that they also run it [the government Cathy].

File: reclining-tahitian-women-1894.jpg (120KB, 1059x649px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1059x649px

There is some sort of matriarchy on some Pacific islands and apparently living there is super awesome.

File: really.gif (891KB, 325x252px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 325x252px

>>9136349
>environmental anti-semitism

File: 1352179390701.jpg (64KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x600px

>deep ecology
Into the trash.

Humanity is not at war with nature, and we are not somehow separate from nature. We are nature: nature's most beautiful, most powerful, most ingenious achievement. As nature has no purpose besides perpetuating itself, it's only rational that all other species be tamed and utilized for the benefit of nature's most intelligent form of life. "The environment" has no value other than strengthening human wellbeing. Get over it, fucking hippies.

>>9137159
>saying humans arent separate from nature
>proceeding to make arguments on the basis that humans are distinct and independent forms of life
>Humanity is not at war with nature, and we are not somehow separate from nature. We are nature
thats exactly what deep ecology espouses put into stupid terms

>As nature has no purpose besides perpetuating itself, it's only rational that all other species be tamed and utilized for the benefit of nature's most intelligent form of life
>'natures' (life's) only goal is to perpetuate itself.
>humans are intelligent
>this justifies its self-destruction

>humans arent separate from nature
>humanity is not at war with nature
>The environment"(nature) has no value other than strengthening human wellbeing

>nature's most beautiful, most powerful, most ingenious achievement.
reason?

man you sure are stupid.

>>9137159
That's the anthropocentric worldview and I sort of agree. I'm more in favour of environmental wisdom - we need nature not the other way around. So we should do whatever the fuck we want with nature (like you said) as long as it doesn't fuck us over in the long run (climate change, extinction, etc.)

File: 1343935691260.jpg (932KB, 3000x1996px) Image search: [Google]

932KB, 3000x1996px

>>9137437
>>proceeding to make arguments on the basis that humans are distinct and independent forms of life
I never said humans were independent from other life. But you can't say our level of intelligence isn't a distinguishing characteristic.

>>this justifies its self-destruction
On the contrary, it means things like pollution and deforestation should be curbed if they'll just hurt us in the long run.

> >The environment"(nature)
I'm using the term environment to mean nature minus the anthroposphere, the way some environmentalists use it.

>reason?
Has any other animal discovered mathematics or built space stations?

>>9137505
>But you can't say our level of intelligence isn't a distinguishing characteristic.
first of all life is one thing mereologically speaking
secondly being intelligent doesn't equate to superiority.
>I'm using the term environment to mean nature minus the anthroposphere, the way some environmentalists use it.
yeah the concept of an environment is illusory
>Has any other animal discovered mathematics or built space stations?
why does that matter? everything has an equal right to live freely. Are you also in favor of depriving retarded people of their liberty?

>>9136242
>Matriatchal societies've done well historically
yeah
they've done so well, they all died out and none remain

Are "isms" the worst product of mankind?

File: evo devo meme.jpg (364KB, 854x1482px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 854x1482px

>>9136040
first off im in favor of anything that promotes ecological consciousness, liberty and equality.
I think including feminism is a bit redundant, the biocentric egalitarianism espoused by deep ecology already implies gender equality. Sure pic related is making a fuzzily valid point that ought to be brought up but im unsure if it deserves its own "ism". While i think deep ecology should have diverse lines of thinking i think the compartmentalization of the movement may hinder its ability to 'move'.
ecological fascism (a term i excluded from my vocabulary up until i read this post>>9137159 which convinced me to do otherwise) is just an enduring fascist(sensu lato) entity acting at higher scale, its safe to say that a society that demands the subservience of women is a perduring process of fascism in general that supervenes on the particular.
>inb4 you disagree
please do so with an argument. deep ecology is a concept rooted in science and philosophical analysis, if you have a criticism you best make it the same.

>>9138442
nah its just a suffix constructed to umbrella like-ideologies into a single entity.
Its the process that ism represents that is so toxic. Ironically individualism is the antidote, that and ontology/semiotics(to understand the problem with such constructs in the first place)

File: im baked.jpg (89KB, 640x533px)

89KB, 640x533px

>>9136349
>environmental anti-semitism

>>9136060
Women cannot dominate. Domination is power + Domination. Women don't have power

>>9136040
Ecofeminist = Feminists gone Wild = Wild cunts.

>>9136349
>>9136040
What's your thoughts on ecoNazism?

File: what.jpg (91KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1000x1000px

>>9138956
>Domination is power + Domination
What ?

>>9138977
To solve this, use common sense.
n: Domination is half power, half domination.
n+1: Of the half that is domination, a quarter is power, a quarter is domination
n+2: Of the quarter that is...

As n approaches infinity, power/domination approaches 1. Therefore, domination is power.

>>9139305
I understand now, Anon.

And I think that this it's one the most stupid thing I ever heard.

>>9139305
Or power = zero

>>9140191
>assuming domination has an additive inverse
Bigot