In val plummers essay what is an example that improves relations w nature and woman
Answers
Explanation:
Plumwood teaches in the Department of General Philosophy at the University of Sydney, Australia, where she also lives. She is a forest dweller, bushwalker, and crocodile survivor. She is the author of numerous articles and books, including Feminism and the Mastery of Nature (Routledge, 1993). Although so far mainly toward a minimalist neo-Cartesianism in which humanoid status is extended at best minimally to a few higher animals on the basis of their similarity to humans (Plumwood 1999). Although the social effect of long-term confusion and conflict in the ecology/animal rights area is likely to be debilitating for both movements, it is enlightening and useful for theory development to observe the implications of a particular set of assumptions unfold. For examples of those who would eliminate predation see Stange (1997, 209) and Sapontzis (1987); deplorers include Peter Singer (1980). For critique of cultural feminism, see hooks (1980, 1984) and Lorde (1981). For some other kinds of analyses see Benton (1993) and Plumwood (1997). Much of the technology to develop such a "super-race" is already in place. See the Mother Jones special issue "Inside the Biotech Revolution" (May/June 1998). The experimental treatment of animals in science is a more direct practice of rational mastery, although the numbers involved are much smaller. For a discussion of its links with Nazism, see Arluke and Boria (1995). This brings to mind the aphorism that one cannot be half a virgin (see also Adams 1994, 106). Adventitious use (scavenging) might include cases where you find road-kill in still-edible condition, where someone is about to throw away a ham sandwich in perfectly good condition, or the waiter brings the wrong dish. Adams's ethic would allow adventitious use only under the rather unlikely and self-defeating conditions of nutritional desperation and sufficient disgust. An ethics supportive of adventitious use could be justified by the benefits of promoting flexibility, countering alienation and self-righteousness, adding possibly useful nutrients to the diet, and minimizing wastage and general ecological stress—all without any further impact on animals. Occasional use includes the case where the normal diet excludes animal products, but fish (nonfarmed) is eaten every third Friday to be on the safe side or for specific health reasons. Further intermediate categories such as the occasional eating of noncommodity animals that are known to be the product of ethical farming or hunting which respects species life can also be distinguished. Vanguardist competitions over moral purity are the inevitable outcome of such accounts, the really pure insisting that it is unacceptable to like foods that even visually resemble flesh. See debates in the Vegetarian Times (1997). On the hindrance such polarization represents to reducing animal consumption, see Midgley (1983). This is an extension, perhaps in part inspired by pet-keeping practices. But as I argue in Plumwood (1997), normal practices here are themselves full of contradictions and denials, as freeliving animals are sacrificed to provide food for carnivorous pets. This may be another (less alienated) way to interpret the point of the "corpse and two veg" badge. Paradoxically, the denial that we are food and the related denial that our bodies are biologically perishable is one source of further suffering for animals as we sacrifice them in experiments designed to support our normative status as above bodily decay. There is a certain resemblance here between this argument and certain cultural feminist arguments designed similarly to demonstrate that, regardless of cultural context, heterosexual intercourse is degrading for women because the concave is inevitably passive and the convex active. The resemblance no doubt indicates certain common themes in cultural feminism. This move of using the commodity term "meat" as a cultural universal is sanctioned by terminological practice in the west, which to that extent expresses cultural imperialism. Does this mean allowing cannibalism? No, I do not think so. To allow that we are food for other beings is not to imply that we are necessarily food for one another. Many animals do not eat their own kind for...
mark me as branlist answer