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