Some Problems with Ecofeminism SUMMARY: Karen Warren presents and defends the ecofeminist position that people err in dominating nature as a whole or in part (individual animals, species, ecosystems, mountains), for the same reason why it is wrong to subordinate women to the will and purposes of men. She claims that all feminists must oppose both types of domination because both are expressions of the same "logic of domination." However, problems arise with his claim of twin dominions. The Enlightenment tradition gave rise to influential versions of feminism and provided a framework that explains the wrongness of men's domination of women as a form of injustice. But for this reason the domination of nature cannot be assimilated to the domination of women. Worse, in the Enlightenment framework, the claim that the domination of nature is wrong in the same way that the domination of women is wrong makes no sense, since (according to this framework) domination can only be considered unjust when the object dominates he has a will. Even if ecofeminism rejects the Enlightenment vision, it cannot simply dismiss Enlightenment feminism as non-feminist. It must demonstrate that Enlightenment feminism is inauthentic or conceptually unstable. Karen Warren argues that there is an interconnection between the domination of nature by humans and the domination of women by men. She uses the following argument patterns to expose the 'logic of domination'.A1. Human beings, and plants and rocks not, have the ability to consciously and radically change the community in which they live.A2. Anything that has the ability to consciously and radically change the community in which it lives is morally superior to anything that lacks this ability.A3. Therefore, humans are morally superior to plants and rocks.A4. For any X and Y, if X is morally superior to Y, then X is morally justified in subordinating Y.A5. Therefore, humans are morally justified in subordinating plants and rocks. (1) Point out that assumptions A2 and A4 are critical, since without them all that can be proven is that people are different from plants and rocks. A4 in particular expresses the logic of domination.(269) This key assumption recurs in the reasoning that justifies male domination over women:B1. Women identify with nature and the realm of the physical; men identify with the "human" and with the realm of the mental.B2. All that is identified with nature and the realm of the physical is inferior to ("under") all that is identified with the "human" and the realm of the mental; or, conversely, the latter is superior ("above") the former.