California doesn’t need Republican women like these three…

California feminists are very concerned with environmentalism.

This is Rachel Carson:

California has a regulatory environment for a reason.  Republican women who are running in our state do not care about California, or our history of conservation.   Carly Fiorina suggesting we drill off our coast?

Frankly the Republican Party is in the Dark Ages when it comes to environmental issues.  And Women’s Rights.  Why is that?

Here is Ecofeminism from the Wikipedia…

Ecofeminism is a social and political movement which points to the existence of considerable common ground between environmentalism and feminism,[1] with some currents linking deep ecology and feminism.[2] Ecofeminists argue that a strong parallel exists between the oppression and subordination of women in families and society and the degradation of nature through the construction of differences into conceptual binaries and ideological hierarchies that allow a systematic justification of domination (“power-over power”) by subjects classed into higher-ranking categories over objects classed into lower-ranking categories (e.g. man over woman, culture over nature, white over black). They also explore the intersectionality between sexism, the domination of nature, racism, speciesism, and other characteristics of social inequality. In some of their current work, ecofeminists argue that the capitalist and patriarchal systems that predominate throughout the world reveal a triple domination of the Global South (people who live in the Third World), women, and nature.[3] This domination and exploitation of women, of poorly resourced peoples and of nature sits at the core of the ecofeminist analysis.

To most California feminists, the rape of the land and the rape of women’s rights are the same thing.

Why do Republicans seem to hold this worldview?

Anthropocentrism is a concept that human beings may regard themselves as the central and most significant entities in the universe, or that they assess reality through an exclusively human perspective.[1] The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, while the first concept can also be referred to as human supremacy. The views are especially associated with certain religious cultures.

Anthropocentrism has been posited by some environmentalists, in such books as Confessions of an Eco-Warrior by Dave Foreman and Green Rage by Christopher Manes, as the underlying (if unstated) reason why humanity dominates and sees the need to “develop” most of the Earth. Anthropocentrism has been identified by these writers and others as a root cause of the ecological crisis, human overpopulation, and the extinctions of many non-human species.

Headline of the moment:

Sarah Palin on Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer: They’re “permanent residents of a unicorn ranch in fantasy land” 

Read more:

No, we live in a state that cares about women and the earth.
Good thing Californians see what a sham you are!
As for the Media Whore…
Good thing we see right through you, too.
Maybe they can all just go up to Alaska and ruin the wilderness up there?

6 thoughts on “California doesn’t need Republican women like these three…

  1. “the rape of the land and the rape of women’s rights are the same thing”

    oh yeah. I feel just like that.

    I believe no one should be able to own seaside properties. And? No drilling ever. That ocean should never belong to Big Oil. Meg and the Vampire Squid? No way people should vote for her. I heard about Fiorina and those jobs she sent offshore. Actually though she lost me with the hair comment. Silly of me huh? Nope. Boxer lost me by how she dressed down the General. She needs a short stint with the troops. She would understand then the meaning of “ma’am” and “sir”. I mark that off to ignorance.
    Well Califurnia Woman. Keep up the good fight.

    Great talking with you.


  2. Hmm I wonder if Meg knows Peter Sutherland who served as Chairman of the Vampire Squid AND? Get this!!! BP! Nah. Couldn’t be. Yup.
    Oh easy to see through Meg. The US-UK cabal. The whole reason for the mess we’re in. Deep very deep.
    Where is Charles DeGaulle when you need him? He knew.


  3. I don’t see an apocalyptic end Bonnaire. That belief is born of fundamentalism. It is a core thoughtform. In the religions born of the same root. All apocalyptic from the start Biblical history. Followers of Christ believed the apocalypse would occur in their lifetimes. In the fourteenth century people were selling their homes and moving to the hills.
    As the world decentralizes it will depend on who wins.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s