Ahh, yes. If you ever have the inclination to, you should read some more recent standpoint theory stuff. At least what I've run into (I believe it's Mohanty's - Under Western Eyes, but I'm not 100% on that) hasn't over-privileged minority viewpoints, and still allows "agent-groups" to speak.

I'd be curious why you think standpoint epistemology is abhorrent, if you care to explain.

I think I understand where you're coming from - your general claim, if I'm understanding you, is that "Anyone can exploit the environment, and if you accept that males and females are not fundamentally different in capacity for such, it has nothing to do with androcentric viewpoints."

Clarify that for me, if I'm not getting something, but if it is...

This is where the importance between "man/male" comes into play. Males, in the biological sense, fit your above description - but the culture that developed around men (difference), that pits men as powerful (etc. etc) is one that has caused men to champion behind the general ideas that encourage exploitation of the environment. The other side, which culture has brought up as "feminine values" is a set that would not, and we should attend to them.

Did I, or they, ever suggest that they would simply be content with McDonalds?

I've never read Luxemburg, admittedly, but what kind of "revolution" would need to exist for these alternative lifestyles, do you think? I'm trying to think of a comparison with the women's movement, student protests during vietnam, and similar things, and I'm not exactly sure how veganism could do the same thing. Not only are they already seen as "crazy" (thank you media and sensationalism), but any actions they take to be more "in your face" simply solidify them further into the "they are crazy" that people already consider them.

Revolution might be the only answer when the solution needs to be, in some sense, cathartic. But in this movement, veganism is fighting for something else' well being rather than against something that is harming them, and I'm uncertain how much I would buy into the generalized necessity of revolution.

Style -
The note on style is mostly just that, something I noticed. I think it distracts from your point without adding to it, and figured it would be useful knowledge to have.

Veganism -
I never quite understood this argument, and it's one that is used often. Your basic point is that the methods employed are not as effective as many would like us to think, but what is the alternative? Not to try at all? Some change is better than no change - I'm skeptical of "all or nothing" thinking when it comes to this. Correct me if I've misinterpreted.

That said, I'm all for being critical of a movement's general direction and effectiveness of its methods. But this is why there are many people lobbying for different sorts of subsidies to be handed out in the area of agriculture, etc. etc.

"Lifestyles", as you've termed it, I've found, usually come more down to encouraging others to do something rather than the singular act of doing it yourself being the focal point. Your individual lesser portion of meat will not change the market. But by being a vegan and encouraging others to be vegan, there might be a slight decrease. Enough for McDonalds to add a vegan alternative. Small steps, perhaps. But steps all the same.

"Overall meat consumption has increased. " - Not sure what this is trying to add, but I'll (perhaps foolishly) make an assumption. I think what's being said here is that "despite the vegan lifestyle's attempt to reduce meat consumption, overall meat consumption has increased." Though I wonder, what's to say it possibly wouldn't have increased more?

Feminism -
"The problem with ecofeminism is that it tries to carve out a special place, inaccessible to men"
Language is tricky here. Inaccessible to men, perhaps. But not to males. I, as well as many of my male feminist companions, are living testaments to the possibility of inclusion. Men are a group that have been put up and constructed, yes, and those that fall into the "manly" attitude are likely not the ones that feminists are going to give a whole lot of credit to. However, feminine values, as they have been previously portrayed, can be picked up by anyone.

I am going to say right now that I jumped to the points that I felt I had the most "investment" in - the veganism and feminism bits. Pardon me if I'm not attending to something you've already said (and if you could, kindly direct me to it).

Eco-Feminism -
You argue that this feminism re-establishes the dichotomies that feminism has intended to break down. Now, I tend to think Shiva does this, and have a fair bit of issue with her, but simply because it uses a part of old dichotomies does not mean that those ideas are useless. Essentialism is fundamentally stuck to people, the concept of being "Manly" or "Feminine." So long as we do not tell men that they cannot revere nature or they will be "less manly" there is no issue. I'm uncertain where your real issue lies here.

The argument is that these ideals have been put down for centuries, and that they should be re-examined to see if they are useful for the purposes of being eco-friendly, which, as you say, they argue it does. It is not good because it is feminine, but good on it's own grounds, whether male or female. They tend to simply point out the reason it's never been considered before is our gendered view of the world.

Veganism - Actually, first, style...
I'm not exactly sure what it is about this part, though I picked up the traces of it in the eco-feminism bit as well. There is a certain level of what seems like personal vendetta against these ideas, treating them with light hand-brushes as if they simply weren't worth your time to consider. I will admit, as a critique of your writing style perhaps, that this makes your writings fairly difficult to read, as pulling out what are personal shots against the idea vs. what your argument against the idea is can be tedious.

Really, Veganism and such -
"As certain lifestyles become unfashionable, many tend to drift away from their chosen lifestyle or simply burn out — so there’s typically a high turnover rate. " - I would love to see some citation behind this. As conjecture, it's difficult to handle. There is a high turnover rate for different dietary styles, but that it is because it's "unfashionable" is highly suspect to question. America does not tend to care for those with alternative diets. Eating out as a vegan is nearly impossible (some beer has fish bladder in it, for example, and that's labeled nowhere on the bottle), going gluten-free can be difficult, and eating local might only be something people can do during certain seasons of the year. This has very little to do with how "cool" it might be, but simply ability.

I'm uncertain your argument here -
"If anything, these various lifestyles are so readily integrated into the edifice of capitalist society that they almost immediately lose any revolutionary force they might have had. They are reduced to mere niche markets within the greater totality of capitalism. This is why it should not come as such a surprise that one sees the opening of a “Green” McDonald’s in Riverside, Los Angeles."
You are suggesting that because companies are changing to suit their needs, and responding to their wishes, they have lost their revolutionary pull. However, isn't changing things a large part of what a revolutionary movement does? Perhaps they wished for McDonald's to not be in business at all, and used veganism (for example) as a way to get to that end, but there are probably more reasons to be a vegan than bringing down McDonalds, and if they can reach one of those (such as making it easier to be a vegan, spreading awareness of vegan diets, and so on) it would surely be a success in part, no?

Just to address your first part - "is he doing what he thinks is good?" - I once heard a quote; "Everyone is the protagonist of their own story."

I've always found that it sheds a bit of light on the situation of another's perspective.

Ahh. Anti-intellectualism. I can only sigh and agree here - that there are many people who have the opportunity to learn and help themselves through a little legwork on the internet, or effort with the social resources that are available to them. When it comes to most middle/upper class American's, I often find blame much harder to place, due to this. And the longer it goes on, the more I worry that it will become another cultural force that encourages people not to take their education into their own hands.

Though, picking a bit at the "who" of what we are talking, these options seem much less possible for the lower class, who have much fewer options in terms of educating themselves and moving out of a society of drugs/unemployment/lack of education. I think noticing that difference is important because we tend to simply assume "white male middle class" when we say 'person.'

I hope I read you appropriately, and I'm afraid I won't be able to quote applicable texts from your class. Your suggestion, I believe, is that it is the masses enforce and continue their own subjugation. I don't contest this, as societal beliefs are only upheld and continued due to constant use of them, but I would argue that, despite that, they are neither wholly responsible nor mostly accountable for such (at least until they have been made aware and have realistic alternatives).

"the masses, accept them." - Is it safe to say that they accept them, or that they are molded to them? Likely both (I'll not set up needless dichotomy), as societal pressures are costly to introduce to a society, which is why advertisement (and such) is an effective tool for the rich, but not the working class (except within localized groups). People do not exist as beings of pure choice, especially seen on the whole. Society seems to exist far more as a continuum of probability. The ones influencing the system that people grow up in (namely, capitalism) enforces a certain sort of lifestyle and set of behavior within that probability.

Now we're talking something I can sink my teeth into!

I think it is a fairly well established fact that we are socialized into our respective societal roles, and that "Choice" is only really made (in general) within a strict set of societal values and accepted mores. Any intro anthropology, gender, or women's studies course will drill that point home, as it well should. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, abstractly. It only makes sense that we start to understand the world in a way that we are taught to understand it.

I think the real question and worry here is whether the way it's being done is the way it -ought- to be done. The exceptional power of advertising over 'the masses' is a force that shouldn't be yielded lightly, and in fact, many countries have a ban on pharmaceutical advertising. How exactly would a society go about cultivating a series of morals within it's people, and why? America has a pretty heavy social motto of "Survival of the fittest" and "Pulling up your bootstraps" - which should definitely be looked into on an economical level as well.