In the year 2000 I found the following definition of Eco-Feminism (on the Usenet, at soc.feminism):
This branch of feminism is much more spiritual than political or theoretical in nature. It may or may not be wrapped up with Goddess worship and vegetarianism. Its basic tenet is that a patriarchal society will exploit its resources without regard to long term consequences as a direct result of the attitudes fostered in a patriarchal/hierarchical society. Parallels are often drawn between society’s treatment of the environment, animals, or resources and its treatment of women. In resisting patriarchical culture, eco-feminists feel that they are also resisting plundering and destroying the Earth. And vice-versa. [CTM]
This is actually socially-conscious environmentalism with a tiny smattering of the radical and cultural feminist observation that exploitation of women and exploitation of the earth have some astonishing parallels. The rest of “eco-feminism” turns out to be a variation on socialism. The Green movements of Europe have done a good job of formulating (if not implementing) an environmentally aware feminism; and while Green movements were not originally considered a part of eco-feminism, they are now recognized as a vital component. [JD]
(If I remember correctly, a couple of feminist groups, including NOW have joined up with Green parties. [CTM])
The influence of eco feminism grew enormously since those days.
According to eco-feminists, men are the enemy of nature and of the female half of all of mankind.
According to reasonable people, the eco-feminists are nuts. Still, eco-feminists have influence in the war against men, fathers, families and the Occident.
I often call Wikipedia politically correct, as apparently the vocal majority decides the nature of the definition of a term, as if that would matter in the debate of a scientific issue. No matter how many participants in a debate claim to be right when in reality they are wrong, they are wrong. Scientific truth is absolute or as near as is possible, it is not a matter of a vote or consensus.
Copernicus and Galileo would not have been able to make an impression through Wikipedia, as their ideas would continuously have been edited out. Fortunately, at Wikipedia that works to normal people’s advantage in the case of the views of politically-correct, extremist minorities, as it shows the nature of extremist beliefs and brings it to the attention of far greater numbers of people than illustrating such beliefs by largely isolated and censored activists would. Wikipedia gives normal mortals an edge in the case of eco-feminism:
Ecofeminists argue that a relationship exists between the oppression of women and the degradation of nature, and explore the intersectionality between sexism, the domination of nature, racism, speciesism, and other characteristics of social inequality. Some current work emphasizes that the capitalist and patriarchal system is based on triple domination of the Global South (people who live in the Third World), women, and nature. (Quoted from Wikipedia)
As I said, according to reasonable people, the eco-feminists are nuts, and, as the article at the preceding link shows, if anyone tells the eco-feminists that their beliefs are wrong, they are apt to throw tantrums and to launch court actions against their very own students. Now, that is political correctness gone on a rampage!
Nevertheless that should not surprise anyone. If no standards for proper behavior are set and no line is drawn, children will test and test time and again how far they can go and what they can get away with, until their parents are forced to set limits to childish behaviour. Unfortunately it is often far too late when parents are forced to set those limits, so as to be able to live. Children who are little savages in need of correction but not being corrected will grow into adult savages, extremists or worse (even into eco-feminists) when no correcting is done before it is too late.