This paper examines the attempt to bring together feminist and ecological concerns in the work of Isaac Balbus and Ynestra King, two thinkers who place the problem of the domination of nature at the center of contemporary liberation struggles. Through a consideration of the abortion issue (which foregrounds the relation between nature and history, and the problem of their "reconciliation") I argue against what I call their abstract pro-nature stance.

Many philosophers endorse the ideal of justice yet disagree radically over what that ideal requires. One persistent problem for thinking about justice is that the unjust social arrangements that originally motivated our questions may also distort our thinking about possible answers. This paper suggests some strategies for improving our thinking about justice in the unjust meantime. As our world becomes more just, we may expect our thinking about justice to improve.

On the basis of in-depth interviews with 75 divorced New York fathers, the phenomenon of postdivorce paternal absence is investigated. The accounts provided by the interviewees suggest that father absence is more than a literal practice: it is also a perceived option and a standard of comparison. Father absence is a strategy of action, the objective of which is to control situations of conflict and tension and emotional states. That the majority of the fathers in the study shared common explanations (...) with regard to father absence is an indiction of their participation in a “masculinist discourse of divorce.” A primary theme in the discourse is the rhetoric of rights. (shrink)