I'm not a fan of terms like "feminist" or "feminism". The suffixes imply activism. Once something is active, it is in a masculine state of being, so to "feminize" femininity is to create masculinity, arguably the opposite of what was intended.
I prefer simply "feminine". Feminine implies stability, stillness, and resting. Yin, if you will. I believe that "feminist" is preferred in this culture because Westerners always have to be doing something in order to feel that something has occurred. Furthermore, to refer to a man as "feminist" is more acceptable than referring to him as "feminine" because people are terrified of sexual fluidity, as though the worst thing a man could be is feminine, when in fact, the most restorative state of being is feminine. Westerners are backwards.
So back to Ecofeminism. I can see why it would become another issue to debate. Instead of allowing nature to be in its most restorative, peaceful, still, and stable state, people want to "do something" as though nature's ability to win or lose is somehow associated with what people do. If we paid attention to nature, there would be no need for "ecofeminism". Nature would show you that she always wins simply by being herself and following her natural patterns. Then, we could simply study "ecology".
People have to study certain things under a microscope to appreciate them. I say begin with reverence, gratitude, and appreciation for all things. Then, as we learn, we're simply gaining conversation starters instead of complicating things unnecessarily.