We live in a world where we crave order – one where it’s clean and simple to view issues as either black or white. As a woman who has had the fortunate opportunity to be on this earth for four decades, I have come to this conclusion: most of life is comprised of the grey in between the black and the white.
What exactly is ecofeminism? Ecofeminism – a concept that materialized in the 1960’s and 70’s – explores the correlations between the environment, feminism, and the oppression and destruction that the patriarchy has on both. In reference to my above statement of many life topics being in the grey, ecofeminism is no exception. This theory looks at the way that the both the environment and feminism are intertwined, the way that male-centric ideals have dominated and affected both, and also to possible solutions. An important facet of ecofeminism is the symbiotic relationship between nature and women, and what happens to both when the majority of decision shaping is curated by men.
Let’s take a closer look at the image above, one that I choose to look at through the lens of ecofeminism. I interpret this image to illustrate one of the many mainstream (often male-dominated/influenced) visions of beauty for women. Clean, long hair, that is blown dry, styled, and made to look presentable and appealing to the eyes of others – qualities that we have come to associate with the softness of women. Notice how the woman’s face is also non-existent, the blow dryer dispersing her face and hair into tiny pieces. This conveys the objectification of women; how external beauty is expected and judged. The image objectifies the woman as one of many, without any features to establish her identity. Ecofeminist Laura Hobgood-Oster shares “…that patriarchal cultural structures revolved around layers of symbol systems that justified domination” (“Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution”). Advertising, marketing, and the gendered roles of society all play a part in what influences a woman to be beautiful (on the exterior), the types of products she should use to do so, and the time that she needs to devote to curating the look.
Ecofeminism is looked at comprehensively, not just its different, separate parts. What I appreciate about the article “Objectification and Exploitation of Girls and Women by the Mass Media and Social Media” is that it also looks at the larger picture of the objectification of women. It shares that in seeing women for the parts and pieces of who they are, for the pleasure of others, allows for a series of objectifications. This idea then gives way to men believing women are there to please them, and as objects, they can do what they want to them (sexually, using violence as force, etc.) This not only devalues women, it then continues on with a lack of respect for them as people and perpetuates the vicious cycle (Sen).
As for the environmental aspect of the above image, many of the chemicals that are used in beauty products have been shown to have detrimental effects on both the human body as well as the environment. We see evidence of this by the plastic bottles that are use for shampoos, conditioners, and moisturizers, the aerosol cans and particles contained in hair and body products, as well as the waste generated by all of the disposable beauty items women have been told to rely upon (razors, makeup, etc.) in order to reach this perceived universal standard of beauty.
If we look to find a connection between women and nature, we needn’t look much further than the concept of Mother Nature, itself. Mother Nature is defined as “nature represented as a woman thought of as the source and guiding force of creation” (Mother Nature). I also found it interesting that in Greek mythology, the goddess Gaia is the human version of the earth, and from her, came all elements found in nature (“Gaea (Gaia) • Facts and Information About Primordial ‘Mother Earth’”). This concept is still widely referenced, as nature consists of inherently female characteristics, with the ability to reproduce, nurture, and comfort.
Here’s to the continued conversations around ecofeminism; how we mindfully advocate for the preservation of Mother Nature for all (not just for what we humans need it to give us in the moment) as well as protect women from oppression in all forms.
Works Cited:
“Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution.” Systemic Alternatives, 18 Jan. 2016, systemicalternatives.org/2016/01/18/ecofeminism-historic-and-international-evolution. Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.
“Gaea (Gaia) • Facts and Information About Primordial ‘Mother Earth.’” Greek Gods & Goddesses, 25 Oct. 2022, greekgodsandgoddesses.net/goddesses/gaea.
“Mother Nature.” The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Mother%20Nature.
Sen, Swagata. “Objectification and Exploitation of Girls and Women by the Mass Media and Social Media.” Rights of Equality – Promoting Gender Equality and Women Empowerment, 20 Oct. 2022, www.rightsofequality.com/objectification-and-exploitation-of-girls-and-women-by-the-mass-media-and-the-social-media.
Hi Christine,
The concepts of beauty and the value our culture puts on the outside package and not the substance is a really interesting takeaway from this photo. I really like what you said about individuality and the lack of identity that the person has in this picture. Our culture places a high value on the outside looks and not as much on the inside or character of a person. I see this reflected in how we treat the earth as well, we have commercialized food to the point where imperfections are unacceptable. The amount of food wasted in our country in a year alone is astounding. Many foods are discarded due to cosmetic issues or small imperfections. In a culture of social media and likes we fall into the same pitfalls when we support people who are beautiful on the outside but flawed when it comes to character.
Hi Christine,
I really enjoyed reading your analysis of the picture of a woman with a hair dryer. The connections you made between cultural definitions of beauty and objectification of women and nature were very clear. Often, when I think about the value of nature, I think about how beautiful it is. I wish that everyone could have the chance to see and appreciate the beauty of nature, and that this might lead to more protection of the environment. However, your post shows us some of the cultural connotations come with “beauty” and the dangers of valuing something for the pleasure that it can give us.
When reading your post, I was reminded of the history of national parks in the US. According to the National Park Service, the stated goal of congress in establishing the first national park service in 1916 was making “a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” This meant that even though some protections were afforded areas deemed national parks, the government still “managed” the land for select people to enjoy. This included eradicating “undesirable” animals such as wolves and bears. Many years later, when Yellowstone National Park started reintroducing wolves to the area in 1995, they found that the overall health of the environment improved noticeably. For example, the health of willow trees that helped stabilize stream habitats improved because the wolves were keeping the elk populations that feed on the willows moving around the park. (There is more information on this topic at: https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/).
I believe that many people who helped establish national parks truly found nature beautiful and wanted to protect it. However, their perspective on beauty was influenced by the idea that it should give pleasure to select people, so the actions they took did not always improve the overall health of the environment or recognize the existence or claim of indigenous peoples to land usage. Thinking something or someone is beautiful may feel innocuous, but your post made me consider the limitations of valuing something for its beauty.
Oh Christine, how the opening of your blog resonated with me! I am nearing almost five decades on this earth (as of this coming September) and I could not agree with you more about the grey areas of life. As someone who used to try to be overly orderly and some might even dare I say call me “controlling” – I have changed tremendously over these past 10 years as I have learned to let go of the concept that anything is black and white.
As you discussed the connection between women and the pressures placed upon them by the beauty industry which we know is a money machine founded and designed primarily on patriarchal ideology and capitalism, I am reminded of so many stories of my own experiences wherein the pressure to be and look a certain way impacted my trajectory. When you spoke of the picture and said, “notice how the woman’s face is also non-existent…. the image objectifies the woman as one of many; without any features to establish her identity” I felt that to my core. I might add that the feelings that this evokes makes one feel disengaged from her environment. It makes you feel alone, isolated, and as if you have been stripped of your identity. Through this lack of identity and diversity the principles and objectives of a patriarchal system are achieved, which is to oppress and control. Ecofeminism is so vital in that it “resists dividing culture into these imbedded separate or dualistic arenas” (Hobgood-Oster, Page 3). You can see why it is so important that we amplify the importance of diversification. It is the power and knowledge behind our diverse identities that will not only strengthen our voices, but will be able to admonish the oppressors.
When you addressed the environmental component, as it relates to women and beauty expectations, you presented the examples of chemicals in products and the “detrimental to both the human body and the environment” it touched a VERY sensitive part of my life. Until this very moment Christine, I had not made the connection I am about to share with you as it pertains to ecofeminism. My younger sister died almost four years ago. She was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer called peritoneal (stomach) mesothelioma. Only five-hundred people a year are diagnosed with this. It is considered terminal form diagnosis. She was a schoolteacher. She had led a healthy lifestyle. Mesothelioma is a type of cancer you get from asbestos exposure. We asked ourselves how could this happen? Most often it is people who work construction who would get something like this. There were people after 9/11 who developed this, but it was always primarily in the lungs. Either way – How did this happen? We found out through long arduous meetings with attorneys that there are several culprits. Make-up was one of them. Another was baby powder. Yes – baby powder. As you are aware, not only do we use baby powder on babies, but women (and men) use this product for a variety of purposes from our feet to our private areas to stay dry and fresh, and even a brush upon the face back in the day. My sister had been an avid babysitter for about 10 years prior to becoming a teacher. Not only did she use this product in most of the houses where she babysat, but us girls used it at home.
Fast forward to the attorney’s office where she is advised that there are small traces of asbestos found in baby powder (and make-up) because the areas in which the talc powder is mined, there is asbestos. These companies know this and the FDA permits it as long as the traces are small enough. This theory also applies to make-up. (Many brands which I am sure you are familiar with.) The bottom line is that my sister lost her life because a company produced a product with asbestos. It goes without saying that most of the products that we were presented with that contain trace amounts of asbestos are products used primarily by women. And right here, right now, I just made this connection. The company settled with my sister’s husband about two years after her death. There were several other very large and prominent cases in the news about this very thing. As a result, the company bankrupted the division of the company that managed the cases and went on their merry way. They stated publicly in 2019, only four months after my sister passed away, that they would no longer be manufacturing talc powder in the same way and that there would be no more asbestos in their product. The kicker? They continue to produce it the old way and sell that product to countries overseas.
I know I made this response extremely personal, I hope you consider that a good thing. Your blog ignited a connection for me that I had made before. Below is a link from the FDA’s website which highlights products that have been determined to have asbestos in them. There is also a cosmetics recall and alert link on their website where they post up to date information. I myself have switched to all organic non-talc make-up.
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-recalls-alerts/fda-advises-consumers-stop-using-certain-cosmetic-products