March 2023 – Ecofeminism Blog

March 26, 2023

The Web of Ecofeminism, Intersectionality, and Ecology

In a previous blog post, I mentioned how despite the craving that humans have to bring order and classification to the world, most matters fall more into the ‘gray’ area rather than in the finite category of black or white. The idea of gray – as in the color being a blend of black and white – applies to the theories of ecofeminism, intersectionality, and ecology. Let’s take a closer look at each concept on its own, and then how they are inextricably woven together.

Ecofeminism as we have discussed before is the study of the connection between feminism, ecology, and the way in which both have had or have the potential to be damaged by the power of the patriarchal systems that the world has in place. This is similar to the concept in intersectionality, which looks at the many identities of a person, and the privileged and oppressed areas that correlate to them. In previous posts, we have looked at how ecofeminism views its facets in totality, rather than in fragments. “Ecofeminism recognizes the ethical interconnection of the domination of women and the domination and exploitation of nature. The historical precedent which separates and sets humans above nature is also responsible for enforcing the ‘violent rupture’ between humankind and nature—which helps to render humanity ignorant of its duty towards the natural environment and the non-human other” (Kings, A.E., 2017, 70).

To help illustrate intersectionality, I will use my own identity/labels as an example. I am an American, white, cisgender, heterosexual female. The areas of privilege are the country that I am a citizen of, the color of my skin, and my sexual identity and preference. The area in which I can be oppressed is that I identify as a woman, which means that I can be a victim of sexism, and gendered issues such as pay inequalities. The overlapping of the pillars of both ecofeminism and intersectionality are shown here in that we are best served when looking to understand these issues collectively. Leah Thomas writes “While Ecofeminism is a part of Intersectional Environmentalism, and they work together in many ways to accomplish the same goal—a greener and safer future for all and a healthy planet—Intersectional Environmentalism considers all aspects of someone’s identity like race, culture, religion, gender, sexuality, wealth, and more. And this is what makes it truly inclusive” (Thomas).

Ecology is the study of the relationship that living things have to each other and the environment around them. Even this definition shows us that there is value in intersectionality within ecology as it looks at the way that a being interacts with others as well as the environment it is in. Especially through the ecofeminist lens, we see how the earth, it’s creatures, and the world around them contribute to the whole picture, rather than being fragmented pieces.

In looking at ecofeminism, intersectionality, and ecology, it presents as gray. As illustrated above, I am using the word gray in the color blending sense, just as these theories blend aspects of each of them, and yet still, maintain their identity. A.E. Kings wrote specifically about women in the global South and the issues that they are faced with in regards to menstruation products. When people from the global North look to help with this issue, they may see product availability as an obstacle. The journal references the lack of ways to dispose of these manmade products, which can lead to flushing them (in the instance a flushable toilet is available) or burning them (which can result in toxic fumes from the chemicals that are made of). This now poses more problems through the ecofeminism lens and the ecology lens. Within this issue, the women are privileged in the sense that they have access to menstruation products, and yet they are oppressed in that they don’t have consistent ways to safely dispose of the products and are also creating more damage to the world around them.

I appreciate the concept of intersectionality and how it looks at the many facets of a person or issue. Specifically for women, we need to remember that we are all made of up many identities, and rather than trying to fit them into a neat and orderly container, we need to embrace each part on its own, and understand how each role affects the others. If we can do this on an individual level, then it may encourage us to broaden the scope and look at the many threads of ecofeminism and the beautiful tapestry that they weave.

Kings, A.E. “Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism.” Ethics & the Environment, vol. 22 no. 1, 2017, p. 63-87. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/660551.

Thomas, Leah. “The Difference Between Ecofeminism and Intersectional Environmentalism – the Good Trade.” The Good Trade, 3 Feb. 2023, www.thegoodtrade.com/features/ecofeminism-intersectional-environmentalism-difference.

March 19, 2023

Women, Government, and the Correlation to Environmentalism

We have previously explored the connection between feminism and the environment, and this week’s lesson takes a closer look at the correlation between women in governmental seats of power and the opportunities to enact substantial, positive environmental change. In Gender Equality and State Environmentalism, Norgaard and York explain that “…ecofeminist theory asserts that sexism and environmental degradation are interconnected processes” (York, 2005, 508). When expanding upon how we address environmental issues, it is paramount that women have a voice in creating policies that not only protect the environment but also promote gender equality in parliamentary arenas. As supported by Norgaard and York’s research, the larger the amount of women who are involved in making decisions within government agencies, the more likely there is an emphasis on state environmentalism, that is, concern for the environment at a governmental level. “If women tend to be more environmentally progressive, the inclusion of women as equal members of society – as voters, citizens, policy makers, and social movement participants – should positively influence state behavior” (York, 2005, 508).

As we have looked at in previous posts, women bear a strong connection to nature and the environment. In the global South, it is women who are responsible for water collection and in many cases, for farming and food production to fee their families. One cannot do these tasks without being connected to nature and being invested in the practices that contribute to the preservation of natural resources. In both the global South and North, it’s logical to think that women should have a prominent role within government agencies to let their knowledgeable and intuitive voices be heard.

Norgaard and York looked at a variety of countries and the representation of women with regard to the overall body of government representation and the level of state environmentalism. Their findings support that there were more environmental policies, support, and advocation within countries that have more women involved than those who do not. In addition, they noted that countries with “modernization and development generally lead to greater support for environmental treaties” (York, 2005, 513). Sadly, countries who scored the lowest in their poll not only have an unequal representation of women, but also a lack of importance on environmental issues. The leaves the women of less developed countries subject to patriarchal gendered roles as well lack of opportunity to advocate for the protection and preservation of the world around them.

An organization that supports the findings of Norgaard and York is the UN Women Watch. The UN as a broader, global organization supports peace, dignity, and equality on a healthy planet, and the Women Watch takes this one step further in advocating for both gender equality and the empowerment of women. As Norgaard and York point out, “The presence of sexism (as well as poverty and racism) enables social elites, corporations, and industry to maintain an appearance of progress and success while engaging in activities that are damaging not only to individual communities but to global ecological systems as well” (York, 2005, 510). Specifically, the fact sheet on Women, Gender Equality and Climate Change points out many ways in which climate change is not gender-neutral. It further shows the abundant ways in which women are inextricably linked to the environment around them (from water collection to migration to indigenous practices involving the environment around them to environmental policies) and how their voice is integral to state environmentalism. The UN emphasizes the importance of women being involved in parliament in stating, “The consultation and participation of women in climate change initiatives must be ensured, and the role of women’s groups and networks strengthened. Currently, women are underrepresented in the decision-making process on environmental governance. They should be equally represented in decision-making structures to allow them to contribute their unique and valuable perspectives and expertise on climate change” (Women, Gender Equality and Climate Change, n.d., 7)

Photo Credit: Yavuz Sariyildiz / Shutterstock.com

Another organization that supports the importance of women’s involvement in environmental policy making is The Wilson Center, a US-based, non-partisan policy forum focused on tackling global issues. In taking a closer look at the connections between gender and climate change, this article highlights the inequality amongst those able to make policies to protect the environment, and how this comes at the expense of women. “The security and climate policy communities tend to be comprised of people, mainly men, who are almost completely lacking in gender expertise or even gender policy awareness. As a result, the gender dimensions of security and climate issues are usually not understood, prioritized, integrated, or even considered in security and climate policy packages. It follows, of course, that gendered risks and dangers—affecting more than 7.8 billion people around the world—are not being adequately addressed and opportunities to more effectively respond are being overlooked” (Gender, Climate Change, and Security: Making the Connections, n.d.). In further support of Norgaard and York’s findings, it imperative that women be involved in environmental policy making as it affects them, those they care for, and the world around them.

As for a statistic that supports Norgaard and York’s central thesis and correlates to the image to the left, I found two. “Just 26.8 % of government ministers responsible for policies on environment and climate change are women, while 73.2 % are men. Although this represents a significant gender imbalance, the proportion of women is the highest since data was first collected in 2012 (19.2 %)” (Browse Gender Statistics | Gender Statistics Database | European Institute for Gender Equality, n.d.).

“Within the national parliaments of EU Member States, the parliamentary committees that consider policy issues and scrutinise government action in relation to environment and climate change show a similar lack of gender balance, being made up of 29.7 % women and 70.3 % men. The composition of committees in individual countries tends to reflect that of the parliament as whole, with committees in Sweden, Italy and Spain all having 40 % or more of each gender, while those in Romania, Slovenia and Malta have at least 90 % men” (Browse Gender Statistics | Gender Statistics Database | European Institute for Gender Equality, n.d.).

I invite you to think of other ways in which women are innately connected to the environment. Does your local government have any policies that support women and/or the environment? How might you be able to become more involved in the advocacy for both women in governmental bodies as well as policies that protect the local and global environment?

Browse Gender Statistics | Gender Statistics Database | European Institute for Gender Equality. (n.d.). European Institute for Gender Equality. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/data-talks/decision-making-environment-and-climate-change-women-woefully-under-represented-eu-member-states

Gender, Climate Change, and Security: Making the Connections. (n.d.). Wilson Center. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/gender-climate-change-and-security-making-connections

Kari, & York, R. (2005). Gender Equality and State Environmentalism. https://pages.uoregon.edu/norgaard/pdf/Gender-Equality-Norgaard-York-2005.pdf

Women, Gender Equality and Climate Change. (n.d.). unwomen.org. Retrieved March 19, 2023, from https://un.org/womenwatch/feature/climate_change/

March 12, 2023March 12, 2023

The Correlations between Women, Meat, & Sexualization

As this blog continues to explore topics connected to ecofeminism, the readings and images for this week’s lessons are eye-opening. In learning about how Carol Adams looks at the correlation between the patriarchy dominating both women and animals, I was stunned to see the prevalence of these ideas throughout many “normalized” images. Not only are women subjected to domination and sexualization, somehow, the media has done the same with the slaughter and consumption of animals for protein sources.

Photo Credit: https://caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/

The image to the right represents both the objectification of the animal that has been killed, as well as the sexualization of the animal and women. The chicken that is plated has no head, and is just a body, with a tie around its waist and the legs up over where its head would be. This is sexually suggestive in regards to oppression, violence, and submission. This image supports the ecofeminism vegetarianism point of view that both women and animals are dominated by patriarchal beliefs and decisions.

Consumer culture reinforces the idea that animals and women are viewed and treated as commodities. The suggestion of “serving” a woman on a platter at an intentionally set table is what Adams references when speaking about oppression of women and animals and connecting death with degradation. The image supports one of Adams’s nine feminist-vegan points, “animals are the absent referents in the consumption of meat. Behind every meat meal is the death of an animal whose place the “meat” takes” (“The Politics of Carol J. Adams,” 2010, 13). This is shown by the headless, lifeless, piece of plated meat. Both the animal and the sexualization of the animal as a woman are exercised via domination and control.

The image of the cow to the left has been objectified to be that of a female cow. With a tape measure around her very small (in comparison to the the rest of her body) waist, there is a reinforced image that women have consistently seen for ages. Women are repeatedly sold the image that they should not only be taking their own measurements, but that they should continue to work towards the measurements that align with socially construed ideals of feminine beauty. Further supporting the idea of cultural and social beauty – often decided upon by patriarchal standards – the cow is sexualized with long eyelashes, red lipstick, and a sexually suggestive and submissive facial expressions as she bats her eyelashes and puckers her lips. As Adams states, “a process of objectification/fragmentation/consumption connects women and animals in a patriarchal culture (they become overlapping absent referents)” (“The Politics of Carol J. Adams,” 2010, 13). In additional support of this objectification, the cow is laying on her stomach, with her ankles crossed, an image that often equates to a sexually suggestive pose.

This image to the right sexualizes both meat and women, as the top half of the image is a burger, and the lower half of the image are the legs of a woman in fishnet stockings and red high heels. We can see the cycle of objectification that Adams talks about where “objectification permits an oppressor to view other being as an object. The oppressor then violates this being by object-like treatment” (“The Politics of Carol J. Adams,” 2010, 13). The image suggests that both meat and women are being consumed here, and done so with authority by men. Once again, the patriarchal standards of sexualizing women in stockings and high heels reinforces how men dominate women and women are there to serve them, for their pleasure. This idea extends to the pleasure that is portrayed when eating meat, in which the continued domination of both women and animals is exerted.

Photo Credit: https://politech.pl/en/blog/controversial-perfume-advertising-campaigns-are-they-worth-using/

In looking for an ad to analyze, there was sadly, no shortage of material to choose from. While most humans and consumers are generally aware that sex sells, it also seems that the sexualization of women also sells. I chose this perfume ad because there were a few things that stood out to me. To start with, the tagline for the perfume is “life without passion is unforgivable” and the name of the perfume is Unforgivable Woman.

What is this woman doing that is unforgivable? It seems that the man (a popular singer and fashion icon who bears the name behind the brand) is asserting dominance over her, and she is responding in a submissive way. The man has her pressed against a wall, and the woman is reaching her arm up overhead, perhaps in protest? Is this passion or the sexualization and objectification of women? This ad conveys the sexualization of women, reinforcing domination with the text that tells people that this is what passion “should” look like.

As we can see from the images in this post, Adams’s work can help us understand the different layers of violation that we constantly see in mainstream images – from ads to pop culture, to music videos, social media posts, and so on. In order to move away from the objectification and sexualization of both women and animals, we need to have open conversations about where to start as we dismantle the systemic patriarchal power. With an ecofeminism vegetarianism lens, we can change the narrative, culture, and stand up to the images that we have grown accustomed to seeing in the world around us.

Examples of The Sexual Politics of Meat. (n.d.). Carol J. Adams. https://caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/

The Politics of Carol J. Adams. (2010). Antennae, 14, 12–24. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54792ff7e4b0674c74cb719d/t/55dc8dace4b0ad76d7277cb7/1440517548517/ANTENNAE+ISSUE+14.pdf