STEP 1:

Looking back at what I learned about ecofeminism, the topics that I enjoyed the most were women-nature association, bodies, and state/government. However, the one that stuck with me the most was the women-nature association topic because of all the images that we are often surrounded by and don’t understand them because it has become normal and we don’t question it. This is why I want to use my Facebook account to post these images for a week and explain what they mean as a way to inform the women on my Facebook about the meanings of these images and the messages behind them. The idea is to raise awareness among women so that women can recognize these images and messages as soon as they see them and stop reproducing patriarchy. As women, we can also reproduce patriarchy, consciously or unconsciously, but if we know how to recognize patriarchy when we see it, we can put a stop to it and not tolerate it. This idea can work because things spread quickly on the Internet, so if people start sharing it, the message will get delivered faster.

My plan is to post a new image everyday for seven days. I will tag as many women as I can on the post to get them talking on the comments. This will also motivate the women to share the posts and tag their female friends as well. I also plan on encouraging women to post their own images that they find to be patriarchal and denigrate women. If women start doing this, this can become an online challenge, which is a very common thing on social media, and everyone, not just women, will take on the challenge and post images that show women as an object. A common way that people do these challenges is by nominating people of their choice on the post and challenging them to do the same thing. This is something that people do on social media and in no time, you start seeing the same posts on everyone’s accounts.

What I hope to achieve through this is to educate women and build bonds between women so that we can fight against gender inequality in unity. My plan will be effective because I have a lot of feminist women on my Facebook account who will really like this idea and will support me. Also, women will feel empowered by this information and will want to pass it down to empower other women.

The connections that I see being made between the oppression of women and the oppression of nature in the readings for this week are: the cruel and inhumane treatment of women while advocating for the environment, women being the first to become aware of environmental damage that harms agricultural production, and women leading environmental movements with success. In the reading, “At Standing Rock, women lead fight in face of Mace, arrests and strip searches”, by Sam Levin, it says that Native American women were protesting in favor of the Dakota Access pipeline and one of them in particular, Prairie McLaughlin, became traumatized by the police brutality that she experienced. “Prairie McLaughlin said she has daily flashbacks – “daymares” – about the police.” This shows the connection between women and nature because, first of all, it was women leading this movement. However, the main connection that I get from this is the mistreatment of both women and nature. Nature is not respected by humans, especially men, and neither are women. McLaughlin was humiliated when she refused to strip in front of the police when she was taken to jail, and they forcibly took her clothes off. This is the same thing that humans do to nature, we forcibly harm the environment by killing animals, deforestation, pollution, etc.

The reading, “Speak Truth to Power”, by Wangari Maathai is about the responsibility of African women to till the fields, decide what to plant, nurture the crops, and harvest the food. These women are also responsible for collecting water for their families, which in many cases is contaminated. This shows a clear connection between women and nature because women are the first to spot environmental damage that harms agricultural production because they are the ones in the front line when it comes to taking care of their families. Since women are so close to nature, they know when there is danger of something negatively affecting their means of survival. This extremely important role is not valued by society, instead, many people believe that stay at home mothers don’t do enough. We don’t usually believe that taking care of the house, the children, and the husband is a job. The truth is that this has created a bond between women and nature, but since nature is not valued either, then women’s work is looked down upon.

The other reading, “The Chipko Movement”, is about an environmental movement in India led by a woman called Amrita Devi. This movement was an “organized resistance to the destruction of forests.” The Chipko movement has had a lot of success in India, and one of the ways through which they achieved success was by a group of women coming together and standing up to the government. They wanted to cut down the trees and “the women of the area, under the leadership of an activist, Chandi Prasad Bhatt, went into the forest and formed a circle around the trees preventing the men from cutting them down.” This shows a connection between women and nature because it was mainly women leading this movement. This shows that women have a stronger bond with nature than men do because this is not the only case where women have stood up for nature. We have studied other cases of women standing up for nature, for example women in government. This reminds me of the topic about government and nature because we read about women throughout the world with political power who are advocating for the preservation of the environment. It is rare for men to take on this role because it is harder for them to see what is going on with nature, even though they are surrounded by nature as well, but they are not as concerned because they don’t experience the same amount of discrimination as women do.

I agree that behind the material deprivations and cultural losses of the marginalized and the poor lie the deeper issues of disempowerment and/or environmental degradation because those who don’t have the resources they need are held back from succeeding in life because they have been set up for failure from the moment they are born. For example, in the US it’s easier for a Caucasian child to receive a good education than it is for a black child because, for the most part, Caucasian children grow up in better neighborhoods, with better schools, and with educated parents. On the other hand, black children grow up in the “hood”, their parents have a low education level resulting in low-paying jobs, and the schools are lacking resources. This system has become a cycle and in order for a person of color to be successful, we have to try twice as hard. This accounts for disempowerment and environmental degradation because low-income communities experience a higher level of breathable hazardous particles. The article, “People in Poor Neighborhoods Breathe More Hazardous Particles”, by Cheryl Katz says, “The greater the concentration of Hispanics, Asians, African Americans or poor residents in an area, the more likely that potentially dangerous compounds such as vanadium, nitrates and zinc are in the mix of fine particles they breathe.” This is clearly an environmental issue among people of color, which reminds me of the topic on intersectionality because here we see two social issues coming together.

Annotated Bibliography

Katz, C. (2012, November 1). People in Poor Neighborhoods Breathe More Hazardous Particles. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-poor-neighborhoods-breate-more-hazardous-particles/

This article is about the hazardous particles commonly found in low-income communities where Hispanics, Asians, African Americans, and poor residents reside. A study shows that communities where whites reside don’t have this issue, which clearly shows that this is tied to racism and classism. “Latinos had the highest exposures to the largest number of these ingredients, while whites generally had the lowest.” This study was done by Yale University, teaching us that there is a “widening racial and economic gap when it comes to air pollution. Communities of color and those with low education and high poverty and unemployment face greater health risks even if their air quality meets federal health standards.” Some of the areas facing this issue are Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Fresno.

The ecofeminist interconnected “web” perspective is the “relationship between the domination of women and the domination of nature” (Kings, 70). The ecofeminist interconnected perspective says that “the oppressions of women and nature are linked ‘conceptually, historically, materially but not essentially’ (Mallory 2010, 309)—that is, at least not any more or less essentially than their male counterparts” (Kings, 70). This means that the struggle of women to be equal is related to the struggle of nature to be appreciated, taken care of, and valued. The ecofeminism perspective is about the inseparable bond between women and nature due to the oppressions that both face by men. Also, part of the ecofeminist interconnected perspective includes the idea that humans are above nature. As we discussed in one of the past weeks, we have been taught that humans are more important than nature, which leads us to not care about nature and harm it. At the same time, society has been conditioned to think that men are above women, which explains why we live in a patriarchal society where women are not entirely free and equal. One more time, this shows the similarity between women and nature in terms of oppression.

If we want to end gender inequality, we have to recognize that our planet is in danger and that this issue is closely related to the issue of women. Therefore, in order for women to be free and equal, nature has to be free and equal (vice versa) because “this dualistic conception of culture/nature seeks to maintain both the ‘ecological superiority of humans and the cultural superiority of men’ (Mallory 2010, 309), meaning that the liberation of women cannot be achieved without the simultaneous liberation of nature from the clutches of exploitation” (Kings, 70). This is an amazing concept because it makes sense that if women are oppressed by men, and nature and women share a bond, then both women and nature will be affected by this oppression. This means that if women are liberated, then nature will also be liberated because women will have the chance to fight for nature if we’re free. This goes back to what we discussed on the topic of women and government, and how it is good for nature if women are in positions of power because women will advocate for nature. Men can advocate for nature as well, but it is obvious that women have a stronger connection to nature than men, so us women are the best suited to take care of nature and educate others on how to do it too.

There is another popular concept that goes hand-to-hand with the ecofeminist interconnected “web” perspective, intersectionality. Intersectionality is defined as, “the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage” (Oxford). This concept was first introduced by Kimberle Crenshaw “to highlight the inability of a single-axis framework to capture the lived experiences of black women” (Kings, 63). Later on, this concept became widely used to connect different types of discriminations and show that they’re all important and affect each other, which is very similar to what ecofeminists believe. Like Martin Luther King Jr. said, “No one is free until we are all free.” It is also important to mention that “ecofeminists have been ‘doing intersectionality’ for many years before Crenshaw first explicitly defined it in 1989” (Kings, 70). Ecofeminism itself is intersectionality because this discipline advocates for two social issues at the same time.

The ecofeminist interconnected perspective is important for ecology because “ecofeminism puts forth the idea that life in nature is maintained through cooperation, mutual care and love. It is an activist and academic movement, and its primary aim is to address and eliminate all forms of domination while recognizing and embracing the interdependence and connection humans have with the earth” (“The Growing Importance of Ecofeminism”, Jessica Schmonsky). This is good for ecology, or nature, because “cooperation, mutual care and love” brings people together, which means that everyone would be taking care of the environment collaboratively. This does not exclude race, religion, class, etc. because we are all surrounded by nature regardless of our individual circumstances. Ecofeminism has a positive effect on social issues overall because by advocating for nature and women, it’s advocating for low-class women, women of all races and nationalities, disabled women, lesbian women, straight women, etc. Like I said, no matter our individual circumstances, we are all surrounded by nature, so ecofeminism brings everyone together to fight for a common cause, ecology.

Annotated Bibliography

Schmonsky, J. (2012, October 22). The Growing Importance of Ecofeminism. Retrieved from https://voicesforbiodiversity.org/articles/the-growing-importance-of-ecofeminism

This article is from the website Voices for Biodiversity and it’s about ecofeminism and its effect on people from all over the world. It also discusses the roots of the ecofeminist movement, in other words, its history. The author defines ecofeminism as “a new term for ancient wisdom”. The three paths that paved the way for ecofeminist thought were the study of history and political theory, the introduction to nature-based religion, and last but not least, environmentalism. Finally, the article ends by mentioning today’s ecofeminists, what they are doing, and how to get involved.

The reading by York and Norgaard, “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism” is about the relationship between women in politics and the environment. They discussed their findings, and they found that their results matched the ecofeminist theories. They found that, “societies with greater representation of women in Parliament are more prone to ratify environmental treaties” (512). They also found that, “women have more pro-environmental values, are more risk averse, and participate more frequently in environmental movements than do men” (514). In addition to that, “gender differences in environmental concern, risk perception, and social movement participation—heavily studied in themselves—may have broader social implications, such as potentially influencing state policy” (514). These all suggest that women and nature are interconnected. Like the reading said, there is no specific explanation as to why women are more connected to nature than men, but we keep seeing signs that lead us to think that this is true.

Basically, what their findings mean is that if we have gender equality, we can have a better environment because gender equality would mean that women are fully integrated into society, and since women support environmentalism, then this would be a positive advancement for our planet. It was proven that countries where women are involved in politics have better laws for the environment. This is because those women advocate for those laws and those women are heard. For example, Denmark is #2 on the rank for gender equality, and #3 on the rank for state environmentalism (512). These numbers make sense because according to the findings, when women are more involved in society, the nation’s environment is in better shape. Therefore, the fact that Denmark is #2 for gender equality and #3 for state environmentalism is not a coincidence.

A recent example of women in political power advocating for the environment is Sanna Marin, “the millennial feminist environmentalist who had just become prime minister” (“How a Millennial Prime Minister Is Leading Finland Through Crisis”, Rachel Donadio). She became prime minister when the coronavirus was just starting in China and none of us were really too concerned. This is definitely a tough time for someone to go into power because of all the difficult decisions being made during a time like this. However, she has still advocated for the things that she believes in, one of them being climate change. “Finland wants to lead the way in fighting climate change, with a goal to become carbon neutral by 2035. ‘It’s very ambitious, but I think we can manage it.’” The author, Donadio, continues to say, “Climate is the issue that brought Marin to politics at 20. ‘I think it was the frustration of noticing that the older generation didn’t realize how important it is.’” In other words, Marin had a passion for the environment long before she was involved in politics, which can be traced back to what York and Norgaard reported in their findings; women have a stronger attachment to nature and having them in power can be positive for the environment.

Having Marin as prime minister of Finland will benefit this country because she has knowledge about environmental issues, and she cares about the matter. Therefore, they have a greater chance of reaching their goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2035 because she will push for this. In addition to that, this shows that Finland has gender equality because a woman is able to occupy this position and bring change to her country. Another example of women in politics advocating for environmentalism is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose campaign was centered on climate change and a Green New Deal. Ocasio-Cortez “aims to develop a carbon-neutral economy in 10 years, which would require huge strides in reducing the US’s reliance on oil, gas and coal” (“Green New Deal: Ocasio-Cortez unveils bold plan to fight climate change”, The Guardian). The fact that she centered her campaign on this issue should be enough for us to see how important this issue is to her. Once again, this proves that women are more concerned than men with the topic of climate change and the environment in general. Ocasio-Cortez has an entire group of women who support her on this matter and get together to protest for the Green New Deal.

This image is showing the top 10 countries where women have the most freedom and equality

US News has a top 10 list of the countries that care most about the environment, which also lists countries like Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. There is a correlation that can be made here; the list of the top 10 countries with the most gender equality also lists these countries. This matches what York and Norgaard found in their study, that countries that treat women equally have better environmental health.

Works Cited

As a woman, I enjoy the freedom of choosing what to do and what not to do with my body. This is why I completely support Hawkins’ ecofeminist account on abortion. Hawkins says in the article, “Reproductive Choices: The Ecological Dimension”, that abortion is not often linked to the environment, but that in fact abortion has a great impact on population control. Hawkins’ explanation is that we are overpopulated and that we keep harming nature, our animals for example. As we discussed in the previous week, we harm animals by consuming them and putting them through torture. Hawkins says that abortion helps to reduce this problem and that even though we are growing too fast, there have been millions of abortions done throughout the years, which has slowed down population growth. Therefore, abortion is a good method and women should be allowed to do it not only because it’s our body, but because it has a direct positive impact on our environment.

Hawkins also challenges the meaning of “prolife” by saying that the “prochoice” position is more deserving of the adjective “prolife” because when we take into consideration all the positive effects of abortion on the environment, we see that abortion is a way of living better lives by being less crowded and saving our natural resources. Hawkins also says that some people argue that by having an abortion, we are disconnecting ourselves from our nature. His response to this is that part of our nature as humans is having autonomy, which means that we get to make our own decisions based on what’s more beneficial for us and for others, including reproduction. So far, the topic of abortion has been the most obvious comparison between women and nature, and I say this because there have been topics that I really had to take my time to understand the relationship between the specific topic and women and nature. However, abortion is so closely related to women and nature because pregnancy comes from our human nature and us women have the privilege of giving life. But, when we decide that we don’t want to give life, we are labeled as murderers and as being “disconnected from our own nature”. Part of our nature is doing what it takes to survive, and abortion can be considered a survival method if we look at it from an environmental perspective.

One of the most problematic environmental issues right now is the disposal of wastes. Tons of trash is disposed in the river and sea waters, which not only dirties our planet, but also puts our species in danger. Another negative effect of waste disposal is the “adverse impact on health, infant mortality and the birth rate” (Your Article Library). This problem is often caused by industrialization and urbanization. Urban areas are often crowded, so abortions can help reduce this problem by controlling the number of people in the world. Less people means less trash and less trash means less deaths for both humans and non-human animals.

Annotated Bibliography

5 Major Environmental Problems– Discussed! (2014, March 25). Retrieved from http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/environment/5-major-environmental-problems-discussed/31434

This article discusses five different environmental problems, one of them being the disposal of wastes. The other four problems discussed were ozone depletion (global warming), desertification, deforestation, and the loss of biodiversity. For each of them, the article explains what it is and how it is affecting the earth. The article also gives examples of everyday living that negatively affects the environment.

In this image, we can see Adams’ analysis of women and animals “wanting it”. The image has a burger with female legs sticking out of it and it says “eat me”, which is suggesting that the burger is desiring to be eaten and it’s tempting you to do it. Adding the female legs means that the same thing can be said about a woman. Also, a burger has meat, which one more time proves Adams’ point of category “not A” being easily accessible to the white male. This idea of “wanting it” takes responsibility away from the white male and gives them the green light to be inappropriate. Something else that I noticed about this image is that by having the burger as the face and only showing the legs, this advertisement is taking away the identity of women and selling them as a piece of meat. Also, the words “late nite menu” are an indicative of sex because as we know, we associate night with sex.

In this image, we see something similar to the image above with the leg without a face, taking away the woman’s identity. We also see a black man being portrayed as a beast by his facial expression and the way he is grabbing the woman’s leg. There is more meat and food around, which makes the woman’s leg appear as just another food. Even though the black man looks like a beast, he is still in control of the woman and the food, and again we see that the woman “wants it” because she is showing her leg in a sexy way. If we really pay attention to this image, we will notice that there is a small image of a chicken with women-like breasts on the top right. The chicken is posing in a sexy way and has hoop earrings on, which one more time shows a relationship between non-human animals and women.

In this image, we see a woman divided by parts as if she was to be sold. Some of the parts are breast, thigh, and neck. The way the woman is posing reminds me of a painting from the male gaze period. She is posing as if she was an exhibition, and the division of her parts is commodifying her body. Again, like I mentioned in the images above, the way she is posing looks like she is inviting the man in to do as he pleases with her. This again, is showing that women “want it”. I keep pointing this out because this is something that I didn’t know about before and I keep noticing it in every image on this topic. If we look into this image carefully, we will also notice that the woman is placed on top of an object (not sure what it is) as if she was the object being displayed. This image, just like the other two above, is showing women and non-human animals as the consumed and the men as the consumer

This image relates directly to the section in Adams’ reading about non-human animals being presented as whores. “Such ads, Adams notes, suggest that not only do women promiscuously want sex, but the same desire is applicable to others in the ‘Not A’ category – nonhuman animals” (The Pornography of Meat). This means that these type of ads are allowed because they are not directly showing women, instead they are using animals, but the ad is still referring to women. However, no one will care that a monkey is being portrayed as a whore, but if it was a woman it would be a bigger issue, but this still doesn’t take away from the fact that this ad is directed towards women. So, we continue to do this with animals because animals and women are associated with promiscuity and this way we can “enjoy the degradation of women without being honest about it.”

Annotated Bibliography

Johnson, E. M. (2013, December 4). When Are Women Most Likely to Be Promiscuous? Retrieved from https://slate.com/technology/2013/12/female-promiscuity-in-primates-when-do-women-have-multiple-partners.html

This source is about promiscuity among females of different species and it relates it back to human females. This reading mentions some of Darwin’s theories on sexual selection and it agrees with some of them and disagrees with others. What I noticed in this reading was that women and non-human females are expected to only be with one man or with very few men during their lifetime, but the facts are that women are as sexual as men. This reading says that men are usually thought of as the ones to have several partners, but the truth is that women can do the same. This reading also points out different times during a woman’s life when she is most sexual, including pregnancy. This part caught my attention because pregnant women are often viewed as non-sexual, but the truth is that women pregnant women are highly sexual.

The first thing that I noticed about this image is that the human-like figure who is cutting the meat is not identified. We do not know if it is a woman or a man or what the person looks like in general. To me, this meant lack of emotion, and it also shows that this is a normal thing, so it does not matter who is doing it because this is a common practice. The body pose that the figure is exhibiting shows domination over the meat, and this can be perceived through the foot on the board and the two knives. One of the knives looks like it is killing the meat, and the knife being held by the figure is cutting it up for consumption. At first glance, this looks like just tasty meat with no issues around it. This is because this meat has been cleaned and the animal itself is not known, but if we were to see the process through which this specific animal was killed, then we would not see it as such a normal thing.

In the article by Curtin for this week, we learned that ecofeminists perceive non-human animals and our relation to them as a matter of culture. Curtin says that the Japanese have a ritual to honor the insects that are killed during rice planting. This is their way of paying their respects to insects and acknowledging that insects are valuable and that there is a connection between humans and insects. He also says that the Ihalmiut do not practice vegetarianism, but they thank the deer for giving its life so that they can eat. This is “reflective of a serious, focused, compassionate attitude toward the ‘gift’ of a meal” (Curtin). In this part of the world, however, we do not even think about where the meat came from. We consume meat on a regular basis without thinking of the suffering that the animal had to go through in order for us to feed our families.

The ecofeminist perception that I personally liked the most by Curtin was the comparison between women and non-human animals. He gave the example of pornographic representations of women as “‘meat’ ready to be carved up.” This means that women are treated as simple flesh without emotions and feelings and that they are just there to be used however men want. This is what we do to non-human meat, we do not care about the suffering and we just see it as an object, like the meat on the cutting board in the image. Curtin also points out that not only do we use the term “meat” to dehumanize women, but that we also use it to associate it with men’s strength and masculinity. “Men, athletes and soldiers in particular, are associated with red meat and activity (‘To have muscle you need to eat muscle’).”

In Gaard’s case, she defines ecofeminist perception of non-human animals and our relation to them in terms of the language used toward women and other oppressed people. Examples of this are words like “bitch”, “pussy”, “bird-brain”, “old bat”, and “beaver”, which are all derogatory terms used to refer to women. There are other non-human animal terms used to refer to people of color and Jews like “jungle bunnies” and “vermin”. What Gaard is trying to explain is that we think of animals as an underclass, putting us humans at the top. For this reason, we use those terms to refer to our “underclass” humans. This is not just a problem of women and nature, this is also a problem of racism, classism, sexism, and speciesism. All of these isms represent “different faces of the same system.”

An example of a gendered food is yogurt. Yogurt is associated with women and femininity. Another example of a gendered food is steak. Steak is associated with men and masculinity. I read, by Paul Freedman, on the article, “Steak for the gentleman, salad for the lady: How foods came to be gendered”, that this disparity began when women gained access to the workforce and began to eat with other women and not so much with their husbands and families anymore. This developed a new perception that certain foods were more appropriate for women, like fish, white meat, and cottage cheese. It is astonishing to learn the history of this social construct because I have always asked myself, “Who comes up with these outrageous ideas about men and women having to act differently?”.

Annotated Bibliography

Freedman, P. (2019, December 31). Steak for the gentleman, salad for the lady: How foods came to be gendered.

This article is about the disparity between men and women in terms of foods. Freedman says that men and women are expected to eat different foods because, according to society, there are foods that are more appropriate for women and other foods that are more appropriate for men. He goes on to explain where this idea comes from, he explains that this comes from the era when women were finally allowed to work and they began to eat with their female friends and were away from their husbands and families for part of the time. This created a new concept that led people to think that food should be separated by genders. This relates directly to the topic “Vegetarian Ecofeminism” because it teaches us where this idea of gendered foods emerged from in the United States.

This image to me represents freedom because it looks like a peaceful place where you would go to relax. This is also my favorite season, summer. I really like the colors in this image. Summer is a colorful season with all the flowers, the nice ocean water, and the bright sun. It also represents culture for me because where I come from, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, this is the type of weather that we have over there. The two islands are always bright with nice, hot weather. This is part of my culture because this is what makes the Caribbean so unique from every other place.

Williams’ bedrock of democracy, in the case of nature, means having laws that protect the wilderness and all of our natural resources and respecting and following those laws. This landscape functions as Williams’ bedrock of democracy because it is well conserved. This tells us that this specific place is considered important and it is respected by the authorities and the people in general. Williams mentions that there were people who were unhappy with the way that the Clinton administration cared for our natural resources. When Bush became President, people had the hope that he would have a better interpretation of the law and the importance of natural resources. This image that I chose reflects the appreciation of nature, the application of the law, and the unanimous decision to maintain the place.

I agree with Kingsolver that we need wildness because of obvious reasons like watersheds that provide clean drinking water, the wildness filters and cleans the air we breathe, and there are animals that call the wildness their home. We need wildness in order to take care of our basic human needs. If you are a city dweller, you can still experience a connection with the earth and your history by educating yourself on nature. Also, a good way of connecting with the earth is by taking the time to visit the wildness and spending some time observing it and breathing in the fresh air. This can help you gain a new perspective of nature and its importance. Even within the city we can connect with nature by going to the zoo, visiting a garden, and/or working on your own backyard.

Annotated Bibliography

Barbara Kingsolver. “Knowing Our Place”.

http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript_smallwonder_print.html

“Why Protect Wilderness”.

https://www.wilderness.org/articles/article/why-protect-wilderness

Terry Tempest Williams. “Home Work”.

https://umassd.umassonline.net/bbcswebdav/pid-1486221-dt-content-rid-14847524_1/courses/D2930-12852_MASTER/Scanned%20from%20a%20Xerox%20multifunction%20device001%283%29.pdf

In Africa, women and girls are directly affected by the lack of safe drinking water and the lack of sanitation and hygiene. They are mainly responsible for collecting water, which puts them at a greater disadvantage because this task is very hard and time-consuming. Also, they are exposed to sexual abuse while walking to use the toilet. In addition to that, women have certain hygiene needs during menstruation, pregnancy, and child rearing. In other words, this problem affects females more than it affects anyone else.

In the reading by Agarwal, we learn about a different ecofeminist perspective, a non-western perspective. Agarwal says that western society, the United States specifically, explains ecofeminism in terms of ideology. She suggests that in order to end the division between men and women and nature and culture, we must analyze this issue further. For example, “it is critical to examine the underlying basis of women’s relationship with the nonhuman world at levels other than ideology (such as through the work women and men do and the gender division of property and power)” (p. 123). This means that the concept that we have in the United States empowers gender division because by saying that women are more related to nature because of biological factors and that men are more related to culture, we are affirming that this is something that cannot be changed because this is the way it is, period.

Agarwal explains that we need to end this idea that we have created by integrating women into culture and men into nature because although women are certainly biologically closer to nature, that does not mean that we are disconnected from culture and that men are disconnected from nature. In other words, western society has defined ecofeminism in a way that promotes the problem instead of ending it. I agree 100% with the non-western perspective of ecofeminism because the point of creating a movement is to provoke change, not to keep dealing with the same issues. Therefore, the western perspective, although it has some good points, is lacking in this part because it is creating more division between the genders. Also, Agarwal makes a great point about defining ecofeminism in terms of class, gender, race, ecological zones, and castes.

I liked this part because the other readings that I have come across about ecofeminism all define this movement only in terms of gender. However, we should be looking at women as a whole and not only as female vs. male. This raises the point that not all women are the same, therefore, not all women face the same types of issues when it comes to nature. The types of issues a woman faces are greatly affected by where she comes from, her skin color, her economic status, etc. For example, women in India are more affected by the destruction of nature because they get most of their food to feed their families from nature. These women have an even bigger attachment to nature because of their ecological zone, class and caste. On the other hand, a woman that lives in the United States and has more access to goods, is not going to have the same attachment to nature, but she might relate to nature in a different way.

The image above shows a tree trunk in the form of a woman symbolizing mother nature. What I perceived from this image was submissiveness because the woman is looking down and does not look too happy; she looks sad and subjugated. Ecofeminism is a feminist and environmental theory that brings these two together because “ecofeminism asserts that all forms of oppression are connected and that structures of oppression must be addressed in their totality. Oppression of the natural world and of women by patriarchal power structures must be examined together or neither can be confronted fully” (Hobgood-Oster). As we know, women have been controlled by men since the beginning of time, and although there have been some changes, we still live under patriarchal domination. Similarly, nature has been controlled and damaged by men, and it relates to feminism because for example, the term mother nature, is a feminine term that automatically ties nature to women. Why is this? Well, women are always expected to be beautiful and delicate, and nature is beautiful and delicate, so we relate nature back to women because if it was defined in a masculine way, then people would think of nature as strong and powerful and this takes away from the beauty because men are not associated with beauty.

According to Hobgood-Oster, ecofeminism became the theory of feminism and environmentalism in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Some people say that ecofeminism is a third wave of feminism, while others say that it’s more ecological than feminist. The truth is that ecofeminism addresses both issues, and ecofeminist theorists say that one issue cannot be addressed without addressing the other because they go hand in hand with each other. Ecofeminism does not challenge individuals, it challenges social structures that allow the domination of women and nature. Basically, ecofeminism is worried about dismantling patriarchal divides like male/female, mind/body, culture/nature, human/animal, spirit/matter, heaven/earth, and white/non/white. These divides come from patriarchy and divide humanity against itself.

Karen Warren identifies eight connections between women and nature, and one of the connections that interested me the most was the symbolic connection. Warren says that many times women are described in animal terms like bitches, pussycats, and serpents. This is supposed to reflect women’s inferiority and the feminizing of nature. Nature is also described in sexual terms like raped, mastered, conquered, and mined. These terms reflect the patriarchal domination of nature. An example of a symbolic connection between women and nature is when a man gives a woman flowers. Flowers are associated with femininity and are never given to men.