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.