For this post, I started off by doing a quick google image search of “ecofeminism” to get an idea of what I wanted to talk about. The image above was one of the first to appear, and I noticed an overall theme of similar images where women are depicted as part of nature through trees and other natural wildlife.
I related this to Karen J. Warren’s eight women and nature connections where number two on the list explains how different conceptual connections are made through a socially accepted male-biased perspective of feminizing nature. Warren discusses how women are historically depicted as the inferior sex by associating feminine qualities with emotion, body, and nature and how men are depicted as the superior sex by linking masculine traits with reason, mind, humanity, and culture. These gendered depictions are a result of the strong influence of, “value dualism and value hierarchies in larger, oppressive conceptual frameworks… that shape and reflect how one views oneself and others,” (Warren). Based on this idea, when I see images such as the one above I cannot help but think it is doing a disservice to ecofeminism. I feel like this is normalizing the idea of “Mother Nature” where Warren argues that this kind of association wrongly feminizes women’s connection to nature and ultimately justifies and continues the oppression and subordination of women. So, it bothers me that these types of images arise when I search “ecofeminism” into Google, because I wonder if this is a reflection of society’s misunderstanding of ecofeminist theory? Is it working against ecofeminists goal to create a gender-sensitive approach or is it only helping to further progress a male-biased perspective?
From reading Hobgood- Oster’s take on ecofeminsim, I got the basic understanding that ecofeminism is the theory that all human and nonhuman oppressions are connected through dominating patriarchal structures. Her thoughts pull similarities of Warren’s eight connections, especially the male-biased conceptions of women’s relation to nature, as mentioned above. She says, “ecofeminism claims that patriarchal structures justify their dominance through categorical or dualistic hierarchies… established oppressive systems continue to manifest their abusive powers by reinforcing assumptions of these binaries,” (Hobster- Oster 2). This assumption of a binary women and nature, only justifies these deep- rooted patriarchal social dominance.
The first one of Warren’s eight women- nature connections is about the historical and causal connections. This focuses on how the understanding of the history of oppression can stop history from continuing to repeat itself. She links the current global environmental crisis to historical patriarchal social hierarchies. What I understand from this connection is that our past is the cause for our present day issues. I can relate to this my chosen image above, because when I look at this picture, I see the relation of women and nature based from male-biased perception that has been integrated so deeply into our society from our long history of patriarchal oppression through social and environmental domination.
Carson, Rachel. The American Midwife of Ecofeminism. 2014. WordPress, https://doubtingcontemplative.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/rachel-carson-the-american-midwife-of-eco-feminism/. Accessed Feb 2 2019.
Warren, J. KAren. “Women’s Introduction to EcoFeminism.” There It Is.org, http://thereitis.org/warrens-introduction-to-ecofeminism/. Accessed 2 Feb 2019
Hobgood- Oster. “Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution.” http://users.clas.ufl.edu/bron/pdf–christianity/Hobgood-Oster–Ecofeminism-International%20Evolution.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019/
While reading about Warren’s historical connections I also thought about how nature is depicted as female (Mother Earth/Mother Nature). Personally, I don’t think we should give a gender to nature because by labeling it we will ultimately lead to domination styled thinking.
I really like this how you connected the historical views of women being inferior even as we look at it this is how patriarchy views nature as well. When learning more of women’s history I found it very interesting about how when we turned from a nomadic to a pastoral and urban way women became more onesided. I own this land I own you mentality. I think also the connections made with hierarchy and dualism was a big thing. We have hierarchy embedded in our design of talk even asking how much one thing is a favorite or what we like the most.
Thanks for the read.
Hi Victoria,
Such an interesting discussion on the dualities and the historical views of women. The dualities and hierarchies are so important to Warren’s theory and definition of ecofeminism. I couldn’t help thinking as I read the Warren essay how reducing the world to these binaries and using them to make judgments about the world might not be beneficial but rather reinforce the negative aspects of the binary. It felt too black-and-white. I believe there is a spectrum for all things. I didn’t like how she categorized all women with emotion, body, and nature and all men with reason, mind, and culture. It seemed like she was settling with this world view rather than acknowledging the diversity of the population. That not all women are emotional and natural and not all men are cultured and reasonable. It seems like a very Western view of the world. Great post!