I have decided to become a vegetarian for ethical reasons.  This is my small form of activism for resisting patriarchy, and also a way to educate others on the oppression of animals within our food system.  Vegetarian ecofeminist theory has shown me the connection between patriarchy and meat eating, and by changing my eating habits to a more animal friendly diet, I don’t have to participate in an abuse that is similar to the oppression of women.  I feel like i need to practice what I preach, and if I want to make the world a better place for women I can’t act as if I am better than another being.  If I want to live in a coexisting world, I can’t justify a reason for consuming them.  Eating meat is only continuing a form of patriarchy on animals.

My plan is to become a more educated consumer by making vegetarian choices for every meal.  Not only am I planning on doing this, but in order to show others my new way of life and the ethical feminist reasons behind it, I want to post pictures of some of my meals on my Instagram story.  With each picture I will include a small caption explaining my meal choice.  I hope that with each explanation of why I am resisting meat, my Instagram followers will learn from a new perspective of feminist vegetarianism and want to make changes in their lives.  My goal is not to push my lifestyle onto people, but to hopefully spread a positive influence.  I will do this for a few days and see if I get any responses from others.  Maybe they will be thankful for my posts, or maybe they will be angered by them- either way my posts could help start a conversation.  As we learned from, 10 ways to make Twitter work for feminist activism, social media can be used as a platform for activism because, “online activism offers the possibility to empower marginalised voices, the opportunity for cross-boundary dialogue, and affords a stimulus for social change”.  My plan is to help others think of their food differently, and make the comparisons between the meat industry and patriarchal oppression.  I have a lot of female followers who I feel would mostly resonate with my posts because of their feminist morals, so I am feeling positive that I will get some responses from them.

Results: 

I have eaten meat my whole life, so it was hard to incorporate meals into my diet that weren’t centered around some kind of meat.  Regardless, I was able to do it and I am proud of myself for making the effort.  I had some black bean quinoa burgers and got really good at sauteing vegetables!  I have never been one for cooking, so hopefully my meals will get better as I continue with this diet.  As far as my Instagram story goes, I did not get as many responses as I had hoped for.  Mostly just my mom and a few close friends, as to be expected.  I was hoping I would hear from people who don’t normally respond to my posts.  I wanted to see if what i was sharing sparked any interest, and maybe it did but I wouldn’t know. 

I think if I wanted to hear from more of my followers I should have been more engaging with my posts.  I could have asked questions to incite answers, or created something interactive like a poll. I think that regardless, it was good that I shared what I did, because even if I didn’t get many responses, I am still spreading this information and helping to influence this unique, feminist perspective on vegetarianism that isn’t normally associated within our society.

“Environmental protection is not just about talking.  It is also about taking action,” (Maathal).  I think that women are often at the forefront of environmental activism around the world because they do not hold enough political power to make a change.  They are the first people to see the physical results of environmental degradation, but their voices are not powerful enough to make drastic change.  I think women have realized that talking about these issues are simply not enough.  They may not have the political power, but they have the power of their own actions.  Maathal says, “Women who start to plant trees on their farms influence their neighbors. The neighbors eventually become involved. At the national level, we have been able to draw the attention of the parliament, and even the president, to the need to protect the environment!” 

I see a connection between oppressed women and oppressed nature: dis-empowerment.  But women have realized that when you take matters into your own hands, a change happens and people start to join you.  Even that small change you made on your own starts to become noticed by the public, and it grows, so much that those who hold the most power cannot ignore you any longer.  A recent example of female environmental activism that has grown to create a national dialogue is the Standing Rock protest made up of Native American women.  Not only are they bringing awareness to environmental degradation brought on by corporations, but their activism is also shedding light on, “…a larger fight against a history of misogyny, racism and abuse by law enforcement,” (At Standing Rock).   Native American tribes, especially Native American women, have historically had no power when it comes to taking on the United States government.  The women of Standing Rock, were people who would be directly affected by this new pipeline, and I think they were expected by those most powerful to say anything.  I think they were expected to follow along due to their dis-empowerment, but they didn’t.  They decided to take action into their own hands.  They could talk all they wanted, but unless they made some physical action there would be no change.  Their efforts have led to police brutality, humility, and over 400 arrests (At Standing Rock).  Regardless of this, these women have remained strong and determined, and in doing so, their action has created a internationally recognized movement against environmental degradation made by powerful, rich corporations.

I feel that behind marginalized and poor communities is a sense of defeat, of powerlessness, and of hopelessness.  These communities became this way because of an abuse of power from those at the top.  But, activism offers a way to reclaim their own sense of power, to let them use these feelings of deprivation as motivation to make a difference.  It’s a way of practicing autonomy and taking control over what you feel has been largely taken for granted or exploited, abused by those more powerful.  And, I would say that it’s more likely for an oppressed group or person to want to make these activist stances because of their own relation to oppression, as we have seen with women and nature.  It’s standing up for those who are voiceless, and by doing so, giving them a sense of power.

As we learned from our readings on Understanding Place, our identities and the way we experience the world are shaped by our surroundings.  I think this can create a close-minded take on the world, when we aren’t aware of others experiences shaping the way they lived.  It’s easy to see from an egotistical point of view when you are only seeing the world through your eyes, and so much of our government and society and based upon the perspectives of a homogeneous group of people, often leaving out critical standpoints of the many different identities that make up our communities.  Beverly Daniel Tatum says, “Dominant groups, by definition, set the parameters within which the subordinates operate,” (The Complexity of Identity 11).  Ecofeminism has the potential to be a movement for everyone, because of its opposition to a natural hierarchy where, “human hierarchy is projected onto nature and then used to justify social domination,” (King).  But, according to The Necessity of Black Women’s Standpoint, ecofeminism has been largely a white women’s movement, often leaving out critical perspectives of other women whose experiences differ from theirs.  This is similar to the natural hierarchy that they are working to dismantle.  So, within the ecofeminist movement there is social domination that need to be addressed and fixed in order to make one single and totally inclusive social and political movement.  A major example of environmental racism and sexism would be the Flint water crisis in Michigan.  This is poor, black community that has been largely ignored by our government.  The women of this community are particularly affected through reproductive injustice.  The contaminated water causes infertility and miscarriages (Cain).

It’s interesting because ecofeminism understands the interlocking of oppression under the web of patriarchy.  Each oppression like racism, classism, sexism, ableism, and so on are all tied together because they deviate from the standard white, heterosexual, upper-middle class, able-bodied male.  Yet, it fails to look at how these oppression still operate within these subordinated groups.  There is still racism within feminism, there is still sexism within racially oppressed communities.  They say, “The critique of ecofeminism and fact that the environmental justice movement does not focus on how sexism affects black women in its intersectional approaches supports the argument that there needs to be an environmental movement centered around black women’s standpoint,” (Cain).  I would go further and say that the ecofeminist movement needs to have a standpoint from all kinds of people, poor or rich, black or white, disabled or not, lesbian or straight, male or female.  In order for the movement to be a movement for all, it needs to dismantle each oppression and not focus on the perspective of one oppressed group.

Gender Equality and State Environmentalism studies the connection between a state’s oppression of women and it’s contribution to environmental degradation.  Their initial thoughts were that women have more pro-environmental values, are less risk averse, and are more involved in environmental movements than their male counterparts.  They compared the gender equality and environmental ranks of different countries and noticed a positive correlation between a nation’s treatment of women and it’s global environmental impact.  There is no definitive answer as to why, but there research findings show how any kind of general social oppression within a country is going to silence those being hurt, and since women and nature have a similar oppression, women are starting to become nature’s voice.  For example, the study looks at Norway, which is a very developed and modernized country.  One of it’s most influential and female leaders, Gro Harlem Bruntland, lead the country towards gender equality and environmentally safe policies (11).  I think this goes to show that more female involvement in politics and social movements means more environmental change because of the interconnections of the oppression of women and nature.  I think it also shows how important it is to involve people of oppressed groups in politics,” these reasons include the fact that women…. typically suffer disproportionately from environmental degradation, and sexism and environmental degradation can be mutually reinforcing processes,” (519).  Their expriences give them a greater voice to bring awareness to different issues, and gives them an overall greater influence within society.  As oppressed, marginalized women become more involved in politics and social movements, they bring their concerns over climate change and a greener future with them.

I searched the internet for ways in which women with political power have influenced environmental change, and I found a lot of information from the United Nations Women.  The UN Women does research on sustainable development for our planet after learning about the detrimental affects our way of life has led to climate change.  They also study how women are affected by climate change and ways in which a better environment can solve different women’s issues.  For example, by supporting the Barefoot College in India, the UN has been able to help illiterate women learn engineering skills to install solar lamp kits in their communities.  That way they are changing the lives of this women and their environment a the same time.  This is reflective of the empowerment that comes from the United Nations Women.  A group of female leaders making positive political change from the issues they raise on a global and respected platform.  It’s a subgroup of the United Nations that understands the importance of giving a voice to those who are voiceless.

http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/economic-empowerment/sustainable-development-and-climate-change

Another great organization I found was, Women Deliver, that advocates for and invests in the rights for women around the world.  They have laid out different reasons on how climate change has affected women, and they are actively working towards attainable solutions.  One project they are working on is actually funded by the United Nations, and they are educating the local women of Bolivia on how to properly care for their crop production with the changes in the weather due to climate change.  Providing them this education will make their lives easier and sustainable with the changing environment they are forced to live with.

https://womendeliver.org/investment/invest-women-tackle-climate-change-conserve-environment/

“Today, the median female share of the global workforce is 45.4 percent. Women’s formal and informal labor can transform a community from a relatively autonomous society to a participant in the national economy,” (The Role of Women in the Workforce). I like this statistics because its reflective of the growing participation among women in the global economy.  With more female global participation we can create a larger change in different aspects, including the environment.

“I don’t believe in abortion, but if I became pregnant right now, I would have one,” – teenage me.  I remember the confusion as a teenage girl, learning about sex and hearing everyone was having it, then eventually having it myself.  I remember struggling with what I would do if I were to become accidentally pregnant at a young age.  It was this battle I would have with myself over right from wrong.  Am I supposed to have sex?  It’s all anyone ever talks about.  Boys are expected to, but girls have to take responsibility.  So, should girls not have sex this young?  But how are boys going to have sex if the girls aren’t?  Growing up Catholic, but also living in a time where abortion was still hush-hush, was tough.  I’m taught abortion is wrong, by my parents, my church, but also my community.  Yet, I still know that everyone at my high school is “doing it”.  On the inside, I knew I would get an abortion if I needed to.  I knew I could not face a teenage pregnancy for practical reasons but also emotional reasons as well- I was not old enough to become a mother, a provider, a caregiver!  My life was still starting.  But when I said it out loud, I felt shame.  

Now, as a twenty-four-year-old woman living in 2019, I’ve learned how abortion is not only an issue of morality, but it also takes on environmental concerns.  With climate change becoming more of a serious recognized issue in our society, the argument of abortion has taken on more of a legitimacy.  I believe Hawkins ideas are just practical based on real world issues we face.  For example, as a teenager I knew that if the time ever came, I would be able to get an abortion.  It would be expensive, but I would do it because I would have accessibility based on where I lived, and I knew I could pull together the money.  But I know that not all women have that luxury.  Hawkins says, “at least 1.2 billion people are presently estimated to be living in absolute poverty around the world, of which about half are thought to be trapped in such a self- reinforcing process,” (690).  Abortion restriction is thought to be systematically maintaining, if not expanding, world poverty and therefore, heightening our effect on climate change.  More people mean more environmental degradation.  Hawkins says that we have an issue of overpopulation in the world and there aren’t enough resources to sufficiently provide for everyone.  She states, “… tomorrow, the overall needs will be greater, while the resources for meeting them will be proportionately less,” (691).  So, from an environmentalist perspective, abortion and other birth control options are not only okay but necessary. 

She raises a great point about how living in a first-world country makes population overgrowth seem like distant issue that is not an actual threat to our society.  I think that this also contributes to why our country has such a moral stance on abortion.  We are able to look at it from a human perspective rather than as a solution to environmental and social issues like poverty.  Yet, I think it’s interesting how people can argue for example, that killing animals for consumption is necessary for human survival, yet birth control used for the survival of our planet and therefore the human race is wrong.  Maybe if we highlighted this reason for abortion, the social stance on this issue would change and become more accepting.  With more people understanding climate change and making the necessary changes, like recycling or solar energy, maybe we can use this environmental perspective as an effective argument in favor of abortion.  Hawkins believes that abortion can help our environment in a logical way by simply reducing the amount of our planet’s natural resources we consume (692).  It’s an easy way to limit the amount of environmental degradation made by humans.  Can our first-world society change its moral stance on abortion for the greater good of the planet?

Hawkins, Ronnie Zoe. “Reproductive Choices: The Ecological Dimension”,  Environmentalism, Accessed: 8 March 2019. https://umassd.umassonline.net/bbcswebdav/pid-1227086-dt-content-rid-11913333_1/courses/D2830-12796_MASTER/Scanned%20from%20a%20Xerox%20multifunction%20device001%282%29.pdf

We are taught that humans are the dominant species and that animals are meant for human consumption.  We say things like, “eating meat is natural,” because we are taught to believe in a natural hierarchy of species.  So, by eating meat we are continuing speciesism and the devaluation of animals lives.  Also, by using women’s bodies to sexualize meat we are socially normalizing this idea that women’s bodies are meant for male consumption.  This lowers women’s status on the hierarchy of species to the same level as animals and instills this notion that what is here on this earth is here for the utilization of men.  To compare women to the consumption of meat is to figuratively annihilate women of their free will and to separate them of any personal identities (Adams 14).

In this first image, I see three men smiling obliviously to the fact that they are following the hegemonic influence of patriarchy in our society through the exploitation of women’s bodies to unnecessarily sell dead animals that were unwillingly killed, not only for human consumption, but to feed the masculinity in men.  They smile as they wear the image of a woman’s body with a cow head.  The individual human woman and nonhuman female cow have been lost to the mass term, meat, where their identities has been taken and they are now used as an object of male desired consumption.  Their smiles either show a blissful ignorance or a complicit understanding of patriarchal domination, which do you think?

When I see this picture, I think of how humans profit off of animals bodies the same way they profit off of women’s bodies.  The breasts, bottoms, thighs, abdomens are all of their own value, some prized more than the others, but everyone has their own taste.  Are you a tasty bottom man or a breast man? Do you like girls with thick thighs? ….Wait, are we talking about animal meat or women?!  Women’s bodies are sold through advertisement in a similar manner to how animals are sold in a meat market.  We sexualize our products in order to make sales, and we sexualize our meat in order to make sales.  To refer to this animal only in it’s parts, is to make the cow’s previous life disappear.  They become the absent referent, as Adams would say (23).  When we refer to women only in their body parts, aren’t we doing the same thing?  Aren’t we minimizing her life down to what part of her can be (figuratively) consumed?

This picture makes me so uncomfortable.  Carol Adam’s would refer to this as an example of anthropornography, the sexualization of animals for human consumption that is similar to how we sexualize women.  To have a chicken dressed as a woman in a suggestive sexual pose is meant to make you think the chicken is, “asking for it,” as we tend to say.  She is flaunting her stuff because she knows, “you want it”.  Did the chicken really want you to take it’s life for a meal? No.  Just like women don’t ask to be raped or beaten.  Adam’s relates this kind of provocative advertisement to a females degraded status.  The dead animal ready for consumption from the more powerful human consumer, is reflective of a woman being sexualized for the pleasure of a more powerful man in pornography. Degradation is hot and fun, and she likes it!  “So, just as through pornography inequality is made sexy; through meat eating, inequality is made tasty,” (15).

I found this last picture to be interesting.  It’s a Carl’s Jr. ad that is notoriously known for sexualizing women in the media.  The woman has been crowned “Miss Turkey” from a beauty pageant and she poses in a bikini to hold a hamburger.  From what I can see, the advertisement is implying she has won the title because of her body.  Her body is the best for male consumption because of the meat she has.  If a man were to buy the hamburger they are trying to sell, they will be just as satisfied as they would be with her body!  It’s simple, her body is meant for a man to use as he pleases just like this hamburger was made just for him to eat as he pleases.  The woman and dead animal have no other purpose but to help feed masculinity.  Eating this burger would be like saying you slept with this woman, and that is suppose to make you feel more like a man.

All of these images reiterate Adam’s belief that depriving animals of their right to life in order to reassure our self-declared human superiority is no different from oppressing women for male superiority, and both are a result of a patriarchal dominance (14).  She brilliantly writes, “consumption is the fulfillment of oppression,” and I see how women and animals are the targets of this consumption by and for men.

Adams, Carol J. and Annie Potts. “The Politics of Carol J. Adams.” Antennae, no. 14, 2010. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54792ff7e4b0674c74cb719d/t/55dc8dace4b0ad76d7277cb7/1440517548517/ANTENNAE+ISSUE+14.pdf. Accessed 3 March 2019.

Adams, Carol J. “Examples of The Sexual Politics of Meat.” https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54792ff7e4b0674c74cb719d/t/55dc8dace4b0ad76d7277cb7/1440517548517/ANTENNAE+ISSUE+14.pdf. Accessed 3 March 2019.

Tschorn, Adam. “New Carl’s Jr. Ad.” LA Times Blogs, 2011. https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/alltherage/2011/03/carls-jr-taps-reigning-miss-turkey-to-promote-its-new-burger.html. Accessed 3 March 2019.

I believe that the image chosen for our class discussion is meant to portray speciesism, which is the idea that humans are the dominant species with the right to exploit, kill, and consume other animals.  To be honest, the image was a little vague to me, but as I began to think more abstractly I noticed certain imagery that symbolizes the need for equality.  For example, the Pillsbury dough-boy figure was about the same size as the cooked red meat being cut into on the cutting board.  To me, this reflected how humans and animals are both equal to one another, but the figure was more dominant due to it’s ability to kill the animal.  This made me think, just because the figure was able to kill the animal and serve the meat for human consumption, does this give them the right to?  I connect this to the patriarchal hierarchy in our ecosystem.  As a society, we are taught this is normal behavior.  We are taught that humans are at the top of the food chain because we have the ability to hunt other animals.  We aren’t taught to question whether or not this is the right thing to do, because power structures are so present in all parts of the way we live- it just seems natural to us. 

It is an interesting concept to think of the food we eat as gendered, but yet again, this is the U.S. where everything is based on and divided by gender.  After following Eisenburg’s example of searching images of “women eating” and “men eating” on google, I saw the standards our society puts on men and women’s eating practices.  Women are pressured to eat salads and greens, and men are encouraged to eat meats.  Our gendered food comes from a larger social manipulation that works to separate men and women all the way down to the food we eat, and it basically comes down to femininity and masculinity.  Meat means protein and muscle building, salads mean no weight gain.

Gaard would have to agree with my connection to meat eating and speciesism above.  She believes that ecofeminists have a a deeper understanding to what animals go through because of women’s shared oppression under patriarchy.  Sexism and speciesism is an interconnected oppression because they both stem from the idea that one being is greater than the other, whether its an entire species or an entire sex.  She explains our relation to non-human animals, “… speciesism is a form of oppression that parallels and reinforces other forms of oppression… they are different faces of the same system,” (Gaard 20).  That goes for racism, classism, ableism, etc.  I think Curtin would expand on my questioning of whether hunting and consuming animals is morally correct.  She sees the morality behind vegetarianism, but understands how in the some situations eating animals is necessary.  There is a contextual moral vegetarianism that she explains as, “it recognizes that the different reasons for moral vegetarianism may differ by locale, by gender, as well as by class,” (Curtin).  In economically stable and technologically advanced countries, people have a choice of whether or not to eat animals (Curtin).  It is not necessary for their survival, yet people do it anyway. 

I think this is where the connection between sexism and speciesism comes into play in the contextual moral vegetarianism.  Our society does not need to discriminate against women, but it chooses to.  Our society does not need to eat meat, but it chooses to.  We don’t have to enforce gender roles with the food we eat, yet we do it anyway- it’s our normal.  How do we change this?  How do you change the morality of a nation? If ecofeminisists continue to draw the connection between non-human animals and people and the understanding of the same oppression with different faces, can our society change it’s hierarchical way of thinking?  Eisenberg says, “it’s hard to shift an individual’s perception without first tackling their society’s view,” so I believe we have to change our environment before we can change an individuals choice.  We have to popularize these moral choices to create a socially accepted environment that connects human oppression to non-human oppression.

Curtin, Deane. “Contextual Moral Vegetarianism.” http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/curtin01.htm.  Accessed 24 Feb 2019.

Eisenberg, Zoe. “Meat Heads.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoe-eisenberg/meat-heads-new-study-focuses_b_8964048.html. Accessed 24 Feb 2019.

Gaard, Greta. “Ecofeminism on the Wing.” https://www.academia.edu/2489929/Ecofeminism_on_the_Wing_Perspectives_on_Human-Animal_Relations. Accessed 24 Feb 2019.

There is this special balance to how the nature around us allows for life to grow and flourish within its environment, that I believe is often overlooked and taken for granted.  As Barbara Kingsolver said, “I think of the children who will never know, intuitively, that a flower is a plant’s way of making love… or that trees breathe out what we breathe in.”  I have the sense that nature thrives off of a state of equilibrium, where all of its species live peacefully in coexistence, knowing they each need other to survive.  As I’ve said in my previous posts, it seems that all parts of the earth work together to function as a whole, but hierarchical thinking has justified a world of dominance.  Our readings this week showed us the power of understanding our roots to nature, and the importance of wildlife for the benefit of our own psychological states.  We have learned to question how the destruction of natural wildlife for a man-made way of life through commercial development kills the natural communities of the earth.  I think we have become so consumed with creating our own world that we forget where we, as humans, come from and we lose sight of how a balanced, natural environment is good for our souls.  We have this estranged relationship with nature, that needs mending because, “wildlife puts us in our place,” (Kingsolver).

The picture above is from my hometown of Sandwich, Cape Cod, Massachusetts.  It is of a beautiful weeping willow tree that use to live in the center of my hometown.  I get a little sentimental over this tree because I grew up watching and admiring its natural beauty.  As a kid it reminded me of Pocahontas, when she would listen for and appreciate the wisdom of Grandmother Willow.  She was wise because she had lived for so long.  Her strength and knowledge reminds me of what Terry Tempest Williams said, “these lands have been here for millions of years, and they will certainly outlast us by another million years or more,” (6).  But, now the weeping willow that I watched and loved growing up as a I drove by or stopped to take pictures underneath it’s canopy, has now been taken down for commercial purposes.  I was heartbroken when hearing of the news.  I remember feeling as if my home had been invaded, and destroyed.  That tree was a part of my world for so long and now it is gone.  Williams would see this kind of human destruction as a result of people being so separated from nature.  I agree with Kingsolver that wildlife helps to put us is our place, because it helps us to see the earth in its natural state, untouched by the greed, corruption, or ignorance of humankind.  I think we become accustomed to our environment and when we stay in one place, such as a city, it becomes our normal and we can forget that the Earth was not made this way.  We stop questioning if its okay to cut down trees and build more corporations or developments. We become use to breathing in the toxicity we create.  But, nature has the power to bring us back to our roots, back to a natural state of balance and coexistence that our world has thrived on in the past.  Williams believes, “there is a resonance of humility that has evolved with the earth.  It is best retrieved in solitude amidst the stillness of days in the desert,” (17).

Kingsolver, Barbara. Knowing Our Place, PBS, 2002, http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript_smallwonder_print.html. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.

Williams, Terry Tempest. Home Work, https://umassd.umassonline.net/bbcswebdav/pid-1227044-dt-content-rid-11913334_1/courses/D2830-12796_MASTER/Scanned%20from%20a%20Xerox%20multifunction%20device001%283%29.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.

Brenna, George. Weeping Willow Near Sandwich Town Hall on Chopping Block, Cape Cod Times, 2016, https://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20160822/weeping-willow-near-sandwich-town-hall-on-chopping-block. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.

Environmental degradation has grown as a result of patriarchy’s hierarchical thinking.  This kind of thinking lacks diversity in the understanding of how the world works and who is living in it.  Patriarchy stems from a biased assumption of power that tries to justifies its domination through a natural order where men are at the top of the pyramid.  We have seen patriarchy in many forms throughout societies and political agendas, but we have yet to take a closer look at how patriarchy has exploited our environment through its idea of humans being the dominant species and therefore has control over our ecosystem.  Because of this, our environment has faced detrimental affects of human destruction, and those who are primarily affected have no platform to speak on, “…the people who use this knowledge in their daily live… especially women of these communities-tend to be excluded from the institutions which create what is seen as scientific knowledge,” (Agarwal 136).

In the Global South, one of women’s most important contributions are to supply water for their families and communities.  These women walk miles to get this necessity and basic human right.  Environmental degradation from human interaction has made their essential journey for water even harder over time.  Girls are pulled out of school or never see their right to education in order to help their families.  As women, with little to no education, it is hard for them to find jobs and they are forced to take low-income pay or live in complete poverty (Women and the Climate).  If women had more of a national or global voice to raise these issues, there could be more being done to combat against climate change.  Women do not constitute the majority of these corporations that pollute the environment, and these low-income women are not the scientists looking for the reasons behind environmental degradation.  They are affected the most, and yet they are not what people see when they think of climate change movements, but, “since women primarily manage water resources at the local level, women’s voices must be heard at national and international levels if global equity is to prevail in a water-scarce world,” (Women and the Climate). 

I have recently learned of Native American women’s fight against climate change here in the United States.  I remember feeling so ignorant about these issues because even the women in my own country are directly affected by environmental degradation, yet I never knew it to be a women’s issue.  I learned of how their communities means of survival through fishing and hunting have become limited over time and how they have had to turn to other ways of sustainability.  But on a positive note, I read how, “tribal ecological wisdom and practices… increasingly recognized by the larger society’s efforts to address climate change,” (Climate Change).  This gives me hope and at the same time, justifies the need for Third World countries to be more inclusive in their studies of climate change.  Listening to those who are primarily affected can be helpful in deciding how to take on and change the effects of environmental degradation, instead of only seeing it through a biased and limited perspective as past patriarchal thinking has done. 

In my last post, Hobgood- Oster and Warren’s perspectives on ecofeminism were more about how women’s relation to the oppression of nature are interconnected with all forms of oppression throughout the world.  Each oppression stems from the same ideas of patriarchy that justifies one to have control over the other.  I appreciate Agarwal’s perspective because she helps bring light to these Third World issues that I believe we can easily ignore when we don’t live through it ourselves.  Agarwal’s ecofeminist theory focuses more on the direct ways in which women’s roles are affected through climate change, and how these changes are due to forces out of their control.  I think both perspectives take on different forms but have a similar understanding of how patriarchy has caused our world to think from a natural hierarchical point of view, and ecofeminism helps to reclaim everyone and everything’s right to exist in equality.

Agarwal, Bina. The Gender and Environmental Debate. Feminist Studies, 1992, https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.umassd.edu/stable/pdf/3178217.pdf.  Accessed 10 February 2019.

Women and the Climate. Feminist Campus. http://feministcampus.org/campaigns/women-and-climate/. Accessed 10 February 2019.

Climate Change. National Congress of American Indians. http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/land-natural-resources/climate-change.  Accessed 10 February 2019.

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/