Brooke Allyn D’s Ecofeminism Blog

I began my water journey on April 11, 2023. I decided to completely cut out all beverages besides water cold turkey. This may not have been the best thing for me to do considering I learn very quickly that I had a caffeine dependency. In result for the first week I was having caffeine withdrawals which resulted in migraine headaches and extreme fatigue. I chose to do it this way, even though it caused myself a lot of physical discomfort, because the women and girls that suffer from water insecurity and lack of clean water do have the luxury of weaning themselves off of water. One week they may have access to water and the next they may not. 

 (This is a map of countries where the CDC has deemed it safe to drink tap water https://www.globehunters.ca/blog/safe-tap-water.htm.) 

 

Water insecurity also results in physical discomfort and dehydration, so I thought to myself “if I am trying to raise awareness and change my mindset on how we take water for granted I should also experience discomfort with completely quitting coffee, sodas, juices, and even water flavoring packets”. During this semester we studied the human rights issues associated with water insecurity and lack of hygienic resources. The United Nations Water and Gender article states that “women and girls are more vulnerable to abuse, attack and ill-health, affecting their ability to study, work and live in dignity.” https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/water-and-gender. As I was going through the physical discomforts of switching to water only was when I really began to ponder on the physical discomforts that women and girls would experience rather than just the physical dangers as they relate to violence. While I believe that the risk of violence upon women and girls should be at the forefront of conversation, we can not forget that they are also personal, physical discomforts associated with water insecurity According to the Cleveland Clinic water insecurity will result in:  Physical Symptoms of: headache, delirium, confusion, tiredness (fatigue), dizziness, weakness, light-headedness, dry mouth and/or a dry cough, high heart rate but low blood pressure, loss of appetite but maybe craving sugar. flushed (red) skin, swollen feet, muscle cramps, heat intolerance, or chills, and constipation. And Mental Issues of: Confusion, crankiness, and anxiousness. With these symptoms also playing a role in the risks of violence and physical illness.  https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/9013-dehydration

Drinking only water also opened up many conversations which I think is key to activism and essential to bringing people awareness of your cause and the change in which you are trying to enact. This opened up many conversations within my workplace because my employees very rarely see me without coffee or an energy drink and when I only had water I was able to tell them about this assignment and why I was doing it. I hope that from those conversations I was able to instill in them that we gave to be conscious of the way that we take advantage of an unrestricted, clean water supply and that they are millions of women and girls that experience water insecurity that lead to infringements on their human rights.

The second part of my Praxis was the hardest for me. I chose to replace my ankle weights with carrying 2 full gallons of water as I walked my dog each day. This was also the part that I was least successful at because my goal was to do this everyday and I did not do that. I walked 3-4 times each week carrying the gallon containers. Also, this was the most eye opening, because personally I am not as physically fit as I should be and carrying water gallons for a mile after a while gets really heavy. I began to experience upper arms and shoulder pain as I would try to carry the jugs different ways to alleviate the discomfort I felt as I was walking. During this time of my assignment I was able to reflect on the privilege that I am afforded because I do not have to fetch and collect and carry my own water home. From this reflection I remembered the image that was shared in the second week of class when we discussed women and water
and how these containers are much bigger than the gallons that I was complaining about and realizing that the water within them may not even be as clean as the water within my “prop” for this Praxis. (I call the gallon jugs props because this is water that I give to my dogs and cats, and again how privileged we are to be able to purchase spring water for our pets)

Overall, I believe that my Praxis assignment was successful. I admit that I hiccups one too many times. I did not walk everyday, and while I was successful at eliminating sodas and juices I was not completely able to eliminate coffee and water enhancers through this project. But I deem it successful because I became more self aware through my failures. When I would drink a cup of coffee or pour a Propel powder into my water bottle I thought about the water crisis and reflected on my privilege and that water is essential to life and that everyone has the RIGHT to clean and safe water no matter what. Through this project I became more mindful. Another way I believe that my assignment was successful is because I was able to have conversations with the people that are around me the most but may not necessarily know me on an in-depth personal level such as my coworkers. The reason I point out the conversations with people who do not know me super personally is because activism is not only about having conversations with those you are close to or the ones that will not judge. Activism is about being able to have hard conversations in vulnerable situations.

Because as activists it is our job to bring awareness to the social injustices in this world in regards to both our fellow women and girls and the environment. Afterall, Hobgood-Oster stated: “Ecofeminism asserts that all forms of oppression are connected and that structures of oppression must be addressed in their totality” (Hopgood-Oster, page 1). According to Hopgood-Oster, we must address the water crisis in its totality to be able to address the effects of the water crisis on women and girls in totality.

Below I am sharing some images of a walk that I took with my children during the Praxis assignment:

 

Throughout this semester we have learned of many different ways environmental degradation and lack of resources has effected women and their advancement in society. For the Praxis Assignment I am choosing to focus on the water crisis that makes being a women in the Global South very difficult. The water crisis does stop at not having access to a clean water supply, but because of the lack of water supply women are oftentimes put in physical danger. Women and girls have the role of fetching water and this can put them in danger by leaving them vulnerable to physical attack, women and girls also have sex specific sanitation needs, and not paying attention to the water crisis is also an equality issue.

With the job of water collection falling mostly on women and girls, and these journeys are oftentimes made on foot, their physical safety is put at risk during these long journeys. But it does not stop there. Many women and girls’ education opportunities are impacted negatively, because of their requirement to collect water they are excluded from earning an income and obtaining an education. Public toilets and restrooms also put women and girls at risk for physical and sexual assault.

“Lack of safely managed water and sanitation is an equality issue. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by poor water, sanitation and hygiene services and facilities. However, their voices and needs are often absent in the design and implementation of improvements, thereby ensuring their continued marginalization.” https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/water-and-gender

The water crisis has also effected the United States, as we can see in Flint, Michigan. According to CBS Detroit, Flint Michigan is still living with the effects of the water crisis nearly 9 years after it began. According to the latest testing Flint’s lead levels in their water has risen since 2021, but still remain under levels that would allow federal government intervention. Courts have ruled in favor of a $626 million civil settlement, but residents want lasting change and be able to trust their water supply that it is safe for drinking, cooking, and bathing.  https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/michigan-still-dealing-with-fallout-from-flint-water-crisis-9-years-later/  

For my Praxis initiative, I am focusing on the water crisis and education of how we take clean water for granted, especially in the United States. For the next two weeks I am going to drink only water and only use sustainable containers and straws. For example, reusable cups and bottles and stainless steel straws. By consuming only water I will be able to see its effects on my body and think about what others make lack due to lack of clean water supply. Also, by eliminating drinks such as soda, juice, tea etc. this will show me just how much I take clean drinking water for granted. I will work to educate myself and others on the value that clean water has on our lives and developing more of an understanding on what it would be like to not have clean water at my disposal.

In addition, to show more of a physical commitment,  I will replace my ankle weights that I use when walking by dog with carrying two gallon jugs of water. While this action may seem small, I will focus on creating a mindset of solidarity. Through this action, I will create conversation with my neighbors on the physical and mental effects the water crisis within the Global South has on women and girls. As our introduction to this assignment stated, “for feminists, the personal is political” – I take activism very personally, because I believe that if we can place ourselves personally in the injustices, to the best of our ability, that is where lasting change begins.

Action begin with conversation and conversation begins with identifying the injustices on the world. 

 

In this blog post I will be comparing how the degradation of the environment and ecofeminism, as seen in the article Speak Truth to Power, are related to the redaction of reproductive rights in the United States and the reproductive justice movement.

This week’s reading brings us to Africa, particularly Nairobi, Kenya, to examine Wangari Maathai’s Green Belt Movement. The Green Belt Movement is a movement to “encourage farmers to plant ‘green belts’ to stop erosion, provide shade, and to create a source of income and firewood.” (Maathai, page 1). The movement also states that up to seventy percent of these farmers were women and to date fifteen million trees have been planted. Maathai is a true pioneer for ecofeminism in that she has championed these movements for farmers and has done extensive work on hunger prevention, for which she won the Africa Prize.

Maathai’s work in developing the Green Belt Movement and the fight for Reproductive Justice are uniquely related because of her metaphor of the  “wrong bus syndrome”. And this is where I will tie together the fight for reproductive freedom and the fight to end environmental degradation.  Maathai states that, “The other thing is that a lot of people do not see that there are no trees until they their eyes and realize that the land is naked.” (Maathai, page 2). Maathai makes this claim to emphasize that people begin to see the need for trees when they cultivate a tree of their own and begin to realize how quickly they are taken advantage of and how quick we are to degrade the environment under the guise of advancement for selfish reasons (President Moi’s desire to build a skyscraper and monument himself). This can be tied together with reproductive rights because the right to an abortion was legislated in 1972 and it can be argued that we became accustomed to having this resource available and we may have never realized that a world without Roe was possible until the 2016 election.  Maathai moves on to say that “they begin to see that while the rain can be a blessing, it can also be a curse, because when it comes and you have not protected your soil, it carries the soil away with it” (Maathai, page 2). Another parallel is drawn here because while Maathai is talking about how if we allow environmental degradation to continue necessary, oftentimes seen as unimportant, resources as soil are ignored until they no longer there are due to rain or damage done by pesticides and herbicides. In the case of reproductive justice, the rain can be seen as the Supreme Court. It can, and has been a blessing and course. The court was a blessing in Obergefell v Hodges, and it was a curse in the wake of the Dobbs decision last summer. Rain is necessary for both environmental survival but it can also be an asset to environmental degradation if the earth is not taken care of. In the same instance that SCOTUS can work for the people but also against the people if the people in power act on the their own accord rather than what society is telling them we want. While the feminist movement warned about a post Roe world, the general society did not wake up and realize the “land was naked” until June of 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade. And now we are in the fight of our lives because doctors, such as in Idaho, are fleeing the state and hospitals are shutting down Labor and Delivery Departments  because anti abortion laws are blurring the lines between the law and the Hippocratic Oath.

Throughout this course, we have repeatedly discussed the oppressive analogy of “mother Earth” and how this has a fluid definition across all areas of  female oppression. Maathai talks about that throughout her work with the Green Belt Movement that a lot of the mobilization, activism and work was done by women. Especially when she talks about standing up to the Kenyan government to stop the construction of the skyscraper and the president’s monument. She talks about how she and other women were beaten so badly that they ended up in the hospital. She stated that women were the ones that primarily were doing the nurturing of the seedlings, much like they are the ones that nurture the growing of a fetus into a baby during pregnancy. This metaphor of “mother earth” works with the both this account of ecofeminism and the fight for reproductive justice, because women are the ones that were nurturing the trees to better the environment, economy and food supply with the Green Belt Movement, while women are the ones fighting for their rights of whether or not to carry (“nurture”) a pregnancy. Women are the ones generally effected most by degradation of the environment, especially in the Global South, because their jobs are related to the environment. For example, without clean and adequate water supply women and girls are left to use shared baths and restrooms putting them at risk for unsanitary environments and sexual assault; and also due to environmental degradation and lack of resources women and girls in the Global South are less likely to have a adequate and constant supply of period products. When comparing it to reproductive rights women and girls, and people with uteruses, are among the most oppressed because forced pregnancy is a violation of their human rights.

Maathai states that “everyone needs to work together and to protect the environment” – just like everyone needs to work together to protect reproductive rights. The fight for the environment and the fight for reproductive are also similar in how they are retaliated against. During the campaign for the Green Belt Movement, Maathai says that “They did a lot of dirty campaigning to discredit us, including dismissing us as, ‘a bunch of divorcees and irresponsible women'” (Maathai page 4). Not only is this sexist and makes aim at discrediting the women of the Green Belt Movement’s integrity, this is very similar to how women in the fight for reproductive justice are treated. After the overturning of Roe v Wade, commentary from “news outlets” stated that the women who you protesting the decision were “crazy” or had guests that made claims that women were only mad because no one wanted to have children with them. This dismissal of women as second class citizens, or making stances that they are here to birth children, is very similar to environmental degradation because the environment is declines due to exploited it for profit and not investing in it, the same way women are being exploited for our capability to have children instead of our society investing in women’s livelihood by working towards reproductive choice and closing the wage gap for instance.

Maathai closes this article by saying that “Courage. I guess that the nearest it means is not having fear. Fear is the biggest enemy you have. I think you can overcome your fear when you no longer see the consequences” (Maathai page, 4). While I agree that you lose fear by when you no longer see the consequences, but I also think that in terms of the environment and reproductive rights fear can be used as a catalyst for change. If we fear what the planet will be like without clean and renewable resources, water, clean air etc we will be motivated to change. In the same way the fear of a society without basic reproductive healthcare and freedoms, should make women and people with uteruses fearful of our future, and we should use that fear to go to the ballot box and rally for change.

     The term intersectionality was first brought into discussion by Kimberlé Crenshaw because of the failure in the feminist and anti-racist movements to “represent and capture the specificity of the discrimination faced by black women” and the failure was a result of an “inability to identify the multiple grounds which constitute an individual’s identity” (Kings, 63-64). In its simplest forms, even though intersectionality has been described as a “complexity” (Kings, 65), intersectionality is the acknowledgement that people are made of up of various identifying factors and because of that, they are do not exclusively belong to one community. For example, a white bisexual female is not only white, she is bisexual and female. All three of those identifying factors have a play into her daily lived experiences – now she will never experience racism but she may experience oppression because of her sexual orientation and her gender identity. This is intersectionality at work, one identity that a person may experience does not define their entire lived experience, in order to define their lived experiences, one must look at their various identifying factors.

King describes intersectionality’s connectedness as a web. She states that by using the tools of intersectionality we can “help illuminate the interconnectedness of race, class, gender, disability, sexuality, caste, religion, age and effects which these can have on the discrimination, oppression, and identity of women and the natural environment (Kings, page 64). King describes the web as entanglement rather than a traffic junction. This to me means all of the contributing factors intersectionality and connected and related rather than throw together in a jam of misunderstanding and seen with irrelevance. The metaphor to the traffic junction is interesting to me when we think of a traffic jam, it is annoying and it is something that we try to avoid.  When talking about intersectionality we have to look at it with interest and willingness to learn because it is a complex structure of examining people’s experiences with oppression but also experiences with privilege as well. “Mar J. Matsuda described the potentially simple methodology of recognizing the interconnection of all discrimination, as one which required on openness to ‘asking the other question’. This ‘asking of the other question’ allows for the exposition of hidden forms of prejudice and discrimination, by exposing the carious disadvantages and privileges which make up the lived experiences and complex identities of every individual…” (Kings, page 64).

 

A web is also a product of nature that is complex and strong, after all it has to catch, hold, and preserve spider’s prey. King also describes the the web of intersectionality in this way. She states that in comparison with the strength of the spider’s web, the web of intersectionality upholds and “preserves the necessary complexity of intersectionality and the potential stickiness of cultural categories which can often leave people stuck between two or more intersecting or conflicting social categories (Kings, page 65-66). Comparing the stickiness of a spiders web to the stickiness of intersectionality is very thought provoking because this method of thinking allows us to really grasp the complexity of intersectionality and the inner discourse that can come with it. For example, in privileged communities acknowledging the felt oppression can come with guilt. This is something that I have personally struggled with, feeling guilty that I have experienced oppression as a woman because there are women out there that have experienced vastly worse oppression than I will ever experience.                                                                         

This approach is also important to the ecological movement and ecofeminism. Throughout the semester we have learned that ecofeminism is intersectional because it does not have one direct definition. This relates to intersectionality because the identities of a person do not have one direct definition. Kings describes ecofeminism as “an area of academic study concerned with understanding the interconnected relationship between the domination of women and domination of nature” (Kings, page 70). Intersectionality is important in understanding discrimination and oppression of women because in order to understand their experiences of oppression we must first put in the work to understand how all of their identities contribute to that experiences oppression. This is very similar to the environment. In order to understand the oppression of the environment we must first understand all of the ways the environment is seen that would contribute to its exploitation. Some of these contributing factors being how the environment is seen inadvertently feminine and understanding why the patriarchal society would oppress the environment just because it is gendered as female. And also that the environment is seen as a part of big business and how corporations exploit and kill the environment for capital gain.

Leah Thomas, in her article, takes Kings’ idea a little further. She gives ecofeminism a simpler definition while expanding on King’s idea through her idea of Intersectional Environmentalism. (This is an example of ecofeminism’s fluidity as we studied earlier in the semester). Thomas defined intersectional environmentalism as “how the injustices of happening to marginalized communities and the earth are interconnected” (Thomas, page 2). I think this definition is more fitting with King’s concept of a web because this definition of intersectional environmentalism would allow for more expansion on Kings’ concept of the web because intersectional environmentalism makes room for all areas of social injustice not just those that focuses on the patriarchy. For instance, in my opinion, the concept of intersectional environmentalism would allow for the expansion on the way that the earth is exploited for capital gain because this would allow discussion on marginalized communities being subject to socioeconomic oppression and how this relates to the environment being a victim of degradation for socioeconomic gain.

I believe that the only way to tackle the environmental crisis is to have a full discussion on social injustices. And to also classify environmental degradation as a social injustice; because as a people that the need environmental resources to live we will not be able to fix the problem of environmental degradation until we can have the conversation about our role as oppressors of the environment. Much like social injustices in our society will never be eradicated until hard conversations about systemic oppression can be had.

           There is a distinct connection        between women, representation in government and what this means for the environment. We have already stated that ecofeminism is not a “one definition” theory for discussion, but according to Hopgood-Oster “ecofeminism asserts that all forms of oppression are connected” (Hopgood-Oster, page 1). This puts forth the premise that ecofeminism is very much intersectional. She moves forward to say that in order to confront the oppression of women, the oppression of the environment must be confronted as well – “Oppression of the natural world and of women by patriarchal power structures must be examined together or neither can be confronted fully” (Hopgood-Oster, page 1).

Norgaard and York findings show that the nation states that have more gender equality in their governments are more likely to legislate and pass pro-environment legislation. According to their findings in what they call an “unequal society” gender biased legislations the environmental degradation “fall disproportionately on the least powerful”  in which “women have been uniquely and  disproportionately affected by ecological destruction.” (Norgaard and York. page 507).  The least powerful people that Norgaard and York are referring to, are women. We can see the ill effects on women from environmental neglect in both the Global North and Global South. Women in the Global North oftentimes take the resources that they have at their disposal for granted, for example regular access to water. One way that environmental neglect effects women of the Global North, especially in the U.S., is the scarce access to clean and renewable energy – the use of toxic chemicals and fossil fuels can cause vast health issues for women. And the women of the Global South are disproportionately effected by the environmental degradation is by their undue access to water. Accessing water in the global south falls particularly on the shoulders of women and girls which involves strenuous labor and not only makes water access difficult but also can put them harms way of physical assault because lack of water access can, and often, makes the use of toilets and baths nonprivate.

Norgaard and York present that a generation of feminists theorists are arguing that the state is both capitalists and and patriarchal and have described the state as a gendered process (page 507). This is supported by the lack of attention that is paid to the environment with states that are lacking women in their governments. It is only logical that, since it is proven that women tend to be more progressive on policies that are about the environment, governments that begin to include women as “equal members of society” with equal voting rights and representation within policy making  would see a boost in positive state influence regarding the environment (Norgaard and York, page 508). As Norgaard and York stated, the state is both capitalist and patriarchal – and on order to give women more representation in policy making it would require less men in policy making. Which would thus begin to close the gender gap with government and dismantle the patriarchy, and in order to keep the patriarchy alive and thriving, women must be kept second class and disproportionately under represented and therefore the environment becomes extremely under represented. When thinking in this viewpoint it is very easy to draw the conclusion that the under representation of the environment and pro-environment policy making in government is a not only a direct act of violence on the environment but also on women. This is because the lack of effort into clean and renewable energy only enhances the effort into dangerous energy sources that can cause undue health hazards on women. One example of health hazards that are implicated on women and girls due to lack on pro environmental actions, and also the expansion of the patriarchy at the expense of women and girls,  is women and girls working in factories that have dangerous working conditions due to the presumption that they are less likely to rise and organize when toxic materials are exposed to them and also dumped within communities (Norgaard and York, page 510).

One source that examines the connections between health concerns on women’s bodies and the environment is the National Library of Medicine. In which they state that “Climate change exacerbates women’s distinct health needs, particularly during pregnancy where maternal health and nutrition is vital to the developing fetus and infant” and also “women … generally have a domestic role in the household, exposing them to poor air quality through inappropriate gases used during cooking and poor ventilation of the cooking area” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8414962/

In conclusion of their research Norgaard and York show that “clearly nation states with a greater proportion of women in Parliament, controlling other factors, typically are more prone to environmental treaty ratification than other nations.” (Norgaard and York page 519). Given this statement, when not examining treaties specifically, it would only be fair to presume that nations with more women in representation would be more inclined to protect the environment through active legislation and activism. The reasons for this presumption given by Norgaard and York are that women “have more pro-environmental values, are more risk averse, are more likely to participate in social movements, typically suffer disproportionately from environmental degradation,  and sexism and environmental degradation can be mutually reinforcing processes (Norgaard and York, page 519).

One example of an organization that aligns with the viewpoints placed by Norgaard and York is WEDO. WEDO (Women’s Environment and Development Organization) is an organization founded on principle as “A global women’s advocacy organization for a just world that promotes and protects human rights, gender equality, and the integrity of the environment.” (https://wedo.org/) While the whole organization is devoted to women’s involvement in the environment, I want to highlight their program – Women’s Leadership: The Women’s Delegates Fund. (https://wedo.org/what-we-do/our-programs/women-delegates-fund/) Like Norgaard and York they believe the premise that must participate in government and legislation to make environmental change. WEDO operates on the principle that “Women’s equal participation in climate change decision-making is fundamental to just policies that reflect and respond to the needs of the global community. 

Pictured is New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is a leading activist within the U.S. Congress for climate initiatives – she is known for her vast support of the Green New Deal. Which has to goal of transforming our energy system to 100% renewable energy and also create 20 million jobs to solve the climate crisis that we are facing

Another organizations that aligns with Norgaard and York is OneEarth.org. Particularly their article entitled, “Why Women are the key to solving the climate crisis”. (https://www.oneearth.org/why-women-are-key-to-solving-the-climate-crisis/).  Particularly this article states the women make up 51% of the population, but make up 80% of those displaced by the climate crisis. This aligns with Norgaard and York as it concurs that women are disproportionately effected by environmental degradation. It also moves on the say that women are the key leaders in social and environmental movements. One example given of women influences governmental decision in regards to the environment is that of the Dakota Access Pipeline. When “LaDonna Brave Bull Allard ignited a global movement opposing its construction. In July 2020, a federal judge sided with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and ordered a full environmental analysis, and in 2021 the pipeline was officially scrapped”. This action by by LaDonna proves that women are a force in the environmental crisis we are facing and this concurs with Norgaard and York in that women are not only more pro-environment but are also more productive in that arena.

One statistic that would coincide with the provided image is that of our U.S. Congress. In the 118th U.S. Congress women make up just about 28%. Women also make up more of the democratic party at 41% than the republican party at 16%. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2023/01/03/118th-congress-has-a-record-number-of-women/ This is not at all surprising considering the republican party is the party of the patriarchy. And according to rachelsnetwork.org where voting records going back to 1983 were examined and it was found that women in Congress vote for legislation supporting clean air, clean water, renewable energy, climate action, and public health much more often than their male counterparts (and similarly vote more often against legislation that would roll back these protections). and they also make the premise that “If we want to make progress on protecting the environment and public health, we should help elect more women to public office, and support them during their tenure.”  (https://whenwomenlead.rachelsnetwork.org/) Through this link you will be able to see statistics on the voting records of women versus men when it comes to climate initiatives. One statistic shows that ” In the US House of Representatives, women have had higher average environmental scores in every year that LCV has kept records. Women’s average annual score from 1972-2022 is 69.4 while men’s is 45.6. ” (this source uses the LCV [League of Conservation Voters] Environmental Scorecard Data)

 

Carol Adams is a feminist that draws distinct parallels between the oppression of women and non human animals especially when it comes to advertisements. She states at the beginning of her book, “The Pornography of Meat” – that advertisements are carefully constructed and nothing is there by accident (Kemmerer. page 2). We can see depictions of pornographic meat and how it coincides with the oppression and objectification of women everyday in the marketing habits of our society in just about anything from Hardees commercials to Pepsi advertisements. Adams argues that given the images, people may feel “aroused” or have feelings of

There are many different ways that the above image could be analyzed. The consumer that this image is working to arouse is a masculine man – as we learned last week that eating meat, particularly a lot of, is deemed as manly. In terms of “meat-eating” (consuming nonhumans), this advertisement is selling that pork is also a white meat, when most people would probably think of chicken as a staple white meat option. We can take this a step further in that the advertisers are working to reach a wider male audience through their use of the words “the other white meat”  – this wider male audience possibly being Muslim or Jewish men, as these religions see pork as unclean. In this picture, obviously those being consumed wanting to be consumed is the chicken and the pork – because they are both white meat. according to this image. Also, the words “the other white meat” directly tie into the objectification of women because what part of the chicken is known as white meat? The breast. So now, women are also the ones being consumed in this image. As women are all too often referred to as a piece of meat. Thinking about white meat as the breast of the chicken and simultaneously as women sexualizes eating meat and makes it pornographic because our sexualized society has redefined a woman’s breasts as something that is there for a man’s sexual pleasure rather than its intended purpose nourishing children – and making the connection between eating a chicken breast while thinking of a woman’s breasts as something that is sexually pleasing to a man could make eating that chicken breast an arousing idea to some consumers. Adams sums this idea up in her interview by stating that “women are animalized and animals are sexualized and feminized.” (Potts, page 13).

Image 2:
Living in the South a bumper sticker like this is not an uncommon sight. I actually find it quite odd that I have never seen this particular one. This image takes the “masculinity” of eating meat a step further by insinuating that one would be more of a man if they hunted their own meat, as the directed consumer of this bumper sticker would be a hunter. This sticker id depicting the ultimate man as one that hunts their own meat and consumes much like they would consume the women in the image as well. In the south, when hunting your skill is going to be determined by how many “points” the deer has on their horns when it is killed – the more points means the bigger the prize. In this picture the deer is being hunted and consumed but so is the woman. She is standing in what some would say is provocative manner, much like the deer with the most points on it is most appealing to the hunters. This is diminishing the woman to something that is hunted and caught rather than willfully entering a relationship with their manner. The words depicted in this image make it obvious that its purpose is to sexually appeal to men. As stated previously the more points on the deer antlers the bigger the prize. This sexualizes the woman because in the word “horny” is used in modern language to refer to someone’s levels of sexual arousal; and this image is stating that the more horn a deer’s antler has, the more useful it is in determining the skills level of the hunter, while also stating the more “horny” a woman is determines the masculinity and sexual “skill” of the hunter. Adams goes on to state in her interview that a “process of objectification/fragmentation/consumption connects women and animals in a patriarchal society” (Potts, page 13). And in the south that aren’t many things that are more patriarchal in nature than the amount of purpose and masculinity men find in hunting and how many points their deer had on their antlers. And that “the visual joke that substitutes one fragmented object for another can be found throughout our culture.” (Potts, page 13). This bumper sticker is a direct example of that because this bumper sticker is meant to be funny and used as a joke. It’s purpose is to make a joke about hunting and killing deer while also making a joke of the woman as something that can be hunted based on her level of sexual arousal.

I find it funny though because I believe that most women would agree seeing a man with a sticker such as this on the back of their vehicle screams everything BUT a “skilled, sexual hunter”. 

Image 3:

I found this image the most profound living in our post Roe Society. Many would say the consumer of this advertisement would be the one that enjoys hamburgers. But to me, analyzing this from a post Roe perspective, the consumer is government. And the consumed is women’s reproductive freedom as the women is depicted giving birth. As previously stated women are inherently referred to as pieces of meat; and meat is consumed, objectified and controlled for whatever use the consumer has in mind. And that is exactly what the Supreme Court and far too many state and local governments have in mind for women’s reproductive choice. The government has taken away a woman’s right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy or have access to abortion care and that has inherently put women in a position of forced birthing just as factory farm animals are made to do. This image objectifies that lack of choice through showing the woman “giving birth” to hamburger, showing that women are just going to give birth to something else the government can control, especially if it is a female. Far too often people do not think of the horrid conditions of factory farming because this is an industry done in mass and that takes away an uniqueness. As stated by Adams, in The War on Compassion, “objects referred to in mass terms have no individuality, no uniqueness, no specificity, no particularity.” (Adams, page 6). Reproductive choice is also seen and defined in mass terms as a black and white decision on whether women should have the right to abortion care and services, by defining it in mass terms it takes away the individualism of each situation and thus makes it easier to redact that right to access care. When the Supreme Court made the access to abortion care about just the procedure itself, it took away the humanity and uniqueness of each woman seeking reproductive healthcare – much like factory farming taking away the individualism and humanity that is owed to the nonhuman animals.

Image 4:

“All animals have the same parts”

While I can understand the goal of the image is to liken nonhuman animals to human animals, analyzing this image from a perspective that aligns with Adams, this image is not without sexualizing and objectifying consuming meat and women. Pamela Anderson is what many would call a pop culture sex symbol, in the days of Baywatch she depicted the “perfectly sexy women” that many men would love to consume, with men being the consumer in this ad. Using her image along with words that describe “cuts of meat” outlined on her body shows that women have “cuts of meat” similar to non human animals that human animals enjoy eating and this sexualizes meat eating along with women by giving the same connotation to nonhuman animals’ body parts as a woman’s body parts have. While this image is meant to deter people from eating meat, in reality it does just the opposite. It makes eating meat and therefore consuming women that much more appealing and masculine because “consuming” Hollywood’s ultimate sex symbol would make any man an example of “prime masculinity”.

In a society where sex sells and women are constantly reduced to a piece of meat, a heifer, pussy etc, and seen as conquests for men – WHY would an advertisement that depicts women as having the same body parts as non human animals, that are factory farmed and consumed in masses, deter men from eating meat??

This land we have lived on for the last ten years has made us who we are. It has cultivated in me an appreciation for nature and all that it instills in us that I never had before. You see, growing up, my natural habitat can be described perfectly in the words of Barbara Kingsolver, “the natural habitat of our species, then, officially is steel, pavement, streetlights, architecture and enterprise”

I grew up in an suburb outside of Charleston, SC where development and expansion is and was first priority. My parents lived a fast paced life and I did not know what nature was besides the local county park where we went a few times on a school field trip.

But back in 2014 I inherited this land where we live now. I remember periodically coming out here as a child and roasting marshmallows and hotdogs by the fire with my grandfather. This land isn’t much but it is filled with nature, memories and opportunity to grow as a human. My children ride dirt bikes, scooters, and walk through the woods. We all have developed a love for being outside where the air feels lighter and cleaner than if we drive 30 minutes into the city.

In her essay Kingsolver states that “People will need wild places. Whether or not they think they do, they do.” And I will be one of the first to stay that this is absolutely true. Why? Because I used to say that if I had it my way I would live in the heart of  New York City, where there are skyscrapers, bustling people and shops, and so much city that you could never see it all. I used to say that this is what dreams were made of. That was until I saw how my children flourished in nature. And also until I saw how I benefitted from nature as well. When I saw how being outside among the trees and trails that you can find out here benefitted my mental health and calmed my anxiety, that was when I became a believer that nature is fundamental to human existence and health. I am also exploring the idea of beginning to homestead as well because I am learning a lot from my neighbor that grows the majority of her family’s food and all of their egg supply.

Not only do we need to experience and be in nature in order realize how important we are as human beings, but to also remember how important conservation and preservation. I feel that in the hustle and bustle of life, we can easily forget that the most simple things are the ones that matter, because they are the ones that keep us here and alive on the Earth. With over half of humans living in urban areas (Kingsolver, page 2) it is so easy to forget that we breathe in what trees breathe out and that the more we develop and build the less natural resources we have.

Williams states that, “story bypasses rhetoric and pierces the heart. Story offers a wash of images and emotion that returns us to our highest and deepest selves, where we remember what it means to be human.” That is what our home in the country has done for me. It reminded me that grounding yourself in nature is part of what it means to be human. And that is so much of my story, the evolution of changing where I saw my biggest opportunity for growth as a person. I used to see it as the human centered advancement in the city life, but now I see growth in breathing fresh air and meditating in my backyard surrounded by my cats chasing each other. Because humans were in nature long before we were in cities and skyscrapers.  I believe growing a connection with nature will not only connect us to the earth but will connect us as the human race. It will enable us to see that we are more alike than we are different.

Williams states that the hope of bedrock democracy is “standing our ground in places we love, together” My home functions as a part of bedrock democracy because I am here in a place I love with the people I love. And I intend to continue to cultivate my family here, teaching my children that nature is not just here for us, but more importantly we are here for it. That everything comes from the earth and if we continue on the path we are on, by not taking care of it, we will return to it much quicker than we anticipate. That the earth will do much more for us, than we could ever do for it and therefore we must devote ourselves to caring for it.

Hobgood-Oster defined ecofeminism as  “multi faceted and multi located” that challenges structures, such as the patriarchy, and not individuals. It is also described as very fluid, as it changes with time and political climate. While there is no one strict definition of ecofeminism, we do see a difference (and similarities) in terms of Western Feminism and Non-Western ecofeminism.

Before I touch on the differences between Western and Non Western ecofeminism, let’s look at the big similarity. Both Western and Non Western ecofeminism value intersectionality and do not look at problems through just one lens.

Western feminism focuses on incorporating feminist theory and an ecological perspective as well as incorporating feminist theory into solution for ecological problems. When looking at the oppression of women through a western lens of ecofeminism, Hobgood-Oster states that “Oppression of the natural world and of women by patriarchal power structures must me examined together or neither can be confronted fully.” (Hobgood-Oster, page 1). The western idea of the earth is that it is here for human use and conception, and this idea is stemmed from the Judeo-Christian story of creation. Keeping that in mind the western definition of ecofeminism is very similar to the of environmentalism. Which is defined as an ideology that aims to make the planet suitable for long term use, even though environmentalism focus is conservation it is still focused on the earth being of benefit to humans. Non Western ecofeminist Bina Agarwal defined western feminism as it “conceptualizes the link between gender and the environment primarily in ideological terms” (Agarwal, page 1).

Some examples of western ecofeminism can be seen in our society through the fight for reproductive rights and through efforts to produce more clean and renewable energy in the United States. What does reproductive healthcare access have to do with ecofeminism? I touched on this in my previous blog post, reproductive healthcare access is an ecofeminist issue in terms of population control. But how does it tie into the definition of western feminism? It is an aim of western feminism because population control is being tied together with the feminist theory that all women and people with uteruses should have safe and legal abortion access and having this access will help solve the problem of overpopulation.

When discussing the effort for clean and renewable energy in the US, while the purpose to consolidate on the coal and fossil fuel industry to develop healthier ways for energy consumption, it isn’t without its “for human use” goal. Clean and renewable energy is marketed to Americans as a way for them to have more affordable utility bills. So therefore, the rhetoric is – if we take care of the planet you won’t spend so much financially on utilities.

On the other hand, Agarwal is a non-western feminist and she looks at ecofeminism through the lens of its real life effects on living human beings and this is directed towards women in the Global South because the effects they feel because of environmental degradation is completely different than women from the Global North

Women of the Global South experience environmental degradation in a much more tangible way than women on the Global North because the Global North has expendable resources that the Global South does not have access to. One of those resources being clean water and sanitation, which the United Nations explicitly recognized access to clean water and sanitation as a human right.

There are several ways in which women of the Global South are effected by environmental degradation and it is not just what is tangible. It goes a lot deeper than that. For instance the article “Water and Gender” states that without access to clean water and sanitation women and girls are more vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse. This is because frequently in the Global South there are shared toilets and wash spaces between genders, and sharing facilities with men and boys puts women and girls at risk for physical and sexual violence. Another way women and girls are at risk in the Global South is because of lack resources the specific hygiene needs of women and girls is disregarded in terms of having safe and clean facilities with access to period products and proper disposal of those products. (https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/water-and-gender).

Of the two perspectives of ecofeminism I found that the non western focus on ecofeminism was most interesting to me. This is because it is not something that women of the Global North think of very often. Far too often we turn our faucet on and let it run for the entirety of brushing our teeth or take hot showers everyday that we find ourselves taking for granted the resources we have by not consciously thinking about the women and girls that do not have access to something as humane as water. Through studying non western feminism this week, I will definitely be more conscious moving forward of the resources that I have at my disposal and the advantage that gives me in life.

What is ecofeminism? How does it effect me? And why should I care?

Ecofeminism is a word that is fairly new to me upon beginning my spring semester classes. Although I call myself a progressive feminist, I have never done a deep dive into the connection between the feminist movement and the environment. So am looking forward to exploring that insight and growing while  incorporating ecofeminism more into my viewpoints.

Ecofeminism, according to Hobgood-Oster, “asserts that all forms of oppression are connected… Oppression of the natural world and of women by patriarchal power structures must be examined together or neither can be confronted fully.” (Hobgood-Oster page 1) One thing I love about ecofeminism is that it does not fit one mold – it works to abolish labels. As the feminist movement has advanced it has began to recognize that oppression is not clear cut for all women and that all every woman’s experience of oppression varies because of other groups they may be a part of. For example a heterosexual white woman’s experience with oppression is not going to be the same as a woman of color who is a part of the LGBTQUIA+ community because people of color and the LGBTQUIA+ community experience systemic oppression based on those identifying factors outside of solely being a woman. On the other hand, the fact that a woman who is white and straight, at times, will have those identifying factors work in her favor. Much like the feminist movement, as we know it, has placed importance in intersectionality, and so does ecofeminism. Hobgood-Oster moves to say that, “Ecofeminism is multi-faceted and multi-located, challenging structures rather than individuals” and that “ecofeminism simultaneously challenges patriarchies from different angles” (Hobgood-Oster, page 2).

While ecofeminism is fluid in its definition it also claims that the patriarchal structures justify their dominance through categorical dualistic hierarchies; such as heaven and earth, man and woman, culture and nature, and white versus non white (Hobgood-Oster, page 2). Following, I am going to touch on two of these hierarchies when comparing women and nature: the dualistic hierarchy of man and women and heaven and earth.

In her essay Hobgood-Ostar sites Rosemary Ruether’s tenet of ecofeminism as, “earth and the other-than-human experience the tyranny of patriarchy along with women. Classism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, naturism and speciesism are all intertwined.” (page 2) One connection between women and nature and how it coincides with ecofeminism is the reproductive justice movement. Following my first blog post the access to reproductive health care is also seen as a ecofeminism issue because population control is vital to the survival of the planet, especially with how far the United States is behind in climate change initiatives and actions. When thinking about this connection I am immediately reminded of Ruether’s statement that the “earth and the other than human experience the tyranny of patriarchy along with women”. When looking at the experience of women with the reproductive justice movement and how it connects with nature, both and nature and women are seen as for human, and in this case patriarchal, use. This is called instrumentalism. And with an attack on reproductive healthcare access the patriarchal society is dialing women back decades in order to use them for its benefit. The patriarchy depends on women being redacted for its survival. This viewpoint has its foundation in the Old Testament of the Bible, in the story of creation. In Genesis chapter one, the Bible states the God gave Adam (the man) dominion over the earth – and this was before woman was created (womaqqqqnhjmn was created in Genesis chapter two). Furthermore, because woman was said to be created following this “God-given” dominion over the earth, the Christian patriarchal society that we experience in our country today has inadvertly grouped women with the earth.

So why is the reproductive justice movement important to ecofeminism?

We have already stated that the lack of access to reproductive healthcare could cause a climate crisis due to overpopulation. This is because we are using up our natural resources at an exponential rate and overpopulation could cause a complete depletion in those natural resources as well as economical resources if we are not continuously making efforts to expand renewable energy sources. So let’s take a look back at Hobgood-Oster’s definition of ecofeminism. She states that, “Oppression of the natural world and of women by patriarchal power structures must be examined together or neither can be confronted fully.” (page 1). If women are seen as for the consumption of the patriarchy, just like nature, we must examine how women are to become free from oppression in order for nature to become free of oppression. Afterall, ecofeminists believe that feminist theory must have ecological perspective, and that the solutions to ecological problems must have a feminist perspective.

 

     Hello Class! I feel a great way to start a new semester is by introducing yourself. My name is Brooke and I am from Charleston, SC. I have 2 children and I am majoring in Women and Gender Studies. Beginning in my early twenties after getting divorced and becoming a single mom, I started to question the ideologies that I was born and raised in and realized that I aligned with liberal, progressive viewpoints. With that said, I have recently come back to school after after a few year hiatus and I am so excited to complete my studies. Upon graduating I plan on taking the LSAT and applying to law school. My end goal is to practice constitutional law and concentrate on reproductive rights, as where I am from, it is much needed. My ideal career would be to be a reproductive rights attorney with the ACLU. Many of the people that I share this with ask the question “why?” And that is such a peculiar question to me because, to me, I feel that the why is very self explanatory considering the political climate we are beginning to navigate in our country after the results of the midterm election and following the Dodds decision from the Supreme Court. But… I also feel that knowing and being confident in sharing your “why” is very important in building and retaining motivation to achieve a goal. So my answer as why I want to work towards practicing reproductive rights is this… all people deserve the freedom of bodily autonomy no matter how they identify. But unfortunately we live in a society that is rapidly turning back the hands of time when it comes to reproductive rights for women and people with uteruses. The Supreme Court knowingly rained down a decision that enabled states to criminalize women for taking control and I firmly believe that this decision was not based in rights for fetuses, but it was based in the determination to control women’s bodies and what happens to them and in them. Fighting fervently for the access to reproductive rights is so important because it is not just about access to abortion for me. It also includes fighting for the access to birth control and the systemic racism that is in our healthcare systems, as the rate of maternal mortality among black women is “more than double the average rate, and three times higher than that of white women” (Munira Z. Gunja, Evan D. Gumas, and Reginald D. Williams II, “The U.S. Maternal Mortality Crisis Continues to Worsen: An International Comparison,” To the Point (blog), Commonwealth Fund, Dec. 1, 2022. https://doi.org/10.26099/8vem-fc65 ). Furthermore it means pushing for expanded government assistance programs such as the expansion of programs like Medicaid, SNAP benefits, Affordable housing and childcare, and WIC , because how can the government force people to have children when the resources may not be there, especially when we are still experiencing a wage gap. I firmly believe that abortion is healthcare and if we further move down this path of forced pregnancies we are inevitably going to be seeing women die do the lack of reproductive healthcare. After all, healthcare workers in many states are already fearful of providing care to women having miscarriages or unviable pregnancies out of fear of retaliation by the government do to murky abortion bans that are now expanding into very dangerous waters. And I believe in radical, social change.

After reviewing the provided blogs,  I enjoyed reading was the Feminist Majority. I especially was drawn to the blogpost entitled “Only 8 Republicans Vote Yes for Birth Control Access”, as this was a major topic of conversation for me when this bill passed and one of South Carolina’s representatives was one of those eight Republicans. The blogpost states that the United Nations views the access to birth control as a human right. (Considering birth control is used for many other purposes besides preventing pregnancy, such as PCOS, acne, ovarian cysts and endometriosis). So my question to our lawmakers is why do our legislators in support of birth control access feel the need to work to codify this into law? Especially when the United Nations establishes this as a human right, and the United States prides itself on its participation in the UN.

The access to birth control and reproductive rights is vital to the success of our country because without it there is no gender equality, as well as equal opportunity for education and career.

Here in Charleston, the South Carolina Aquarium is a huge part of community environmentalism. Being on the coast, sea turtle conservation is something that we focus on. The aquarium is very active in this and one thing I love about their program is they encourage community involvement as well through their conservation center where visitors can purchase tickets and learn everything about sea turtles and their vital importance to our oceans. The Sea Turtle Conservation team is committed to “Rescue, Rehab and Release” and furthering research to ensure that sea turtles are swimming in our oceans for many, many years to come. / https://scaquarium.org/sea-turtle-care-center/