Month: March 2023

     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??