Month: March 2023

As we grapple with the pressing challenges of climate change and social inequality, ecofeminism offers a unique perspective on the connections between these issues and how we relate to the natural world. Within this framework, multiple levels of existence intersect, leading to a more profound interconnection of matters that influence our social and environmental welfare.

At the heart of ecofeminist thought lies the recognition that environmental degradation and social inequality are not individual concerns but rather indications of a more extensive systemic issue. The concept of intersectionality is fundamental to this ideology as it highlights the significance of recognizing the numerous ways in which women may encounter oppression when various forms of oppression intersect and influence both people and the natural world.

Intersectionality, a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, refers to the interlocking nature of various forms of oppression and marginalization experienced by individuals who belong to multiple minority groups. Through this lens, the ecofeminist perspective aims to challenge the traditional notion of nature as a mere resource and commodity to be exploited as it advocates for a more comprehensive method of recognizing the inherent worth of all living beings. This approach helps to highlight the various aspects of race, class, gender, disability, sexuality, caste, religion, and age, and their diverse and unique impacts on discrimination, oppression, and the identity of women and the natural environment (Kings, 64). This method can be best understood as a “web of entanglement” where each web spoke represents a continuous sequence of the various social categorizations mentioned here (Kings, 65). This “web” concept is central to this philosophy, describing the intricate and interconnected relationships between all living beings on the planet.

Understanding the historical implications of intersectionality in relation to the ecofeminist perspective is crucial. According to Hobgood-Oster’s Western view of ecofeminism, it is necessary to examine the oppression of both the natural world and women under patriarchal power structures together. In her essay, Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution, Hobgood-Oster acknowledges that patriarchal power structures, which have historically marginalized women, also contribute to the exploitation of the environment (2005).

Bina Agarwal’s 1992 article, “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India”, further highlights the importance of acknowledging the unique relationships that women and men have with the natural world, which are shaped by their specific circumstances and ways of interacting with the environment. Agarwal argues that knowledge about the natural world is largely experiential, and as such, is shaped by the same social structures that shape people’s interactions with nature (126).

However, Leah Thomas takes the issue even further in her article “The Difference Between Ecofeminism & Intersectional Environmentalism”, as she highlights the importance of comprehending the historical implications of intersectionality when considering the ecofeminist viewpoint. Although she agrees that ecofeminism emphasizes the interconnectedness of the exploitation of women and the natural world under patriarchal power structures, she also recognizes that this approach may overlook the disproportionate impacts of environmental degradation on marginalized communities (2020).

Thomas reminds us that while the ecofeminist perspective primarily focuses on the connection between the oppression of women and the exploitation of the natural world, it does not consider the ways in which environmental degradation affects people of different identities, including people of color, indigenous people, LGBTQ+ individuals, low-income individuals, and others (2020). She argues that in contrast, intersectional environmentalism expands upon the ecofeminist perspective by considering the intersection of various aspects of an individual’s identity in relation to environmental issues and seeks to address the interconnectedness of environmental and social justice concerns.

The concept of intersectional environmentalism recognizes the interconnectedness between various forms of oppression and the environment. In this context, a garden serves as a powerful metaphor for understanding the delicate balance of the natural world and the interdependence of all living things. Intersectional environmentalism recognizes that humans are not separate from nature but an integral part of it, and our actions have an impact on the health and wellbeing of the entire ecosystem. Plants, animals, and insects all play crucial roles in a garden’s ecosystem, highlighting the interconnectedness and fragility of nature.

Tending to a garden is not just about nurturing the plants and animals within it but also nurturing our connection to the natural world. Intersectional environmentalism emphasizes the significance of diversity in a garden as a symbol of strength as each plant and animal plays a unique role working collaboratively to promote growth and health in support of protecting and preserving the biodiversity, essential for the long-term survival of all life on earth. Ultimately, a garden is not just a physical location but also a spiritual and emotional space for reflection and contemplation where one can connect with the natural world, appreciate its beauty and complexity, and reflect on our relationship with the environment.

While ecofeminism and intersectional environmentalism both recognize the link between environmental degradation and societal problems, intersectional environmentalism expands upon the ecofeminist perspective by addressing environmental issues in a more inclusive and equitable manner and considering the intersection of various aspects of an individual’s identity to recognize the disproportionate impacts of environmental degradation on marginalized communities.

 

Works Cited:

Agarwal, Bina. “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India.” Feminist Studies, vol. 18, no. 1, 1992, pp. 119–158., https://doi.org/10.2307/3178217.

Hobgood-Oster, Laura. “Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution.” Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, edited by Bron Taylor, Continuum, London & New York , 2005, pp. 533–539, http://www.religionandnature.com/ern/sample/Hobgood-Oster–Ecofeminism.pdf.

Kings, A.E. “Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism.” Ethics and the Environment, vol. 22, no. 1, 2017, pp. 63–87., https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.22.1.04.

Thomas, Leah. “The Difference between Ecofeminism & Intersectional Environmentalism.” The Good Trade, 11 Aug. 2020, https://www.thegoodtrade.com/features/ecofeminism-intersectional-environmentalism-difference/.

Women in power are playing a significant role in promoting state environmentalism. In their 2005 study “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism”, Kari Norgaard and Richard York analyzed the factors that influence state environmentalism and the ratification of environmental treaties. The study shows that a critical aspect of effecting change in the realm of environmental issues and climate change mitigation involves the equitable inclusion of women in legal policies as a higher representation of women in parliamentary bodies is associated with an increased likelihood of ratifying environmental treaties. Also, the correlation between gender representation and state environmentalism appears to be more pronounced than any other factor examined.

Additionally, Norgaard and York’s research has found a concerning correlation between foreign direct investment and a lack of focus on environmentalism in smaller countries, which may prioritize economic growth over environmental concerns. This raises questions about whether developed nations like the U.S. and U.K. prioritize their own economic interests over global environmental protection. The study also suggests that capitalism itself may be contributing to the environmental crisis, emphasizing the need for international action. In light of these findings, countries that provide foreign aid may not necessarily support greener policies in recipient nations, thereby emphasizing the critical need for prompt and decisive action on a global scale (513).

Furthermore, feminist theorists have long argued that sexism and environmental degradation share common structural elements or mutually reinforcing factors. Norgaard and York’s findings support this claim, as well as the idea that gender differences in environmental concern, risk perception, and social movement participation may have broader social implications, potentially influencing state policy. The UN Commission on the Status of Women has called for a minimum of 30 percent female representation in Parliament for women to have a meaningful impact on decision-making, yet as of 1999, only eight of 130 nations met this threshold (514). This underscores the need for increased female representation in politics to promote gender-sensitive and environmentally conscious policies.

To highlight this need, Norgaard and York focus on two countries, Norway and Singapore, to further delve into the relationship between gender and the ratification of environmental treaties. According to Norgaard and York, the two countries, despite being affluent, show different levels of support for both gender equality and environmental treaties; however, Norway has a high level of support for both, with a significant percentage of women in Parliament and ratification of a large number of treaties, while Singapore shows low levels of support for both measures (515).

Women Leading the Charge: A Look at Two Influential State Environmental Policy Makers

As demonstrated by Norgaard and York, the leadership of women in power is crucial in promoting state environmentalism. By prioritizing sustainable policies that benefit both the environment and communities, they are making a significant impact in addressing the pressing environmental challenges we face.

This year, to celebrate International Women’s Day, two such leaders were named as one of Reuters’ Twenty-five Trailblazing Women Leading the Fight Against Climate Change:

 Mia Mottley, Barbados Prime Minister – (Reuters, 2023)

During COP27, Mia Mottley, the Prime Minister of Barbados, gave an impassioned speech highlighting the inequity faced by poor people in the Global South. Mottley argued that the people, whose “blood, sweat and tears financed the industrial revolution,” are now unfairly bearing the brunt of climate change, while richer nations fail to meet their commitments. This statement electrified the audience, as it spoke to the core of the issue of climate justice. Mottley’s leadership in advocating for marginalized communities has been instrumental in garnering support for the Bridgetown Initiative, which aims to revolutionize the financial system to channel trillions of dollars towards the fight against climate change.

As an elected leader with a strong mandate, Mottley has an ambitious plan to phase out fossil fuels by 2030. She envisions every home having access to solar panels and electric vehicles and has worked to implement action plans for ecosystem restoration in Latin America and the Caribbean. Her contributions extend beyond climate change, as she also co-chairs the Global Leaders Group on Antimicrobial Resistance, demonstrating her commitment to tackling global health issues. Mottley’s vision and leadership exemplify the type of bold action needed to address the complex challenges facing the world today.

Mottley’s noteworthy achievements are a reflection of her unwavering commitment to safeguarding the environment and enabling communities at a grassroots level, making her a deserving recipient of the 2021 Champions of the Earth Award  for Policy Leadership. The Champions of the Earth and Young Champions of the Earth, hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), acknowledges and celebrates the achievements of individuals, groups, and organizations whose initiatives make a profound difference in protecting the environment. These awards, which are presented on a yearly basis, are considered the UN’s most prestigious environmental honors, and aim to recognize those who have had a transformative effect on the environment (UNEP, 2023, Champions of the Earth, Laureates).

To learn more about this important award and the incredible activists who have received it, visit the Champions of the Earth website at https://www.unep.org/championsofearth/about-award.

Marina Silva, Environment Minister of Brazil – (Reuters, 2023)

Brazil’s new environment minister, Marina Silva, has a personal connection to the Amazon rainforest, as the daughter of poverty-stricken rubber tappers. Silva’s family suffered tragedy when her two sisters and mother died from diseases brought by the construction of a highway near their home. She became a trade unionist and founded the empates movement with Chico Mendes and played a key role in organizing peaceful protests against the expulsion of rubber-tapping communities from their forest homes. Mendes was assassinated by cattle ranchers, but Silva continued the fight, ultimately leading to the creation of 2-million-hectares of tropical forests as sustainable extractive reserves, managed by Amazonian traditional communities (Marina Silva, 2022).

Silva was first appointed as Brazil’s environment minister by Brazil’s then president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2003, and during her tenure, Amazonian deforestation was reduced by 70%. However, she left the role in 2008, frustrated by the lack of progress made by the government in tackling deforestation. Now, she has returned to the position under Lula’s second presidency, after he committed to taking stronger action to end deforestation. Her personal experiences and activism in defense of the Amazon rainforest make her a powerful and committed leader in the fight against deforestation, and her return to the role of environment minister is a promising sign for the future of Brazil’s environmental policies.

Silva’s impressive accomplishments, a testament to her dedication to protecting the environment and empowering local communities, earned her the 1996 Goldman Prize. The Goldman Environmental Prize is a prestigious award that recognizes grassroots environmental activists from around the world. Winners from six different continents are chosen based on their exceptional bravery and commitment to protecting the environment, often in the face of significant personal risk. Their stories serve as an inspiration to all of us, encouraging us to take action to protect the planet we call home.

To learn more about this important prize and the incredible activists who have received it, visit the Goldman Environmental Prize website at www.goldmanprize.org.

Exemplifying Female Representation and Grassroots Activism in Environmental Protection

Mia Mottley and Marina Silva personify Norgaard and York’s research and findings in different ways.

Mottley’s leadership in promoting climate justice and sustainable development aligns with their research on the critical role of female representation in promoting gender-sensitive and environmentally conscious policies. As a female leader and advocate for climate justice, Mottley embodies the idea that gender differences in environmental concern, risk perception, and social movement participation may have broader social implications, potentially influencing state policy.

In contrast, Silva’s personal and political commitment to protecting the Amazon rainforest supports Norgaard and York’s emphasis on the importance of grassroots activism in addressing environmental issues. Silva’s own experiences growing up in a rubber-tapping community and her involvement in the empates movement demonstrate the significance of community-led efforts to protect the environment. Furthermore, her leadership in organizing peaceful protests against the expulsion of rubber-tapping communities highlights the crucial role that social movements can play in addressing environmental issues, which Norgaard and York emphasize as essential for creating the political will necessary for enacting effective environmental policies.

Women leaders are paving the way for state environmentalism, setting an example for others to follow and demonstrating the importance of sustainable policies. Their efforts are critical in emphasizing the need for collective action to address environmental challenges and lead the way towards a greener future. As we navigate this urgent need for collective action, recognizing and supporting women’s leadership in politics is more critical than ever, as it will have far-reaching benefits for our planet and society.

According to the UN, the percentage of women in lower and single houses of national parliaments worldwide was 22.4% in 2015, but it has increased to 26.2% as of January 1, 2022. Women’s representation in local governments is slightly over one-third. However, if progress continues at this rate, it will take another 40 years for women and men to have equal representation in national parliaments (UN, 2022 Status Report, Goal 5). These statistics emphasize the ongoing gender inequalities in women’s representation in government, which have implications for the development of state environmental policy. (United Nations Statistics Division).

The increasing number of women in political leadership positions is driving advocacy for policies prioritizing environmental protection and community wellbeing. This shift is particularly important given the pressing environmental challenges and the need for collaborative action to mitigate climate change impacts.

THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE IS THE HAND THAT RULES THE WORLD  – A poem by William Ross Wallace (1819-1881)

 

Works Cited:

Marina Silva – Goldman Environmental Prize. Goldman Environmental Prize –, 26 Oct. 2022, www.goldmanprize.org/recipient/marina-silva.

“Mia Mottley.” Champions of the Earth, www.unep.org/championsofearth/laureates/2021/mia-mottley.

Norgaard, Kari Marie, and Richard York. “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism.” Gender & Society, vol. 19, no. 4, SAGE Publishing, Aug. 2005, pp. 506–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204273612.

Proportion of Seats Held by Women in National Parliaments (%) | Data. data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS?end=2021&start=2021&view=map.

Slavin, Terry. “Twenty-five Trailblazing Women Leading the Fight Against Climate Change.” Reuters, 10 Mar. 2023, www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/twenty-five-trailblazing-women-leading-fight-against-climate-change-2023-03-07.

Advertising is a pervasive force in our society, and it has the power to influence our beliefs, values, and behaviors. While advertising can be an effective means of promoting products and services, it can also cross the line of decency by exploiting or harming individuals or groups. Unfortunately, marketing fails to consider the ethical implications of advertising and its impact on society, particularly in terms of perpetuating harmful stereotypes, objectifying and sexualizing women and animals, and promoting the consumption of animal products without regard for their welfare.

The billboard featuring the popular slogan “Pork: The other white meat” is a prime example of the kind of messaging that Carol Adams argues contributes to the “war on compassion” towards animals in industrial societies. In her article, The War on Compassion, Adams highlights that “the ‘massification’ of beings is a contributing factor to this phenomenon” (14). As she notes in her book The Sexual Politics of Meat, “mass terms are linked to subjects being diminished [and] in their diminishment, all that is left for them is to become metaphors for others” (Adams 6), allowing for a dilution of our attention and compassion. The advertisement’s focus on the color of pork meat rather than the animal it originated from, reinforces the idea that animals are mere commodities to be consumed without any regard for their emotional or physical wellbeing. This mentality allows for the acceptance of the animals’ suffering, which is necessary for our consumption, and their emotional lives to be ignored.

Moreover, the phrase “the other white meat” used in the ad attempts to rebrand pork as a healthier, leaner alternative to other meats, while conveniently ignoring the negative impacts of industrial animal agriculture on animals and the environment. Marketing campaigns for meat products frequently stress the health benefits of meat consumption, while ignoring the negative environmental and ethical impacts of industrial animal agriculture.

Furthermore, the use of the word “other” in the ad implies that pork is somehow separate from or not as important as other meats, which reinforces the idea and message that “humans use their intelligence, nonhumans are instinctive; humans love, nonhumans mate; humans cultivate friendships, nonhumans have ‘affliative behavior’; humans are humane, cultivated, refined, nonhumans are beasts, brutal” (Dunayer as cited in Adams 2010).

The ad above is an example of the kind of cultural messaging that “contains all that we imagine to be good and powerful on the side of white males”(Kemmerer ). The phrase “man up” used in the ad reinforces the harmful notion that to be a “real man,” one must consume meat and animal products, despite the negative impacts on animals and the environment.

The advertisement reinforces the cultural stereotype that meat consumption is crucial for a robust, manly identity, which further perpetuates this notion. It portrays a man devouring a burger loaded with twice the amount of bacon, further solidifying the belief that animals are merely objects to be consumed, without any consideration for their welfare or emotional experiences. The agricultural industry treats animals as machines, solely producing meat, milk, and eggs for human consumption, disregarding their emotional lives and accepting their physical and psychological pain as necessary. Furthermore, it perpetuates the “war on compassion” towards animals and reinforces harmful cultural stereotypes around meat consumption and masculinity, as outlined by Carol Adams in her article.

Of all the images Adams includes in her book, the ad of a woman in perhaps the most vulnerable position known to mankind, really struck me as the most disrespectful to life, both human and non-human. This ad is a prime example of the way in which the meat industry crosses the line of decency in fostering the objectification and dehumanization of women and animals as a means of promoting the consumption of meat and to sell products.

The advertisement uses a disturbing image of a newborn baby being substituted for a hamburger to convey that food is as essential as a child. The image also presents a disturbing portrayal of women as being mere “consumables,” whose primary purpose is to bear and nurture food for men. As Carol Adams aptly puts it, “Meat is like pornography: before it was someone’s fun, it was someone’s life” (Kemmerer, 1).

The ad further promotes the harmful idea that women’s worth is tied to their ability to satisfy male desires. By portraying the mother’s role as that of a machine that produces offspring, like the mass-producing machines in meat factories, the ad implies that women are merely instruments to serve the needs of others, rather than individuals with their own unique identities.

These harmful gender stereotypes dehumanize women, reducing them to objects to be consumed and perpetuating the troubling view of womanhood presented in the image. The portrayal of women as machines that produce offspring suggests that their bodies exist solely for the purpose of bearing children, reinforcing the idea that they are sexual objects for male pleasure and consumption.

The advertisement is a striking example of how advertisers use subliminal messaging to sell their products by tapping into deep-seated cultural beliefs and stereotypes about women and reinforcing them through provocative imagery.

These depictions perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and dehumanize women, reducing them to mere objects rather than full human beings with complex identities and experiences. Such imagery has no place in a society that values gender equality and human dignity.

Domination and sexualization go hand in hand, and this image can be interpreted as a representation of male domination over both women and non-human animals. One way in which this domination is depicted is through the portrayal of the man as physically strong and dominant, and the chicken as a passive and submissive being.

Looking closely at the image, it is clear to see that the positioning of the chicken with its bottom lifted off the board and seemingly aligned with the man’s pelvis, adds an additional layer of sexualization and objectification to the scene. This kind of objectification reduces both women and animals to mere objects for male pleasure or convenience, perpetuating harmful gender and species stereotypes that contribute to the domination of certain groups by others.

Additionally, the act of bondage in the image alters the balance of power and can be used as a tool of control. The man’s hand gripping the twine and the tight jerking motion could be interpreted as a demonstration of his control over the chicken.

 

These two images can contribute to the perception that it is acceptable for men to exert control and power over others and that “animals are inherently passive objects whose only role in life is to serve the human enterprise” (Karen Davis as cited in Adams, 2010).

The objectification of animals in images often fails to acknowledge their inherent value and dignity. Instead, they are portrayed as mere objects for human use, reinforcing the idea that animals are not sentient beings with their own interests and agency. This kind of objectification extends beyond animals and can also be applied to women, who may be similarly treated as objects for male pleasure or conveniences.

It is important to note that the absence of women in certain objectifying images involving animals can lead to people ignoring the harmful gender stereotypes being perpetuated, as some may believe that “because women are not being depicted, no one is seen as being harmed and so no one has to be accountable. Everyone can enjoy the degradation of women without being honest about it” (Adams as cited in Kemmerer, 2003). Here, Adams underscores the danger of objectifying images and messages that contribute to the domination of certain groups by others. The video below is an example of Adams’ theory.

The video below is another example of the degradation of women and sexualization of non-human animals for profit. The trailer is for a cookbook parody of the Fifty Shades of Grey book series by E. L. James.

It is crucial to challenge and reject these kinds of objectifying images and messages to ensure that all living beings, both human and non-human, are treated with respect and dignity. By recognizing the inherent value and agency of animals and women, we can promote a society that values the autonomy and welfare of all living beings.

Works Cited:

Adams, Carol J. “Examples of the Sexual Politics of Meat.” Carol J. Adams, 2018, https://caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/.

Kemmerer, Lisa. “The Pornography of Meat by Carol Adams.” Philosophy Now, 2006, https://philosophynow.org/issues/56/The_Pornography_of_Meat_by_Carol_Adams.

Potts, Annie, and Carol J. Adams. “The Politics of Carol J. Adams.” Antennae, no. 14, 2010, pp. 12–24., https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54792ff7e4b0674c74cb719d/t/55dc8dace4b0ad76d7277cb7/1440517548517/ANTENNAE+ISSUE+14.pdf. Accessed 3  Mar. 2023.