Month: March 2025

The struggle of all people on earth is the inability to decipher “us” from “them.” We are all connected in this life, through nature. The interconnected web in which we all intersect is what makes up the ecosystem. The web of struggles which we all face, is also an example of intersectionality. Intersectionality, to me, is the crossroads of experiences which define us as individuals, but also as types of people. I am a white middle class educated woman. My little (step) brother comes from a poor family, and he identifies as gay. We live together and love one another, but our intersectionality of experiences has led us to live different lives, even after being raised together for many years after our parents were married. His experiences and mine will continue to define us as individuals. Intersectionality and ecofeminism is a fascinating study to me, best explained in a quote by Ynestra King; “Life on earth is an interconnected web, not a hierarchy. There is no natural hierarchy; human hierarchy is projected onto nature and then used to justify social domination. Therefore, ecofeminist theory seeks to show the connections between all forms of domination, including the domination of nonhuman nature, and ecofeminist practice is necessarily anti hierarchical” The Ecology of Feminist and the Feminism of Ecology (1989). I particularly enjoyed this week’s reading from Dorothy Allison and her in depth explanation of what led her to accepting herself as someone who truly believed she was “trash,” into the queer activist and survivor that she is today. She spoke of the different instances of intersectionality which she encountered as obstacles in her life as a poor lesbian woman from a broken and abusive home, and how she worked to combat these obstacles to create a new life for herself, one which would not let her be defined by societies ‘isms’. Allison writes,“What I know for sure is that class, gender, sexual preference, and prejudice—racial, ethnic, and religious—form an intricate lattice that restricts and shapes our lives, and that resistance to hatred is not a simple act. Claiming your identity in the cauldron of hatred and resistance to hatred is infinitely complicated, and worse, almost unexplainable” (Dorothy Allison, History is a Weapon, A Question of Class). The resistance to the common oppressors of women and nature is also not a simple act, and one that is also not so often blamed on one villain, but a result of centuries of idealism and intersecting notions which when examined closely, are a result of hiding ourselves, as Allison did for much of her life, and of human versus nature being “us” and “them,” the animals we consume and sexualize as a part of a normalized capitalism and overconsumption driven world. True change will take time and effort from us all, with cooperation from those who we would consider our oppressors. “Rebellion is only an occasional reaction to suffering in human history; we have infinitely more instances of submission to authority than we have examples of revolt. What we should be most concerned about is not some natural tendency toward violent uprising, but rather the inclination of people faced with an overwhelming environment of injustice to submit to it. Historically, the most terrible things – war, genocide, and slavery – have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience —Howard Zinn” (Dorothy Allison, History is a Weapon, A Question of Class). We must free ourselves from the oppression of ‘isms’ within intersectionality. Women and nature must rise above domination and strive to raise awareness and support for their interconnected cause. In one of the first ecofeminist books, New Woman/New Earth– Ruether, states: “Women must see that there can be no liberation for them and no solution to the ecological crisis within a society whose fundamental model of relationships continues to be one of domination. They must unite the demands of the women’s movement with those of the ecological movement to envision a radical reshaping of the basic socioeconomic relations and the underlying values of this [modern industrial] society (204)” (Hopgood- Oster). Women and nature merge under oppression which in turn leads to damage on the ecosystem as well as the very ones who rely on it the most, “ecofeminist intersectionality recognizes that women are likely to be amongst those most affected by environmental degradation, with those at the margins of society often experiencing these effects earliest and to the harshest degree. The attempt to reconcile and improve upon the relationship between humankind and nature is central to ecological feminist thought, as is the belief (in some cases at least) that by applying the lens of intersectionality to analysis, one is better able to understand and assess the complex relationship between humans (specifically women) and the natural world. (AE Kings, 71). The web of interconnectedness does not only apply to societal norms such as class, race, sex, or sexual orientation-but arguably more dangerous between humans and nature since the degradation of either is a threat to the other. We must work together to heal nature but this can only be done by first healing society and freeing ourselves from oppression by others. 

 

Women are more connected to the environment than men. Whether it’s through pregnancy or policy, numerous sources concur that women are at the forefront to protect the environment over men, again and again. The work of Norgaard and York supports this theory about ecofeminism. Ecofeminism is the movement which combines feminism with environmentalism which argues that both fall under the oppression of patriarchy and capitalism worldwide and which also advocates for a change in thinking and policy making in order to heal not only our perspective of women, but nature as well. The world would be a better place with more women in positions of power, especially women at the helm of governments globally. In Norgaard and Yorks paper they state, “research indicates that women are more likely than men to express support for environmental protection and that women consider a variety of environmental risks, from nuclear power to toxic substances, to be more serious than do men” (Norgaard, York, 508). Men, as in patriarchy, are more inclined to support capitalism in all of its destruction, than do women. “Explanations for the gender gap in environmental concern have built on this work, suggesting, for example, that women are more concerned about the environment because they have been socialized to be family nurturers and caregivers” (Norgaard, York, 508). Women have been known across cultures and history to be the caregivers to not only our children, but to our ecosystem. More women in positions of power directly correlates to better protection of the environment, according to Norgaard and York. How does this happen, you may wonder? Well, women have long been oppressed under men as well as many other groups of people such as indigenous people and people of color- all of whom have great ties to nature over that of the culture of colonialism and capitalism which we experience today. “This occurs because powerful groups or individuals can force the less powerful to pay the costs of environmental degradation, as is the case when young girls are employed in dangerous situations in factories because they are seen as passive and less likely to organize or when toxic materials are produced and disposed of in poor communities” (Norgaard, York, 510). Ecofeminism implies many specific ways in which gender and the environment intersect in its degradation, one being the tie between nations with higher gender inequality having less environmental responsibility as a mindset due to patriarchal standards of domination. Second, for the same reason, men are less concerned than women about the protection of the environment as it is seen (similar to childcare) as a woman’s domain. Women must see parity across international governments in order to scratch the surface of the wrongdoings against ecofeminism and the environment as a whole. “In 1990, the UN Commission on the Status of Women estimated that for women to influence key outcomes and be taken seriously, a threshold of 30 percent women in Parliament was required” (Norgaard, York, 514). The fact of the matter is that women are not being taken seriously in the global community as leaders, especially regarding concerns of the environment since it does not serve capitalist endeavors. “Global efforts aimed at developing environmental policies should therefore concentrate more on improving the status of women, including especially those efforts aimed at increasing women’s political representation” (Norgaard, York, 519). We should focus on voting for more women into positions of power in order to heal our environment, as well as our communities. The comparison goes hand in hand, as ecofeminism implies, since women and nature are both explicitly oppressed by men in the sense of patriarchy and capitalism- both of which dominate the global sphere today. According to the national library of medicine, “ecofeminism is richer than any other branch of feminism in that it strives to expose the connections between the myriad forms of oppression rooted in man’s efforts to control nature” (Dong). Men in positions of power have a long history of oppressing people and political obstacles which do not align with the patriarchal agenda. Climate change and women’s rights are both constantly pushed to the side under male dominated global government, which is why it is more important now more than ever to start to take women seriously as leaders in order to reverse and amend the damages done. According to Earth.org, “women have often been found to be more invested in social issues, including education, healthcare and environmental impacts. Research also indicated that women who hold an elected office tend to prioritise resolving tangible issues that directly affect other women, families and children. Given that women and children are disproportionately affected by climate change, women in politics have shown themselves to be more aware of environmental impacts, and integrate relevant solutions into their policy agendas” (Bove). It is essential for policy makers to understand how social issues such as feminism and environmental issues such as climate change impact all of us the same. Only when women see parity in global governments will ecofeminism be given the platform it deserves as both question and answer to the modern day struggle against patriarchy and capitalism. An illustration of a statistic which I would like to highlight is figure 3 from the source listed below from Earth.org which shows the “age and gender demographics of climate activists across 66 countries worldwide; Boucher et al; Energy Research and Social Science; 2021. The degree of women under 65 years of age and older, which goes to show the urgency and current struggle of ecofeminism is evident in this graph chart since across the board, more women than men are seen as environmental activists and at younger ages than many men who currently hold office or men in general. Women are at the forefront of the cause for environmental change worldwide, and we need to begin to take them seriously as leaders if we want this world to be habitable and equitable for all genders and races in the future. 

Bove, T. (2021, November 1). Ecofeminism: Where gender and climate change intersect. Earth.Org. https://earth.org/ecofeminism/

 

Dong, W., & Kim, S. (2022). [Retracted] Promotion and Protection of Feminism Creativity for Public environment: The integration of Ecofeminism and Public environment. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2022(1). https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5706699

 

The sexualization of meat is inherently tied to the objectification of women, without the acceptance of one, however hush hush, there would not be the acknowledgement of the other. If women were not on some level oppressed, sexualized, consumerized by the “A” column in life, then meat as it is culturally sexualized would not be so widely accepted. I mean this because the advertisements we see everyday have deeper meaning to them then a lot of people give them credit for. What do I mean by the A column? In Kemmerer’s article on Carol Adams, she discusses the likes of consumers and the consumed. In column ‘A’ we have the consumers: “Man/male, culture, human, white, mind, civilized, production, capital, clothed.” On the other hand, there are the consumed, or ‘Not A’:’ “woman/female, nature, nonhuman animal, people of color, body, primitive, reproduction, labor, naked” (Kemmerer). The importance of ‘A’ and ‘Not A’ to ecofeminism is best described by Kemmerer as, “those in category ‘Not A’ are the consumables: women, people of color, and animals. Adams analyzes advertisements with African American women, revealing African Americans as more likely to be linked with animals and nature, available to white men, and insatiable. She offers examples of African American men being linked with beasts, portrayed as savage, and as of less worth than their Caucasian counterparts” meaning the work of Carol Adams (Kemmerer). This leads me to the analysis of the first image below of world famous rapper Ludacris pictured with the logo of a chicken and beer joint, hot sauce and fried chicken, although it is not the meat he is captured as about to bite, but the shiny shaven and fit calf of a black woman. This directly correlates to the point Adams makes as pointed out in the article by Kemmerer as people of color, especially black women, are seen in the public eye as “consumable.” This is a form of anthropornography, which, “…gives you a hooker on your plate. Nonhuman animals are whoring for you. Nonhumans want you, too. Suffering? Slaughtering? Inhumane acts? No. They want it” -Adams, (Kemmerer). Not only do we see the disrespect of women, intersected with race as women of color often experience the brunt of the objectification of most races of women throughout history, but coupled with the comparison to meat as being consumable is an ecofeminist issue which demands a re-evaluation of the way we think and advertise. The second photo I chose, in the line up below, is of a news anchor comparing meat to the sexuality of men. Specifically, the photo is of a Fox News anchor holding a (gross looking) steak(?) with the caption “Study: Meat Makes Men ‘Sexy.” The correlation seems ridiculous at first glance, but having read several weeks worth of material for this particular Eco Feminism class, I see that the masculinity of men is fragile and holds on by a thread to the importance of certain cultural phenomena such as that men eat meat, and women eat salads (a point I made in my previous blog about eco-feminism and vegetarianism). This is celebrated so much, especially in the US, as pictured below in the third photo I chose from Adams’ gallery which depicts three men wearing matching “Got Maat?” t- shirts which have the outline of a scantily clad woman with the head of an animal, and a banner that reads “meat club,” at what appears to be either a tailgate or a fair booth. The club mentality of men and masculinity being tied to meat and sexuality is most obvious from this photo, in my opinion. A photo which I found on my own, pictured last is a photo taken of a billboard for a restaurant called “Mannys” which claims to have “great legs,” and to drive the point of the sexualization of meat home, there are three turkeys under the logo with women’s legs instead of turkey legs. This directly correlates to the content in the interview with Carol Adams about anthropornography as she states, “anthropornography means animals (usually species of animals presumed to be literally consumable) are presented as sexually consumable, in a way that upholds the sexual exploitation of women” (14). Turkey, which is a meat that is widely accepted as consumable on its own, is advertised further as being even more appetizing through the sexualization of meat by feminizing it. Adams states, “women are animalized and animals are sexualized and feminized” (13). Women are constantly sexualized in pornography, and since men crave the consumability of women, it is normalized and widely acceptable to compare this craving with the consumability of meat. Meat is therefore feminized regularly in advertisements. This is a concerning aspect pointed out in eco feminism, and Adams, as a vegan herself, believes that the need for the exploitation of women by men is directly correlated to the oppression and exploitation of nonhuman animals in nature as consumable by right. 

I cannot embed the mentioned photos from Adams Gallery but they are described in great detail above.

Mannys Has Great Legs Link:

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150527/loop/mannys-huge-turkey-legs-wont-be-at-taste-they-might-not-be-back/