Month: March 2023

I can hear her voice in the wind

Watching as it dances with the trees

I can feel her tears as the river flows around me

Calling, pulling me towards her

The Earth is calling me home

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust

The poem above is something I wrote a few months ago. I was pondering the different aspects of life and the cyclical nature of all of its aspects. Born of the Earth, she will eventually call us back to the dirt. The science side of things explains that the Earth gave us the nourishment we need and in death we will do the same for the Earth. And it got me thinking about how all things in life are interconnected, which leads to this week’s topic of intersectionality.

As humans, we often fail to see the smaller scale of this connectivity, as we are more consumed with the social aspects of our lives, but there is a deeper connection there with the philosophy of intersectionality. Coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, intersectionality “illuminate[s] the interconnectedness of race, class, gender, disability, sexuality, caste, religion, age and the effects which these can have… on the discrimination, oppression, and identity of women and the natural environment” (Kings).

 

Through the course of this semester, we have spent time looking at most of these aspects on a smaller scale. From the Grassroots movement in the Global South to deeper philosophical aspects of vegetarianism and the suppressed female voice in government, all of these things have a connection through the lens of ecofeminism. “Ecofeminism exposes the repression of women and the environment as interlinked and rooted in patriarchal structures”, as defined by Leah Thomas in her article, The Difference Between Ecofeminism & Intersectional Environmentalism. Thomas also defines intersectional environmentalism as “an inclusive version of environmentalism that advocates for the protection of people and the planet and addresses how the injustices happening to marginalized communities and the earth are interconnected”.

These are both very similar ideas, the difference being that ecofeminism focuses more on the patriarchal influence over the feminine interconnectedness to the environment. It does not discredit intersectional environmentalism, but more so takes what it known and examines it from a more feminist perspective. The important commonality between both philosophies, is their understanding of the ecology and our human connection to it.

 

Ecology, in the simplest of terms, is the study of the relationships between organisms and their environment. Marine biologist and conservationist,  Rachel Carson spent her life writing about the environment and history of the oceans. Her essay, Undersea, examines the smallest organisms of the ocean to the largest, poetically describing how they are all connected. But why is this relevant to ecofeminism? In understanding her teachings, we can see that all aspects of life are interconnected.

 

 

The oppression and discrimination of women can be seen when examining aspects of the environment. Within it you can find your identity. Our class, sex, gender, race, social groups, etc., all define who we are. The labels we use, and boxes we put ourselves into, all contribute to this identity, but also give us a sense of community. These connections are what make us stronger, as there is strength in numbers. To name a few, I am white, bisexual, an activist, college student, and female. I might not know anyone personally who would use the same labels but I know there is a community for each of those traits. That community is what connects me to other women (and also men because ecofeminism is not just limited to women alone). We are all of the Earth and will one day return to it.

 

“Individual elements are lost to view, only to reappear again and again in different incarnations in a kind of material immortality.” – Rachel Carson

 

While researching images for last week’s post, I came across an artist named Brian Kirhagis. His E.A.R.T.H. series are some of the images used for this post. I feel as if they capture this interconnectedness. They show a woman who is made up of different things in nature. I feel strongly that they are a visual representation of the overarching topics we’ve discussed all semester and wanted to include them. To check out the rest of his series, click here.

 

 

 

The Earth is constantly compared to women, as she is our provider of life, sustenance, and the place we call home. In previous posts, I’ve mentioned how deep this connection is and it makes sense the more you think about it. We only have one chance at keeping Mother Earth alive, so why do things that will continue to bring forth her destruction? How does the government come into play with this destruction?

In their article, Gender Equality and State Environmentalism, Norgaard and York dive into the theory that the more women that hold political titles, the more care there is for that environment. In their study, the make connections between the representation, and lack of, across numerous countries and determine if there is a positive outcome to having female representation in these positions.

They state that “women are more likely than men to express support for environmental protection” (3) and that “women are more concerned about the environment because they have been socialized to be family nurturers and caregivers” (3). Both of these statements make sense. So why is there a lack of representation? “If more women are prone to supporting the environmental movement than are men, increased representation of women in government might be expected to influence the behavior of nation-states with respect to the environment” (4).

Male centered government practices tend to be more destructive. By that I mean they disregard the smaller details of who/what they are impacting, so long as they meet their end goal; which usually is in some regard to money. Norgaard and York state that “the presence of sexism (as well as poverty and racism) enables social elites, corporations, and industry to maintain an appearance of progress and success while engaging in activities that are damaging not only to individual communities but to global ecological systems as well” (5). The first thing that came to mind when I read this is the recent discussion of The Willow Project.

The Willow Project was started by a company called ConocoPhillips with the intention of beginning new oil drilling in Alaska’s North Slope. They are set to begin drilling in 2027 and will last roughly 20 years. The company, as well as the American government, claim that this will help the state of Alaska and “put America back on the map, globally” (Harris on Colbert). And yes, that quote is from our first female Vice President; for the whole interview, click here. What they fail to tell us is how this will impact the environment, the communities, and the Earth overall.

This project will require “oiling drilling sites, compromise road access, disrupt pipelines, and a processing plant in order to aid in the production of various oils, gasses, and petroleum” (greenly.earth). Aside from the resources needed, the Arctic is already warming up at an alarming rate, sending numerous species of wildlife towards extinction. Indigenous communities are suffering from the loss of land, food, and their natural way of life. AND the amount of greenhouse gasses this project would produce will make it impossible for the US to ‘continue’ to move towards cleaner emission reductions and fight against climate change.

There is major controversy around this project as the Biden Administration just approved it but where were the voices of environmental activists? There were many who protests outside The White House and over 3 million that signed a change.org petition against this project. Our voices have been taken away from us.

The world isn’t all that bad as Sweden is working hard for a better future. The city of Stockholm has become one of the biggest hubs for environmental research and has also put their words to action. Sweden is working towards a more sustainable and environmentally friendly future through: renovating industrial areas into low-energy housing, electric transport and bikes, sustainable housing and urban parks, and numerous other accomplishments. More can be found on their site, here.

Through Norgaard and York’s research, they found that Sweden is one of the top ranking countries with women in parliament and with better care for the environment. Their “results are also consistent with theoretical claims by feminist theorists that sexism and environmental degradation are interconnected processes” (9).

The European Institute for Gender Equality discusses how women are so heavily underrepresented in the decision-making process in regard to the environment and climate change. One shocking statistic states that “26.8% of government ministers responsible for policies on the environment and climate change are women, while 73.2% are men”. They continue to state that this is the highest number of women in these positions that we’ve ever had, although female representation is still severely lacking.

Their site continues with other statistics and charts for more focused topics such as: farming, healthcare, education and international climate change discussions. I’m thankful that women are included in some of these conversations but our voices are still being overpowered by these male-centric societies. Norgaard and York conclude their article reaffirming these truths; “societies with greater overall equality might also be expected to be more environmentally friendly. Such an outcome is predicted by ecofeminist theory based on the logic of domination” (13).

Tell me your thoughts in the comments. Should the rest of the world adapt the Green Policies Sweden is working towards? How do you think the Willow Project with impact the rest of the world? Why are women still so underrepresented if the world claims to be so equal?

https://greenly.earth/en-gb/blog/ecology-news/why-is-the-conocophillips-willow-project-controversial-in-the-us

Warning: Explicit Language Used

Marketing tactics always try their best to find a way to create an image that will best sell their products. For many restaurants and food advertisements, “women are animalized and animals are sexualized and feminized” (Adams 13).  Western culture has become so focused on the fetishization of women that they are not seen as actual, living, breathing humans. Like most animals, they are only seen as a piece of meat and something to abuse.

The female experience is being controlled by misogynistic “graphic and artistic depictions, men’s description of their violence against women, women’s description of their experience of sexual violence, the use of and harm to animals’ by batterers to create control over their sexual partner, and in advertisements and other discussions of meat as food” (Adams 13). Like animals in the meat industry, women are seen as an animal who only has one purpose: to reproduce and abuse until the oppressor decides they’ve done their duty. In an interview, ecofeminist Carol J. Adams suggests “that a cycle of objectification, fragmentation, and consumption links butchering and sexual violence in our culture” (13).

“Meat advertisements show us how pornographers do this: take a defeated being, in this case a dead animal, and pose him or her according to a pornographic convention, say, a restaurant that sells dead lobsters claiming ‘Nice tail;’ barbequed pigs posed as young women (all pink, signifying whiteness), hanging on the arms of men; anorexic cows; chickens in high heels. In each case: She is dead and yet she wants it. Wants what? Wants sex; wants to be sexually used; wants to be consumed” (Adams 15). The comparison between the meat and porn industries is astonishing. Before reading Adams interview, I never once realized how similar they are. Both are done for a male audience, to lure them to satisfy their hunger; whether literal or sexual.

To advertise a “Late Nite” menu, this restaurant made the choice to give the burger legs, covered in fishnet tights, and red heels. The sexualization of a burger is completely unnecessary, yet the decision was made to draw the sign in this manner to lure in the male audience. In addition to the image, there is a thought bubble that states “Eat Me”. This erotic statement only proves how the pornography industry is ever present in other aspects of our culture. The media often states how men fetishize female legs, and how they are used to get a mans attention. Usually in movies or television shows, a woman is sent to gain favor with a man because she ‘has better legs’; meaning she is about to ‘use her assets’ to distract the ‘dumb’ man and get what she wants.

This next image is absolutely disgusting. “Breast-aurant”. You’re fucking kidding, right? Hooters is one example of the most vile sexual exploitation and obscene control over women. As if the food industry wasn’t sexualized enough, you want women to wear uncomfortable bras to make their breasts look larger, skimpy shorts, and come from the kitchen with a mans food? I’m not knocking down anyone that works there. In a man’s world, it’s hard to find a job anywhere. All over the internet there are stories of women who have worked for Hooters, sharing just a few of the ways they were being controlled while working there. Twin Peaks is another restaurant that exploits women in the same manner. The one thing that really angers me about this article is the word choice. “Augment”? This is a very obvious dig at the establishment, suggesting it undergo changes to ‘enhance it’s features’, much like a women would during any type of plastic surgery. Typically these surgeries are only done to gain favor with a man, which is a bullshit standard in this patriarchal society.

This subject I feel strongly about because I genuinely despise how women have to subject themselves to this kind of patriarchal oppression. Like I had said before, I don’t want to knock down the women that do pursue this kind of work. What makes me sick is how the men who attend these establishments feel entitled to continue to sexualize and dehumanize these women. And it’s not just with white women. Lisa Kemmerer’s article analyzes the work of Adams and furthers her sentiment in stating “advertisements with African American women, revealing African Americans as more likely to be linked with animals and nature, available to white men, and insatiable”.

This post was likely meant to be humorous however, it only shows how women are animalized in this comparison. Thanksgiving itself is a holiday built upon the rape, destruction, murder, and oppression of indigenous nations; but that is different conversation for another time. In this lascivious comparison, both women and turkey are seen as an object of consumption for male pleasure. Here, women are not human. They are not people. They are a plaything, something to be exploited, used, then tossed aside like the bone of a turkey leg when all the meat is gone.

The #womennotobjects project was created  as a protest against the sexualization of women. While not all of the advertisements in this video are food related, the argument still stands. Women are exploited and used as props in advertisements of all kinds. From alcohol to food, to  high end products like Tom Ford and Marc Jacobs, women and their animal counterparts have been defiled in these advertisements.

As I was reading the materials this week and scouring the internet for more examples of this demeaning nature between women and meat, I found myself enraged. While writing this post, I felt physically sick. It’s fucking ridiculous. This can’t be the world that we live in.

As someone who practices a vegetarian lifestyle, I do my best to purchase dairy products from decent sources. I’ve contemplated switching to veganism but if I’m being honest, it’s really difficult. The joke I regularly make is that I like my cheese and ice cream too much. After reading Adams interview and learning more about these lewd advertisements I despise everything about the meat industry. Currently, I live with my boyfriend and his father (we’re saving to buy a house but that market sucks currently too) and it’s hard enough trying to keep to a vegetarian lifestyle with someone who doesn’t understand how another human just doesn’t eat meat. I’m not sure how to go about explaining veganism and how to make that switch without causing an argument with his father; someone who refuses to accept that there other lifestyles aside from his and not just speaking on the subject of food.

Women are not animals. Animals are not sexual objects. Food is necessary for survival, not something to sexualize. Women and animals are not something to be used to satiate male hunger.