In all four sources Ivone Gebara’s Ecofeminism: A Latin American Perspective, Wangari Maathai’s Speak Truth to Power, the Vice article on Brazilian slum children, and Why the Chipko Movement is more important than ever there is a clear connection between the oppression of women and the oppression of nature. Gebara argues that patriarchy, capitalism, and religious hierarchy contribute to both environmental destruction and gender oppression. Furthermore she suggests that these instances of violence are cyclical and while some individuals can be helped, ultimately the foundations are rooted in domination (Gebara 96). Similarly, Maathai highlights how corruption and poor governance not only harm ecosystems but also disenfranchise women and marginalized groups, who often bear the brunt of environmental degradation, she uses her personal experience of facing intimidation and abuse from the government as an example of this disenfranchisement (Maathai 2000). In both Gebara’s and Maathai’s perspectives, women are positioned as the primary caregivers of nature and community, making them more vulnerable when natural resources are depleted. In the Brazilian slum context, women and children disproportionately suffer from polluted environments, lacking access to clean water and sanitation. The Brazilian slum children suffer not just from poverty but from systemic neglect that allows their communities to become dumping grounds which lends itself to Gebara’s claims on systemic violence finally, their marginalization is reinforced by environmental decay (Correa 2014). Like Gebara and Maathai, the Chipko article highlights the ecofeminist perspective that women have an instinct for nurturing both nature and community. The Chipko movement led by rural Indian women demonstrated how environmental degradation directly affects women’s daily lives, making them natural leaders in conservation efforts. This aligns with Maathai’s Green Belt Movement and Gebara’s call for grassroots action led by marginalized communities, as they can relate their lived experiences while creating solutions for structural issues. Both Gebara and Maathai, and the Chipko stress or use of grassroots movements in challenging these oppressive structures. Gebara advocates for an ethics of care, solidarity, and interconnectedness that prioritizes the survival and dignity of the most vulnerable (Gebara 101). Maathai’s Green Belt Movement, for instance, empowered women through environmental restoration, showing that reclaiming nature is also an act of reclaiming power. In the Chipko article a replication of the movement is called for, as the violence done on women and the environment is rapidly increasing.

I agree that marginalized communities that are impacted by loss of material deprivations and culture are systemic in nature. Further, I feel that environmental justice cannot be separated from social justice which incorporates a intersectional approach we discussed last week. A powerful quote from Gebara’s article support this claim ” this structure has no way to overcome poverty because it is not rooted in egalitarian social principles. This structure reproduces the circle of dependence and violence. You can help some people but you can’t change a hierarchical structure that reproduces unfair situations,” (Gebara 96). We live in a culture that emphasizes individuation, competition, and domination, the structures that reinforce that are capitalism, patriarchy, imperialism, etc, are in foundational in our country particular, but across others as well. For this reason these losses will continue to occur and the environment is further impacted.

The ecofeminist web perspective is a framework that understands the interconnectedness of social, environmental, and political systems. Ecofeminism posits that the exploitation of the environment is deeply linked to the oppression of marginalized groups, particularly women, people of color, and working-class communities. This perspective emphasizes the need to address not just environmental degradation but also the intersecting social inequalities that contribute to it. For instance, the comparison of Ecofeminist perspectives we studied earlier in the course. Hobgood-Oster’s analysis of Ecofeminism is critical of domination of women and the environment, however Agarwal’s perspective on the intersections of class, race, and nationality give more context as to how the systems are created and the harm done to individuals who exist in one or more of these identities.

The web perspective is closely aligned with the concept of intersectionality. Intersectionality is a framework that examines how different forms of oppression such as those based on race, gender, class, sexuality, and etc, overlap and create unique experiences of marginalization. Leah Thomas, in The Difference Between Ecofeminism & Intersectional Environmentalism, explains that while ecofeminism and intersectional environmentalism share a common foundation, the second specifically focuses on the intersections of environmental issues and social justice for instance she writes,” “Intersectional Environmentalism addresses how the injustices happening to marginalized communities and the earth are interconnected,” ( Thomas 2020). Our unit on Women and Nature association is an example of how the injustices of women and animals are not only example of degradation of gender and species but how patriarchy plays a role in both, this is an example of intersectional environmentalism.

From an ecological standpoint, the ecofeminist perspective is critical because it broadens the scope of environmental solutions, for instance the WASH article we read proposed a solution in which women and girls were involved in solution making by supporting their education and careers into environmental concerns. Environmentalism sometimes focuses on conservation or the protection of nature without considering the ways in which social structures contribute to environmental harm as we saw in previous reading from Hobgood-Oster which mentioned the critique of essentialism, the simplifying of solutions disregards the unique experiences of human and non-animals. By integrating an intersectional approach, ecofeminism calls for a an approach to ecology that recognizes the importance of justice and equity in addressing environmental degradation. Furthermore, as Dorothy Allison discusses in A Question of Class, class and economic power dynamics play a significant role in how environmental issues are experienced. Lower-income communities, for example, often live in areas that are more susceptible to pollution and climate change, but they also have less access to resources to combat these issues. An ecofeminist, intersectional perspective calls attention to these inequities, advocating for policies and actions that are not only environmentally sustainable but also socially equitable.

Nogaard and York argue that countries with higher levels of gender equality tend to have stronger environmental policies and better environmental outcomes. They challenge the assumption that environmental performance is only shaped by economic development or political structures, illustrating the importance that gender dynamics in shaping state level environmentalism. The authors argue that countries with higher levels of women’s political representation and gender equity are more likely to adopt pro-environmental policies, an example being, the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution, which was ratified at the time that 24% of women were made up of the parliament and the prime minister was also a woman (Nogaard 515). The studies suggest women in political positions tend to prioritize environmental issues more than their male counterparts, for instance “the parallel valuing or devaluing of the reproductive labor of women and of the natural environment will likely affect both gender equality and state environmentalism,” (Nogaard 510). This is linked to research showing that women generally express stronger environmental concerns and are more likely to support conservation measures. They critique mainstream explanations that focus solely on wealth or political systems as standards of environmentalism. Instead, they argue that gender equality is a significant and overlooked factor and in conclusion they suggest that promoting gender equality could indirectly lead to stronger environmental policies.

A Call to Action for Gender Equity in Climate Leadership

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10540118/?utm_source

This article highlights that women’s leadership in government correlates with greater environmental protections, more stringent climate policies, and the ratification of environmental treaties. It emphasizes that environmental and climate policies enacted under female leadership are often more effective and promote equality. Women have historically been underrepresented in climate science and governance leadership roles. This lack of representation limits the diversity of perspectives in decision-making proceses, impacting the development of inclusive and effective climate policies. Women, especially in developing countries, are disproportionately affected by the health effects of climate change. Despite being more vulnerable to environmental hazards, their voices are often marginalized in climate discussions.Increasing the representation of women in climate leadership roles leads to more inclusive and effective environmental solutions. Women’s participation brings diverse perspectives and approaches, fostering comprehensive strategies to address climate challenges. Their proposed solutions to the inequality are policy reforms, the increase of women in leadership roles, and inclusive platforms that allow women to be actors in environmental reform.

The impact of Gender Equality on Green Innovation

https://erl.scholasticahq.com/article/36536-the-impact-of-gender-equality-on-green-innovation?utm_source=

This study investigates the relationship between gender equality and green innovation across 166 economies from 1996 to 2018. The authors explore how improvements in gender equality can enhance a country’s performance in developing and implementing environmentally friendly technologies and practices.The study finds that improvements in gender equality are positively associated with enhanced green innovation performance. Countries that promote gender equality tend to have higher rates of environmentally friendly technological advancements.The beneficial effect of gender equality on green innovation is more apparent in economies experiencing violent conflicts. This suggests that promoting gender equality is crucial strategy for creating consistent and sustainable development in challenging environments. Similar to Nogaard and York the authors come to the conclusion that there is a need to invest in gender equality to promote environmental wellbeing.

How Gender Equality impacts Conservation

https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/how-gender-equality-impacts-conservation

The World Wildlife Fund article “How Gender Equality Impacts Conservation” discusses the significant connection between gender equality and environmental well-being. Research from the CARE-WWF Alliance indicates that empowering women, particularly by involving them in natural resource management and conservation leadership roles, can lead to reduced environmental degradation. The article highlights that nations with higher levels of gender inequality often experience lower environmental well-being, suggesting a correlation between gender disparities and environmental health. By promoting gender equality and integrating women into conservation efforts, the article suggests that environmental outcomes can be improved.

A direct quote from the article that supports Nogaard and York’s thesis is “In the community institutions supported in phase two of the program, leadership positions filled by a member of a group that faced barriers increased to 87%, up 15% from the baseline. In turn, empowered women and vulnerable groups took action in their communities to adapt to the climate crisis and improve local forest management in ways that also enhanced their livelihoods. Many women went on to lead green enterprises and some were elected as rural municipality officials.” This is evidence of how gender equality in environmental policy results in the development of conservation in this particular case, but also beneficial policy to prevent further environmental degradation.

This image aligns with Adams’ argument that the objectification and subjugation of women are deeply tied to patriarchal dominance. The text in the image “Hey, b*tch. We control your bodies.”—reflects a blatant assertion of patriarchal power, reinforcing Adams’ critique of how men assume ownership over women’s autonomy. The smug expression and setting, filled with nationalist symbolism, further suggest a connection between political ideology and the enforcement of gendered control. Adams argues that patriarchal societies not only normalize but celebrate dominance over marginalized bodies—whether human or nonhuman—which is exemplified in this image through both rhetoric and demeanor.

Kemmerer uses a direct quote from Adams which sums this picture in whole, Adams coins the term ‘anthropornography’: “the depiction of nonhuman animals as whores” (p.109)” Adams also argues that patriarchal culture constructs both women and nonhuman animals as consumable objects. This mural exemplifies that by merging female sexuality with the meat industry, reinforcing the link between objectification and consumption. The pig, dressed in tight shorts and high heels, is feminized and sexualized, creating an unsettling overlap between the animal as food and as a gendered object of desire. Furthermore, the slogan “Best Butts in Georgia” reinforces the idea that both women’s bodies and animal flesh are meant for male consumption and pleasure. This reflects what Adams calls the “absent referent” the way the actual suffering and slaughter of animals is erased through humor.

Adams’ work critiques the way patriarchal cultures metaphorically and literally consume both women and animals. This cartoon aligns with her analysis of how female animal bodies are frequently used to symbolize broader social and political concerns. The animal is depicted as an exploited, exhausted maternal figure, with piglets representing vital public services draining her. This visual reinforces a narrative of depletion and overburdening, suggesting that Brexit is draining these crucial sectors rather than nourishing them. This image can also be tied to Adams’ concept of the “absent referent.” While the pig is used as a stand-in for Brexit’s impact, the actual lived experiences of both pigs and women are erased. The cartoon uses the animal as a vehicle for political critique without engaging with the implications of using female animal bodies as symbols of societal suffering.

This advertisement from Carl’s Jr. aligns closely with Carol J. Adams’ The Sexual Politics of Meat, as analyzed by Annie Potts, in its use of gendered imagery to market meat consumption. Adams argues that in patriarchal cultures, women and animals are frequently objectified in parallel ways—both reduced to consumable objects meant for male pleasure. This ad exemplifies that concept through the hyper-sexualized portrayal of a woman in a revealing bikini, holding a large, greasy burger. Adams contends that advertisements like this reinforce the idea that both women and meat are objects of male desire. The positioning of the model gazing directly at the viewer, with her body displayed mirrors the way the burger itself is presented and meant to be devoured. This aligns with Adams’ theory that women and meat are often conflated in media to reinforce patriarchal structures, where both are commodified and consumed under the guise of pleasure and power.

Based on this weeks readings, to me the knife in the meat represents the overall consumption of nonhuman animals from a diet and economic perspective. Food is a huge profit driver of the economy, and food labor and profits propel the economy. The human driving the knife represents the role in which humans play in this cycle, as overseers of food farms, autonomous in our diet decision making, and the oppressors of nonhuman animals.

One gendered food is meat. In our reading’s themes explored are: the relationship between meat and masculinity. The Huffington Post article cites studies done in 2011 and 2012 where perceptions of men’s diet in relation to meat consumption our vegetarianism/veganism are studied. In the study the article found that, “Participants from a 2012 study published in the Journal of Consumer Research rated men who ate meat as more masculine than meat-free men, and a 2011 study from Appetite journal found that vegetarian men were still viewed as manly, but vegan men were seen as effeminate,” this study is consistent with both Curtin and Gaard who offer similar findings of the relationship between men and meat which is reinforced culturally (Eisenberg 2016). Curtin provides evidence in the form of verbiage likening women to meat, here we see women as something to be consumed and dehumanized. In contrast there is the analysis of the consumption of vegetables and salads, in specific how these foods are marketed using women and for women’s consumption. Women’s physical appearances are subject to scrutiny, commodification, and objectification in misogynistic societies, to reinforce negative stereotypes about women’s bodies the idea of the ideal diet for women is one with smaller portions and greens. In conclusion, the gendering of food limits humans in their gender capacities as well as contributing to harmful antiquated stereotypes made about women and men. As we learn more about alternative diet choices, health and sustainability should be prioritized rather than ego.

“In advocating for a contextual moral vegetarianism, feminists who act in solidarity with other animal species achieve not a moral destination, but a moral direction: we can take significant actions that move us in the direction of reducing suffering,” is a direct quote from Greta Gaard which does a good job at explaining contextual moral vegetarianism. In our relationships with nonhuman animals both Curtin and Gaard are aware of humans standing as oppressors in the relationship. Curtin goes into detail of what it means to be a contextual moral vegetarian. That is to say context is important in regards to our consumption of nonhuman animals, environment, class, and culture all play a role in ones choices to consume flesh. For instance the example of The Ihalmiut, whose environment doesn’t allow for the growth and cultivation of crops for consumption, or the massive food farms that exist in countries for the specific purpose to utilize other’s resources and labors to the end of exporting goods back to western countries. Curtin emphasizes that the choice situates itself as distinct of the belief that all sentient beings have rights to their life and instead employs an ethic of care. An ethic that acknowledges that multiple contexts must be considered in regards to animal consumption, but we are autonomous beings that can and should exercise an ethic of care. Here we can transition to Gaard’s focus on the relationship of humans and pets. Gaard emphasizes the interconnectedness of all beings, urging a perspective that recognizes the shared experiences of oppression and exploitation among women, marginalized groups, and nonhuman animals. She critiques traditional human-centric views that place humans at the top of the hierarchy and see nonhumans as subordinate or merely resources for human use. She advocates for a more inclusive and empathetic perspective, acknowledging that nonhuman animals have their own agency and value. She sees nonhuman animals as beings with their own intrinsic worth and rights, deserving of respect and ethical consideration. Overall, Gaard promotes an ethics of care, advocating for a shift in how humans relate to animals and emphasizes empathy. To come back to the starting quote both authors acknowledge the contextual significance of human and nonhuman animal relationships, however they task us with a care ethic and the responsibility of taking this context into our own hands while regarding nonhuman animals as beings deserving of empathy and respect.

I chose San Francisco as my landscape, I moved to the city in 2017 and have lived here since. I’ve spent foundational years here, my early twenties, college, had multiple roommates, to solo living. I’ve spent most of my adult life here and will have been here a decade in two years, it’s seen my personal growth since I was seventeen. In regard’s to William’s bedrock democracy the city struggles, privatization and capitalism are evident in the city. Activism is a part of the city’s culture, for instance since my arrival I’ve protested in the BLM movement, Stop Asian Hate, Women’s March, and protesting the genocide in Gaza. There is a liberal, leftist, and radical population here that cannot be ignored. In some way I feel there is unity amongst those concerned with social justice, however in terms of environmental justice there is a disparity. When I think of environmental movements I think of climate change which is of great concern for many, and one where it would be fair to say citizens stand their ground in places they love (Williams 19). However, San Francisco is a major city with a multitude of issues ranging from addiction to the impacts of big tech, I feel that it environmental concerns are sometimes ushered to the background.

I do agree with Kingsolver’s belief that we need wilderness. I think that cities and wilderness can coexist and benefit us in different ways. The wilderness allows for a slower and more intentional way of life, for example the women who chose to homestead, they have brought back work our ancestors did long and successfully. While Chantel Johnson did describe her first ventures into the work as survival, it’s clear to see that the result of her work has enriching from a lifestyle perspective as well as a career one (Tiayon 2020). For myself I grew up in the Mojave Desert in California, for most of my childhood I dreamt about living in the city, the slow lifestyle didn’t suit me or my future ambitions . As I write this I am on my way back to San Francisco from my desert home, I have come to appreciate the quiet, seeing the stars, the space my parents have. I gardened with my mother who has small vegetable plants she uses for her cooking, I appreciate the time that I get there and find it necessary. Every three months I try to get out of the city and long term hope to find a decent amount of land where I can live and transition to more of a self sustainable lifestyle. Bell Hooks writes “For many years and even now, generations of black folks who migrated north to escape life in the South returned down home in search of spiritual nourishment,” I feel this applicable in a broader context for the return to wilderness and its appreciation (Hooks 367).

In the UN’s Wash program women’s experienced as water runners and lack of access to secure and sanitized hygiene products and spaces are an example of how women are impacted by environmental degradation. For women and girls, water fetching is task labored to some, lending ourself to Agarwal’s writings we can see of the lack of clean water sources wether it be from large corporations or government control, women are disproportionally affected by virtue of their gender and the labor associated with it. In Agarwal’s reading and Shiva’s interview we are provided with the example of the women of the Chipko movement, victim to deforestation their way of life was destroyed, food, and medicine, for example Shiva is quoted stating, “I learned from them about what forests mean for a rural woman in India in terms of firewood and fodder and medicinal plants and rich knowledge” (Shiva 2016). Both examples highlight how environmental degradation is experienced from a gender and labor perspective.

Non-Western ecofeminism ties the exploitation of women and nature to structures and institutions such as politics, global economies, and colonialism on indigenous or marginalized communities. There is a shift from ideological ceoncepts to the material reality, for Hobgood-Oster who addresses the concepts of domination and the links between feminism and ecology, Agarwal offers a perspective where the institutions that maintain these power structures are examined (Agarwal 126). Agarwal reinforces that belief that these communities, women in specific, are necessary in the path forward to resolution or recovery from the harm that has been done because of the backgrounds that they may come from in relation to nature. Agarwal argues that the Western model of development has often undermined local, sustainable practices and values, disproportionately harming women in non-Western societies. In contrast to Hobgood-Oster, whose reform looks like policy, it seems that Agarwal’s focus has more of a grassroots perspective.

Of the two I do find Agarwal’s perspective more appealing. I think Hobgood-Oster also offers a important focus especially in regards to the theme of domination, but I feel that themes of domination lies in the development of Western Culture and looking to Indigenous stewardship of the land does allow for marginalized groups to not only be in positions of power but educate on practices that have existed for thousands of years to be utilized for good  for humans and non-humans. How I see it is that Agarwal’s perspective is foundational for Hobgood-Oster.s For example, last weeks reading I found myself thinking about colonialism and how domination is closely linked to modern industrial movements or development in the west. That is not to say that domination is only apparent in Western cultures, but consider the Shiva biography regarding patents for seed production the scale of companies that have that much power and capital are those existing in the West. I think Agarwal’s perspective is essential in that it holds powerful groups of people or governments accountable.

Ecofeminism is a social and political movement that combines aspects of both feminism and environmentalism, advocating for the interconnectedness of gender equality, ecological sustainability, and social justice. Hobgood-Oster writes that Ecofeminism “asserts that all forms of oppression are connected and that structures of oppression must be addressed in their totality” (Hobgood-Oster, 1). Oppression enforced at the hands of patriarchal systems is linked to the violence enacted against women and nonhuman nature. By establishing hierarchies and binaries the same violence is justified by these oppressive systems, Ecofeminist Rosemary Ruether writes in Women Healing Earth: Third World Women on Ecology, Feminism, and Religion, “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,” (Ruether 1996). Ecofeminism seeks to dismantle these structures, rather than individuals, by creating a world where radical diversity is employed and relationships are not rooted in domination (Hobgood-Oster 3). While Ecofeminism seeks to employ intersectional approaches, it is still subject to critique. Essentialism, racism, classism, and the domination of Western approaches are discourse that surrounds this social and political movement. Essentialism simplifies the traits of varying races and gender resulting in solutions that may not be applicable for various identities (Hobgood-Oster 13). While the concerns of racism are apparent as well, the overtaking of conversations by white ecofeminists to the critique of those labeled as “ecofeminist” by indigenous activists. At its core, ecofeminism suggests that the exploitation of women and the exploitation of the environment are linked, often because both are dominated by patriarchal systems of power that prioritize control, domination, over care, equity, and sustainability.

The Amazon Rainforest is being deforested due to illegal logging, agricultural expansion and mining activities.The destruction of the Amazon is driven by colonial and capitalist forces, with powerful industries prioritizing profits over the well-being of Indigenous communities. Patriarchal power structures often marginalize women’s voices within these communities, exacerbating their vulnerability to ecological destruction. This is example lends itself to Ruether’s quote “no solution to the ecological crisis within a society whose fundamental model of relationships continues to be one of domination,” in the Amazon both women and nature are dominated for economical benefit and power. It is also an example of the challenges that women of color face in contrast to white women, western cultures maintain systems rooted in hierarchy that likely differ from those of Indigenous or non-western societies.

In the music video for “Spirit,” Beyoncé is deeply intertwined with nature, particularly animals and the African landscape. There are several moments in the video where Beyoncé is shown surrounded by powerful imagery of lions, trees, and vibrant landscapes. These natural elements emphasize her role as both a protector and a symbol of strength and unity in these scenes the relationship to nonhuman nature is not rooted in domination, but rather honored. Their is a scene is which Beyonce is the base of a tree symbolizing a few things, ancestry, life, and woman’s ability to create life, this is paralleled to nature and its preservation and creation of life. In conclusion the video is a great example of the Hobgood-Oster reading and its description of Ecofeminsim in relation to human relationships with nonhuman nature, it also illustrates the similarity in which womanhood and nature are described as nurturing.

Hello, my name is Amaia. I live in San Francisco and work full-time as a retail manager. I transferred to Umass in 2023 and am hoping to graduate in the winter. I am a Women and Gender studies major. I hope to pursue a career in HR and DEI if it still exists by the time I am finished with undergrad.

The Feminist Giant stood out to me, the author of the blog has an extensive career in journalism and creates/curates feminist content. I appreciate that the content is not solely US focused, articles range from issues in Egypt, US, and various countries. The blog maintains a focus on feminism. As a WGS major this blog would be a model in the way that the content would be similar. In contrast to the Feminist Giant I’d like to expand on my focus. I would focus on feminism and patriarchy, but also environmental concerns, globalization, economic factors.

Living in San Francisco gives me access to many sites and groups of activism. Environmentally, a concern localized to the community in Hunter’s Point is a site of nuclear and toxic waste. The waste is a result of the dumping/runoff of toxic waste into the shipyard site. Due to factors such as climate change the threat of this toxic waste is a threat to water in these neighborhoods, amongst concerns of flooding and other unpreventable natural disasters. It is also important to note that the neighborhood is predominately black and low income. So in these particular case you have intersections of class, race, and environmental factors. The links below are from a the US government and a local radio show to give two perspectives.

https://www.kqed.org/science/1979614/for-these-black-bayview-hunters-point-residents-reparations-include-safeguarding-against-rising-toxic-contamination

https://www.sf.gov/hpns-cleanup-learn