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.