Month: February 2025

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Untitled by Natalia Lavrinenko from Pixabay

Ecofeminists associate the “oppression of women [with] the oppression of animals—” prevalent in depictions and perceptions of food; they believe a solution for improved quality of life (for humans and animals, alike) requires challenging human/male control (Gaard 20). Curtin, citing Carol Adams, acknowledges the woman-animal connection “through pornographic representations of women as “meat” ready to be carved up;” (Curtin). Choosing the picture of an unidentifiable human, carving slices of meat punctuates parallels between the control/exploitation and devaluation of women and animals by human (male-centric) society. This depiction of meat displays a killed animal in a “marketable/desirable” image through fragmentation which, Gillis & Jacobs explain, is “the reduction of a person to a particular body part” (220). This modeling/photography technique emphasizes the allure of a woman’s body parts, rather than her entire being/identity. In the image, the chef carving meat highlights individual slices, not the animal (and valued life) it came from. The placement of knives is also revealing—one knife, perpendicular to the cutting board (through the meat’s center) is reminiscent of a flag planted in conquered land; meanwhile, the horizontal knife, slicing the meat, lays in the chef’s arms as one holds a rifle. The chef may be a non-gendered entity, but the context of war/conquest suggests human dominance over animals (a form of cultural imperialism, which Gaard states “is enough to consider those experiencing it to be oppressed” (20)). In a module on vegetarian ecofeminism, a picture comparing meat to conquered land details the harm privileged men inflict on animals, women, and diverse groups in asserting their control. Despite Curtin’s argument: “men, athletes[,] and soldiers in particular, are associated with red meat and activity…whereas women are associated with vegetables and passivity,” Gaard observes, “animal pejoratives are used to dehumanize women,” reinforcing these connections over time (Curtin; Gaard 20). Animal terms describing people differ—implying activity/power in men and passivity/weakness/sexuality in women (i.e., characterization of a wolf versus a vixen). In this image, the (animal) meat is a passive object while a (human) figure is actively carving, linking exploitation of women and animals, by men and humanity, respectively. As Gaard writes, humans abuse “the labor of wild and domestic nonhuman animals, their reproduction and their bodies”—this exploitation prevails in human interactions: women make less money for equal work, and “in cultures where food preparation is primarily understood as women’s work, starvation is primarily a women’s issue” (Gaard 20; Curtin). Curtin believes ecofeminism “emphasizes that one’s body is oneself, and that by inflicting violence needlessly, one’s bodily self becomes a context for [such] violence,” and Gaard (citing Young) defines cultural imperialism as “experiencing ‘how the dominant meanings of a society render the particular perspective of one’s…group invisible at the same time as they stereotype one’s group and mark it out as Other’” (Curtin; Gaard 20). These two philosophies agree that normalizing systemic violence causes women/animals to internalize abuse: systems of inequality ignore victims’ experience—further ostracizing survivors—and devalue their existence to sanction continued harm. The image’s lack of identifiable/living features in the meat, and the human figure, acknowledges neither the perspective of the former animal nor the person: in essence, allowing humanity to harm animals without consideration or guilt. Objectification, “‘seeing and/or treating a person…as an object,’” usually pertains to people, but in this instance, I extend its meaning to all sentient beings (Gillis & Jacobs 219). Masculine social standards have historically harmed women and animals. To overcome sexism, feminism should recognize how human-animal conflict reflects relations between men and women (among other diverse individuals) to promote expansive well-being.

Gendering food is one method of reinforcing human privilege and gender norms, furthering women’s/animals’ oppression. One example of gendered foods/food-eating practices is believing meat consumption is “manly.” According to Eisenberg, “researchers found that after consumers experience a threat to their masculinity, the availability of a meat dish lowered their anxiety back to the level of an unthreatened control group.” However, a vegan/vegetarian option did not offer the same relief. This may suggest men assert control over nature (animals) to alleviate emotion or validate their masculinity. Though, Gaard argues, women also find comfort in control: “many people…believe that their well-being can be attained and enjoyed independently of—and even, at the expense of—the well-being of others, both human and non-human” (21). Given social acceptance/preference for perceived masculine qualities (like rationality or power), systems of oppression and domination reinforce the subordination of women/femininity and animals (and assumed attributes: emotionality and weakness). Moral vegetarianism in men “mark[s] the decision to stand in solidarity with women’ and ‘resist ideological pressures to become a ‘real man’” (Curtin). Men can support women by recognizing, and challenging, social beliefs/practices that harm/devalue women and nature/animals (noted above), while challenging toxic masculinity which harms their well-being, too. A second gendered assumption around food is the devaluation of femininity, expecting women/females (and animals) to naturally provide for the socially dominant group (men, humans). Gaard writes, “for centuries, ‘pet’ species have been socially constructed to create animal bodies and behaviors most serviceable to humans—” similarly, Curtin notes, “the consumption of eggs and milk…exploit the reproductive capacities of the female” (Gaard 21; Curtin). Men control women’s reproductivity through legislation (abortion bans) or the threat of violence, thus women and animals experience similar constrictions throughout their lives.

Ecofeminists perceive non-human animals as victims of violence, exploitation, and human control, akin to women in patriarchal societies. Human relations with animals are unequal. People are the oppressors, and animals are the oppressed. Gaard writes, domesticated pets “are often denied full expression of their natural urges” due to human ownership; “sows are confined their entire lives and ‘repeatedly artificially inseminated…to produce pigs for consumption;” and Curtin observes, “women, more than men, experience the effects of culturally sanctioned oppressive attitudes toward the appropriate shape of the body” (Gaard 20; Curtin). In animal (and sexist) oppression, human (male) control and perception construct the oppressed being’s life. Just as people dictate animals’ lives, rules men define influence women’s lives. Consider, people cage animals for transportation somewhere humans designate. Similarly, women follow a system limiting their autonomy on the assumption of male violence/control (never walk alone at night, carry your keys like a weapon, avoid distractions, as threats are everywhere)—neither women nor animals may presume their freedom or safety. Curtin writes, “Since the consumption of eggs and milk…[both] exploit the reproductive capacities of the female, vegetarianism is not a gender neutral issue.” Reproductive rights are an issue of autonomy, regardless of the species. With human mistreatment of animals, it is evident that the control which humanity asserts over nature/animals is the same as men use to dominate women. In respecting women’s autonomy, we must also condemn the exploitation of nature and non-human animals.

Works Cited

Curtin, Deane. “Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care.” Hypathia, No. 6, Spring 1991, pp. 68-71, Acrobat Version, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 24 February 2025.

Eisenberg, Zoe. “Meat Heads: New Study Focuses on How Meat Consumption Alters Men’s Self-Perceived Levels of Masculinity.” HuffPost, 13 January 2016, 13 January 2017, Online. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/meat-heads-new-study-focuses_b_8964048. Accessed 24 February 2025.

Gaard, Greta. “Ecofeminism on the Wing: Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations.” Women & Environments, Fall 2001. University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 24 February 2025.

Gillis, Melissa J., and Andrew T. Jacobs. “Chapter 7: Embodiment, Beauty, and the Viewer.” Introduction to Women’s and Gender Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2017, 2020, New York, pp. 219-220. Accessed 24 February 2025.

An Apple Orchard by Piper Shogren

            I cannot present a landscape that informs who I am and carries my whole history in one photograph. Nevertheless, I’ve chosen a picture of a walking path through an apple orchard. To properly explain this choice, however, I must first answer the other questions from the prompt.

            Williams’ “Bedrock Democracy” is a system wherein we all care for nature/a landscape which defines us: a place which “informs who we are…carries our history, our dreams, [and] holds us to a moral line of behavior that transcends thought” (19). The orchard’s land provides for humanity; however, this place does not function as a Bedrock Democracy. According to bell hooks, “the way we regard land and nature will determine the level of our self-regard” (368). From what I can tell on their website, humanity is not providing as much care for the orchard as they receive. They market themselves as having many attractions and events, but do not mention much about care for the environment. Thus, this place is not necessarily a system of mutual care, so much as human enjoyment/development in a natural location which has been controlled by humanity.

            Kingsolver argues we need wildness as it humbles us, “reminds us that our plans are small and somewhat absurd;” nature does many miraculous things (like food growing from the ground), proving humanity is not superior (2). I agree with this perspective, and her statement, “these places own me: They hold my history, my passions and my capacity for honest work” (Kingsolver 1). Nature and wildness not only offers what we need to survive physically, it can teach us about ourselves and our past. According to bell hooks, “working the land provides a location where folks can experience a sense of personal power and well-being” (365). Further, after emancipation, “many Black people returned to the South, seeking ‘spiritual nourishment;’ they wanted to heal by ‘reaffirming one’s connection to nature’” (hooks 367). Considering both perspectives, nature interacts with humanity—offering physical and emotional sustenance. I am reminded of Agarwal’s description of “knowledge…acquired via traditional forms of interacting with nature” (136). Connecting with nature reminds us: a balanced ecosystem works to provide for all creatures. At the same time, seeing nature (and human interactions with it) through an ecofeminist lens offers us clarity about things we used to take for granted. For example, recognizing how water pollution has historically harmed marginalized communities (for example, in Flint, Michigan) reminds us to support environmental protections in the present and future, as well as assisting diverse groups who are more vulnerable to the devastating effects of environmental degradation. When we recognize nature/the environment’s influence over everything in human life, we realize (patriarchal) human efforts to control/use nature for our own purposes are futile, ultimately harming us as well.

            I believe everyone can connect with Earth/nature and their history, regardless of their location, but what this connection looks like may differ between people. City dwellers can connect with the Earth and their history through the arts and stories even if they are unable to travel to the place or experience all the wonders of nature in person. In particular, I am reminded of Cait Nishimura, a composer whose music I played in high school band. Her Lake Superior Suite is a collection of five movements “inspired by the landscapes of five provincial and national parks along the northern shoreline of Lake Superior in Ontario, Canada” (Nishimura). The fourth movement, Neys, includes the following program note:

Neys Provincial Park was formerly a prisoner of war camp and a processing site for Japanese-Canadians who were interned and forcibly relocated from British Columbia to Ontario during WWII. Much of the old growth forest was cut down to build the POW camp, and trees were later re-planted in rows. Slow and steady melodic fragments represent the solemn voices of this beautiful but remote location, while the gradual build toward the climax evokes feelings of destruction, anguish, and yearning for peace. Neys is dedicated with love to the composer’s grandparents (Nishimura).

            In her music, Ms. Nishimura frequently employs musical elements (dynamics, articulations) to evoke natural phenomena, and her pieces usually connect human life to symbols of nature. Her work, Chasing Sunlight, uses steady eighth notes to represent a sense of urgency, and “lyrical themes depict the warmth and radiance of the sun low in the sky” (Nishimura). Her music allows performers and listeners to connect with nature and her stories (also allowing her to express/connect with her own history), even if they are not in the exact setting she presents—the combined musical elements evoke the sensations as poetic imagery would.

            Beyond music, I believe visual arts and literature, clearly depicting the environment’s beauty, can also help an audience connect with nature and their history. Through poetic elements such as imagery and metaphor, literature establishes a relationship between nature and the reader, proving both are valuable. Consider a line from the sixth stanza of Walt Whitman’s Song of Myself, “Or I guess the grass is itself a child, the produced babe of the vegetation.” Comparing grass/earth to a child, and the former mystery of grass in a previous line, suggests nature is both mysterious and inherently valuable, something to respect and appreciate. I connect most with my history through art, and when nature is incorporated into a work, I can interact with both in a way that holds significant meaning for me. And, living in the city, sometimes art is one of the best ways for me to experience nature when all that surrounds me is mostly human made.

            Considering everything above, why might the apple orchard be a landscape which informs who I am, or carries my history? Regardless of the level of care the orchard receives from others, I wanted to care for, and respect, the nature of the place. I also recognize how it holds meaning for me. Apples have historically symbolized knowledge, as well as love, two things which I value in my life. The apple orchard, the setting of my fifth date with my girlfriend, is also significant as a place where I felt safe to be my authentic, queer self: a privilege not all people have, but a right I believe everyone deserves. It is because I care about happiness and justice for all people and nature that I wanted to take this class. I hope to make the world better/more inclusive, and that means I must first learn about what inequalities currently exist. That is something I discover through the personal narratives of diverse people. Recognizing Earth’s narrative, through natural phenomenon (storms, fires, etc.), I can understand what changes need to be made to support the globe in healing (nature, animal, and human). I hope to gain knowledge from many perspectives to inform my actions in supporting diversity and inclusivity. In the words of Williams, pertaining to the Navajo oral tradition, “the stories they told animated the country, made the landscape palpable and the people accountable to the health of the land, its creatures, and each other” (4). We can all live better lives if we listen to each other, and find sustainable, respectful solutions so we may heal from previous harm (i.e., environmental degradation, or social inequalities). I hope I can uphold this belief whether I’m sharing my own stories or acknowledging someone else’s experience.

Works Cited

Agarwal, Bina. “The Gender and Environment Debate.” Feminist Studies. Spring 1992. Web. www.jstor.org/stable/3178217. Accessed 18 February 2025.

hooks, bell. “Touching the Earth.” Moral Ground: Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril, Trinity University Press, San Antonio, 2011. pp. 363-368. University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 18 February 2025.

Kingsolver, Barbara. “Knowing Our Place.” n.p. n.d. University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 18 February 2025.

Nishimura, Cait. “Chasing Sunlight (Piano); Into the Blue; Lake Superior Suite.” Cait Nishimura Music, 2025. caitnishimura.com/. Accessed 18 February 2025.

Whitman, Walt. “Song of Myself.” Leaves of Grass, Norton. Final “Death-Bed” edition. 1892, 1973. Accessed 18 February 2025.

Williams, Terry Tempest. “Home Work.” Red: Passion and Patience in the Desert, kindle edition, Vintage, 2008. pp. 3-19. University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 18 February 2025.

n.a. “Minnetonka Orchard.” Minnetonka Orchard, 2024. minnetonkaorchardmn.com/. Accessed 18 February 2025.

 

 

 

 

Image by Dellon Thomas from Pixabay

Environmental degradation harms women in the Global South. Commonly, women are “responsible for fetching fuel and fodder,” the primary cultivators (Agarwal 126). These women’s interactions with nature, and shared knowledge from mothers, evoke a strong reaction to environmental degradation. The poor depend on land for use and sale, compared to wealthier households, and nature’s health impacts the wellbeing of rural populations who rely on rivers and streams to obtain “water for irrigation, drinking, and various domestic uses” (Agarwal 129). Young girls suffer from poverty accompanying environmental degradation; reduced education and collection of natural resources lead “to higher fertility in the long-term” and devaluing of women’s status and contributions (Agarwal 134). United Nations Water states, “long journeys by foot [furthered by depleting natural resources] leave women and girls vulnerable to attack and often precludes them from school or earning an income” (UN Water). Personal hardships and ecological degradation contribute to increased suicide rates, while crop production and income decreases as women resort to gathering when men are away (Agarwal 138,140). Poverty precipitates harmful economic solutions—people consume less nutritious and/or improperly-cooked food or miss meals (Agarwal 140). Women affected by environmental degradation also experience water-borne disease (from pollution,) arthritis, and gynecological issues from extensive physical labor. In societies with greater connection to nature (such as Indigenous cultures,) people’s displacement disrupts social networks, and erodes culture/ways of living. Privileged businesses degrade nature for profit, harming Indigenous practices and relationship to the land—a “symbolic’ connection ‘suffused with cultural meanings and nuances, and woven into their songs and legends of origin” (Agarwal 142). In India, with British colonization and expanding population, land, once feeding the Indian people, provided for the British empire (Shiva & London). The Navdanya organization’s Statement of Concern mentions a “crisis…caused by the creation of monocultures and the reduction…of biological and cultural diversity” (Navdanya). Overall, environmental harm and nature’s devaluation (trademarks of Western patriarchal colonialism) aligns with women’s oppression and struggles.

Western and non-Western ecofeminists recognize, “feminist theory and practice must include an ecological perspective, while solutions to ecological problems must include a feminist perspective” (McHenry). Ecofeminists agree, there is a link between “the oppression of women under patriarchy and the oppression of nature/the environment” (McHenry). Both views acknowledge we must address beliefs about (and oppression of) nature and women “from both fronts” (Agarwal 127). Paraphrasing Ruether, Hobgood-Oster states, “classism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, naturism (a term coined by Warren) and speciesism are all intertwined” (2). Systems of oppression which harm the environment and diverse communities are quite complex. They are hard to overcome because social (and environmental) oppressions overlap—complicating social movements’ work for progress. Ecofeminism and environmental movements recognize equality and cooperation among humans and nature, rather than domination and hierarchy (Agarwal 151). Diversity is essential in preserving and improving society and natural ecosystems— “Ecofeminism’s constructive worldview…[is] modeled on both biodiversity and the feminist emphasis on the strength of difference” (Hobgood-Oster 3). Without genetic variety, “improved seeds [replacing ‘indigenously developed crop varieties’] are more susceptible to pest attacks” (Agarwal 135). In Western and non-Western ecofeminism, when theory and practice recognize diversity, and support vulnerable communities (in nature/humanity), all life is improved.

The two perspectives differ, however—Western ecofeminism (and its efforts) consider environmental protection and preservation parallel to women’s rights, whereas non-Western ecofeminists believe this essentialist, “claiming ‘those of a particular race, gender or other category share the same traits” (Hobgood-Oster 13). Rather, interactions between women and nature are complex—something necessary to acknowledge for substantial social change. Western ideology does not account for diversity among people which finds varied individual experience with nature (and oppression). Instead, ecofeminist solutions must be all-inclusive, recognizing humanity co-exists with nature in numerous ways.

Non-Western ecofeminism appeals to me and is better aligned with my values. Following standpoint theory and intersectionality, I appreciate how non-Western ecofeminism challenges essentialism in the West. In a diverse world (human/natural), strategies for global harmony and sustainability must acknowledge life’s complexity. Feminism should value nature just as it must value the experiences of diverse women/people. White women’s challenges are not the same as others; we must listen to those experiencing oppression, and work to overcome injustices. Just as humanity is filled with unique, valuable individuals, we should recognize the wonder of biodiversity. I resonate with the Indian Chipko movement’s belief, “forests cannot be reduced merely to trees and the trees to wood for commercial use, that vegetation, soil, and water form part of a complex and interrelated ecosystem” (Agarwal 148). Dr. Vandana Shiva states, “when the forest is destroyed, when the river is dammed, when the biodiversity is stolen…it is a question of survival for” marginalized agricultural producers in India (Shiva & London). Supporting nature benefits humanity. Devaluing diversity in people, nature, and knowledge increases “deforestation, desertification, salination,” and other environmental degradation; this harms all living species which rely on harmonic, natural interactions. We cannot limit ourselves to essentialist assumptions of Western ecofeminism which exclude the diversity of women, nature, and their interactions.

Works Cited

Agarwal, Bina. “The Gender and Environment Debate.” Feminist Studies. Spring 1992. Web. www.jstor.org/stable/3178217. Accessed 12 February 2025.

Hobgood-Oster, Laura. “Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution.” The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature edited by Bron Taylor; Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas; University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). 2006, 2010. Web. systemicalternatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ecofeminism.pdf. Accessed 12 February 2025.

McHenry, Kristen Abatsis, Dr. “Week 2 Learning Module: What is Ecofeminism?” University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). n.d. umassd.umassonline.net/ultra/courses/_36339_1/cl/outline. Accessed 12 February 2025.

Shiva, Vandana Dr., Scott London. “In the Footsteps of Ghandi: An Interview with Vandana Shiva.” Global Research, Center for Research on Globalization. 3 February 2016. Web. www.globalresearch.ca/in-the-footsteps-of-gandhi-an-interview-with-vandana-shiva/5505135. Accessed 12 February 2025.

n.a. “DWD’s Statement of Concern.” Navdanya. 2016. Web. www.navdanya.org/eco-feminism/declaration-for-diverse-women-for-diversity. Accessed 12 February 2025.

n.a. “Water and Gender.” United Nations, UN Water. n.d. Web. www.unwater.org/water-facts/water-and-gender. Accessed 12 February 2025.