Perspectives on Ecofeminism

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.