Month: March 2025

Image by jean-pierre duretz from Pixabay

The ecofeminist interconnected (“web”) perspective is one of many interpretations of intersectionality (Kings). “Generally attributed to Kimberlé Crenshaw,” this tool challenges “a single-axis framework’ which cannot properly ‘capture the lived experiences of black women” as well as other diverse individuals whose realities have been frequently marginalized (Kings 63). Intersectionality, at a basic level, explores the various cultural identities (including, but not limited to, race, gender, sexuality, dis/ability, and class) of an individual and how those characteristics interact to either enhance or detract from one’s access to certain social privileges. Perceiving intersectionality as a “web of entanglement,” Kings suggests each web spoke represents an identity field (like gender) “while encircling spirals depict individual identities” (65). The alignment of spirals and spokes express the privilege or discrimination one experiences. As I imagine it, a person’s web may have more or less spirals depending on the level of privilege they experience in society due to that aspect of their identity. A part of this theory which I did not find to be as clear was what aspect of the web determined one’s identity. An example, does a person’s web (as related to a spider) have more spokes for privilege because they have more places to which they/spider could move on the web; conversely, is there less privilege in having more threads because the spider (diverse person) has to do more work to create threads (achieve social acceptance)?

Kings asserts, “Intersectionality has become a powerful tool when applied to ecofeminist analysis of the relationship between women and the environment, particularly in its ability to assist in furthering our understanding of how a person’s relationship with the environment (in the Global South or North) is not completely dependent on any one aspect of their lives, whether gender, race, class, sexuality or age but rather a combination of all of the above and more besides” (Kings 71). Considering intersectionality in humanity allows us to recognize complex diversity in nature. Carson’s Undersea, for example, describes the multitude of organisms which exist in the sea’s ecosystem. In a description assuming the feminine (caring and considerate, if passive) ideal of motherhood, Carson writes, “The sea is not a solicitous foster mother. The delicate eggs and fragile larvae are buffeted by storms raging across the open ocean and preyed upon by diminutive monsters, the hungry glass worms and comb jellies of the plankton” (64). Further, as intersecting identities can work simultaneously, benefitting people in one instance, yet posing a challenge in another (due to lasting social inequalities) so “the ocean is a place of paradoxes,” home to “the largest animal that ever lived” and “living things so small that your hands might scoop up as many of them as there are stars in the Milky Way” (Carson 64). To be clear, I do not invoke this comparison to suggest that inequality is natural; rather I believe the complexity of identity is inherently natural in an evolving world. Like the existence of contradictory organisms in the ocean, there can be aspects of people’s identities at odds. In my life, I identify as a white, genderqueer lesbian who is able-bodied, part of the working class (while receiving a college degree in Women’s studies), and in her mid-twenties. Many of my identity markers offer me privilege; and, in the current political climate my choice of major, sexuality, and complex gender identity are critiqued and regarded as “harmful” (by some) to a social group with which I still identify, in part (women).

Intersectional ecofeminism, recognizing the complexity of privilege and intersecting identities, as Kings states, “builds upon this foundation by further postulating that the ‘freedom’ of humanity is not only reliant on the freedom of nature and women but” for all people at points of intersection (71). Therefore, we must strive to achieve equality and opportunity for all people together, rather than gaining rights for one group, if we are to successfully overcome oppression and improve life. Intersectionality proves how human society is rather like an ecosystem. As Agarwal wrote, commercial forestry “is nature seen as individual parts rather than as an interconnected system of vegetation, soil, and water” and with continued exploitation, resources/nature are destroyed (144). Something similar can be said for human diversity, when difference is negatively emphasized, unique identities are devalued for the mythical norm (white, straight, male, etc.). Dorothy Allison draws on her experience as a poor, queer woman and expresses a similar sentiment. She writes of “the extent to which I feel myself denied: not only that I am queer in a world that hates queers, but that I was born poor into a world that despises the poor.” Devaluing diversity (in humanity and nature) ends up harming both people and Earth. The loss of biodiversity is harmful to the land, further species, and humanity. And when human systems devalue diversity, it has a negative effect on those in underrepresented communities. Williams’ work highlights this with regards to biodiversity; “it’s the fundamental loss of natural systems, free-flowing rivers, rock are pecked and painted into stone by the hands of the Ancient Ones a thousand years ago…” (6). And Allison expands upon it, writing, “we had been encouraged to destroy ourselves, made invisible because we did not fit the myths of the noble poor generated by the middle class.” These oppressions are similar; and something people (especially those with privilege) choose not to see. McIntosh writes, “since hierarchies in our society are interlocking, there was most likely a phenomenon of while privilege that was similarly denied and protected.” Ignorance about one’s privilege sustains the oppressive systems from which they benefit. According to Tatum, “in the areas where a person is a member of the dominant or advantaged social group, the category is usually not mentioned.” To overcome inequality, we must identify the aspects of our identity which provide privilege, and use the advantage it gives us to 1) lift the voices of those with less privilege; and 2) question the very systems which benefit us. As McIntosh writes, “it is an open question whether we will choose to use unearned advantage, and whether we will use any of our arbitrarily awarded power to try to reconstruct power systems on a broader base.” First, we must recognize the complex ways in which environmental and social issues interact and cause further harm (i.e., environmental racism); an example, Flint, Michigan: where lead contamination of the local water supply ended up harming a population whose majority was Black Americans (Al Jazeera, Wikipedia). From there, we need to use our privilege to advocate for change regarding social/environmental issues; whether that is in the form of political action/activism or charitable work. And, as Allison suggests, we must understand our own identities, and respect those of others to challenge the “myth that allows some to imagine that they build their lives on the ruin of others.” If we can recognize where privilege allows us to fall into this trap, we can begin adjusting our actions to support other diverse communities and nature.

Work Cited

Agarwal, Bina. “The Gender and Environment Debate.” Feminist Studies. Spring 1992. Web. jstor.org/stable/3178217. Accessed 25 March 2025.

Allison, Dorothy. “A Question of Class.” History is a Weapon, n.d. Online. historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/skinall.html. Accessed 25 March 2025.

Ferrara, E. “Rachel Carson – Undersea.” Visions for Sustainability, Volume 3, 2014, pp. 62-67; University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 25 March 2025.

Kings, A.E. “Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism.” Ethics & the Environment, Volume 22, Number 1, Spring 2017, pp. 63-87 (Article); Indiana University Press; Project Muse, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth.

muse-jhu-edu.libproxy.umassd.edu/article/660551. Accessed 25 March 2025.

McIntosh, Peggy. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Napsack.” Working Paper 189: “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming To See Correspondences through Work in Women’s Studies,” PDF, 1988. results.org/wp-content/uploads/Chapter-The-Complexity-of-Identity.pdf. Accessed 25 March 2025.

Tatum, Beverly Daniel. “The Complexity of Identity: ‘Who Am I?’” Readings for Diversity and Social Justice: An Anthology on Racism, Sexism, Anti-Semitism, Heterosexism, Classism and Ableism; Results, PDF. Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Hackman, H. W., Zuniga, X., Peters, M. L. (Eds.), Fourth Edition (pp. 9-14). New York: Routledge, 2000. results.org/wp-content/uploads/Chapter-The-Complexity-of-Identity.pdf. Accessed 25 March 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 25 March 2025.

n.a. “What is Environmental Racism?” AJ+, Al Jazeera, YouTube. 29 January 2016. Web. youtube.com/watch?v=TrbeuJRPM0o&t=1s. Accessed 25 March 2025.

n.a. “Flint, Michigan.” Wikipedia. 8 March, 2025. Web. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint,_Michigan#2020_census. Accessed 25 March 2025.

Image by Piyapong Saydaung from Pixabay

Image by David from Pixabay

Norgaard and York, in their paper, Gender Equality and State Environmentalism, found “that nations with higher proportions of women in Parliament are more prone to ratify environmental treaties than are other nations” (506). Recognizing the connection between women’s and nature’s oppression in ecofeminist theory, “nation states with greater gender inequality may be less environmentally responsible due to the hegemony of the logic of domination;” (i.e., all oppressions are interconnected) and “the parallel social and historical constructions of women and nature” maintain their subordination, thus limiting the potential for social change and equality (Norgaard and York 510). The presence of female political leaders increases a country’s respect for the environment. Norgaard and York further found “foreign direct investment reduces state environmentalism, …modernization and development generally lead to greater support for environmental treaties, …and capitalism is ecologically unsustainable” (Norgaard and York 513). Overall, there appears to be a pattern: valuing equality, sustainability, and evolution encourages progress for women’s rights and environmental protection. Citing Bruntland, the direct relationship between women/humanity and the environment finds “people have altered the earth, and the altered earth has changed people’s lives to an unprecedented degree” (Norgaard and York 516). What we do to the earth will come back to us. An example, continued global warming will increase human heat-related deaths. And global warming comes from the emission of greenhouse gases from many human developments (burning fossil fuels, industrialization, etc.). Social inequality has created a system which leaves diverse groups more vulnerable to natural disaster, despite the fact that they are usually the greatest champions of environmentalism. According to Norgaard and York, “women have more pro-environmental values, are more risk averse, and participate more frequently in environmental movements than men do” (514). Thus, when women are in positions of power, it “may serve to further ecological reforms” (Norgaard and York 519). In studying white men, compared to women and people of color, white men were the only ones “perceiving [environmental] risks as smaller and more acceptable” (Norgaard and York 518). This would suggest privilege limits a person’s view of reality’s complexity, a sort of end result of standpoint theory: one’s perspective is shaped by personal experience, and when white men have not experienced harm like people of color or women, they are not as able to connect to environmental damage, as they are unlikely to be those most affected: to recall Hobgood-Oster, early ecofeminist academia suggest “patriarchal cultural structures revolved around layers of symbol systems that justified domination” (4). When men in power, making decisions, are unaware of the relationships between women and nature, there is a greater likelihood of harm, causing environmental and women’s suffering. In order to combat further environmental/social distress, there needs to be greater parliamentary representation for women and environmentalists who can champion the issues of each party.

Two examples of Norgaard and York’s thesis on the connection between women in political power and state environmentalism include 1) Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of the United States: she introduced legislation for a Green New Deal in 2019, and again in 2021 (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez); and 2) Deb Haaland: an Indigenous woman and a supporter of the Green New Deal. Haaland served as Vice Chair on the Committee on Natural Resources, and has dedicated her political work to championing Indigenous issues. According to the UN Commission on the Status of Women, “for women to influence key outcomes and be taken seriously, a threshold of 30 percent women in Parliament was required” (Norgaard and York 514). Interestingly, yet disappointingly, this remains true today: according to the Center for American Women in Politics, in 2019, only 23.2 percent of House Representatives were women; in 2021, that increased to 27.6 percent, yet each time Representative Ocasio-Cortez introduced the legislation, she did not meet the UN threshold, and as predicted, the resolution did not pass (CAWP). Beyond the signing of legislation, these two women exemplify the connection between women in political power and state environmentalism through “cultural and economic circumstances” (Norgaard and York 518). According to Norgaard and York, “The finding that gender and race are both relevant in the United States suggests that environmental orientations may be linked to aspects of power and privilege” (518). Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s New Deal aimed at “reducing air and water pollution, and fighting the intertwined economic, social, racial and climate crises crippling the country” (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). Further, she fought to include “an expanded Child Tax Credit” in the American Rescue Plan, providing aid for families (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). Norgaard and York cite Bruntland, “a sense of responsibility for the future of our own children and grandchildren has always been an inherent part of human nature” (516). Supporting families through the Child Tax Credit when the country had been devastated by COVID-19, Representative Ocasio-Cortez exemplified “strong women’s leadership on environmental issues where human health is at stake” when she reintroduced her Green New Deal the following month (Norgaard and York 516). Her dedication to environmental action, and focus on how climate change impacts the most vulnerable communities emphasize care reflective of gender equality and state environmentalism: not only by her presence in congress, championing environmental issues, but through her understanding of the complex issues women face, and supporting both parties (Earth and women) simultaneously.

Deb Haaland, serving on the Committee of Natural Resources, and incorporating “Native participation in land management” in “President Biden’s designation of national monuments,” blended her focus on Indigenous women’s rights and environmental preservation, as the House committee has jurisdiction over “the care and allotment of Native American lands” (Wikipedia). This includes conservation, restoration, and mineral resources of public lands (to name a few). When she was Secretary of the Interior, she “ordered a task force to determine new names” for places on federally owned lands which used a derogatory term for Indigenous women (Wikipedia). The combination of these actions strove to move beyond America’s racist, sexist, and environmentally harmful history. Norgaard and York write, “gender and the environment may be linked across a variety of cultural and economic circumstances” (518). Haaland’s diverse background and political position allow her to champion environmental preservation and respect for women and Indigenous people.

The UN Commission on the Status of Women states, “for women to influence key outcomes and be taken seriously, a threshold of 30 percent women in Parliament was required” (Norgaard and York 514). One statistic illustrating Norgaard and York’s central thesis, “that nations with higher proportions of women in Parliament” encourages greater environmental responsibility, relates to Denmark in 2020. At this time, women made up 39.7 percent of Parliament, and in that same year, the country passed “the 2020 Climate Act into law,’ determined ‘to reduce Denmark’s greenhouse gas emissions by 70 [percent] in 2030 compared to 1990 levels’ (UN Women; Climate and Clean Air Coalition). Further, in February 2024, “45.3 [percent] of seats in parliament were held by women,” and data from UN Women shows, more than 95 percent of the country’s population primarily relied “on clean fuels and technology.” As the country’s representation of women in government increased, their action on environmental issues improved. Recognizing much work is still needed to achieve gender equality, with greater inclusivity in law-making, environmental and gender issues have received more attention: “Denmark’s emissions account for just 0.1 percent of total global emissions,” and “100 [percent] of legal frameworks that promote, enforce, and monitor gender equality…are in place” (Ames; UN Women). Championing women’s rights and environmental protections is essential to global well-being; and it can be done if governments around the world prioritize the representation and integration of women and nature in government positions and policy.

Work Cited

McNamara, Ames. “Going Green in Copenhagen: Denmark’s Climate Diplomacy.” Harvard International Review (HIR), 29 January 2025. hir.harvard.edu/going-green-in-copenhagen-denmarks-climate-diplomacy/. Accessed 19 March 2025.

Norgaard, Kari and Richard York. “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism.” Gender & Society, vol. 19, no. 4, August 2005, pp. 506-522; University of California-Davis; University of Oregon; University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 18 March 2025.

Strumskyte, Sigita, et. al. “Women’s Leadership in Environmental Action – Abstract.” Grassroots Justice Network, 2022, 30 October 2024. grassrootsjusticenetwork.org/resources/womens-leadership-in-environmental-action/. Accessed 18 March 2025.

n.a.₁ “About.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, n.d. ocasio-cortez.house.gov/about. Accessed 18 March 2025.

n.a.₂ “Women in the U.S. House of Representatives 2019.” Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), n.d., 2025. cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/levels-office/congress/women-us-house-representatives-2019. Accessed 18 March 2025.

n.a.₃ “Women in the U.S. House of Representatives 2021.” Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), n.d., 2025. cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-house-representatives-2021. Accessed 18 March 2025.

n.a.₄ “Denmark.” Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), n.d. ccacoalition.org/partners/denmark. Accessed 19 March 2025.

n.a.₅ “Denmark.” UN Women, n.d. data.unwomen.org/country/denmark. Accessed 19 March 2025.

n.a.₆ “Women in Politics 2020.” UN Women, 1 January 2020. unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2020/Women-in-politics-map-2020-en.pdf.  Accessed 19 March 2025.

n.a.₇ “Deb Haaland.” Wikipedia, 18 March 2025. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deb_Haaland. Accessed 19 March 2025.