Month: April 2025

Image by Lubov Lisitsa from Pixabay

Research Question:

How do societal expectations about women’s beauty influence the choices they make; and how do these choices influence the environment? (i.e., how environmentally thoughtful/harmful are beauty products/make-up)?

My Idea:

In my praxis project, I hope to understand the connection between female beauty standards, and the effects of cosmetics on the environment. Specifically, my idea is to review how mass marketing and social perspectives influence girls’/women’s body image and their resulting drive to obtain cosmetics. I want to reflect on what these standards are, and how society encourages women to align with them. In doing so, I want to understand what cosmetic choices women are making. (What items do they buy, from what companies, and how do these decisions influence the environment?) I hope to understand how healthy or harmful these choices are, and why they are made (i.e., are products sustainably made; do women feel pressured into buying, or is there enjoyment?) What hierarchal structures/inequalities (interpersonal/ human-nature) are reinforced by cosmetic companies?

My Plan:

I will review different advertisements and marketing on women’s makeup and beauty products. These advertisements will come from television, stores, and the internet. I will choose advertisements from three of the biggest cosmetic companies (Estée Lauder, L’Oréal, MAC), and review each company. In studying the companies, I plan to observe their ingredients/packaging, and policies regarding environmental ethics. I will also review articles from environmental organizations to understand what chemicals/methods are used in makeup creation which have a negative impact on women, animals, and the environment (chemical emissions, packaging, product testing, etc.) and compare those to the ingredients in the three makeup brands. In preliminary research, one article mentioned, “common issues with traditional makeup include waste, product contamination, and harmful ingredients” (Fletcher). I plan to dive further into these development decisions and their effects. I will analyze social structures which encourage cosmetic practices, and how these choices perpetuate harm (environmental/human/animal, etc.) Upon obtaining my research, I will draft an opinion piece about my discoveries; this work will detail the current beauty standards, cosmetic company choices (what influences them, and how they impact the environment), and offer more sustainable options as well as challenging common beauty standards with feminist logic.

Image by Adina Voicu from Pixabay

My Goals (What I Hope to Achieve):

In completing this project, I hope to develop a list of cosmetic brands which I will grade based on their environmental impact and their advertising impact on audiences. In developing this graded list, I hope to outline the (social/environmental) choices different brands make. It is also my goal to present how (specifically) these choices will impact the Earth/women. I will include this list in a complete analysis paper. Overall, I hope my research and developed paper can effectively argue for more environmentally sustainable practices in makeup development, and challenge harmful beauty standards and hierarchal (gender, human/nature, race/ethnicity, age, etc.) beliefs. Gebara writes, “we need to understand that these different levels of one against the other will finally destroy all of us” (97). If women recognize beauty does not need to be defined by patriarchal society, see how their financial choices impact the continued practices of makeup companies, and understand how their choices affect nature (and reflect dated ideals/systemic beliefs), perhaps my work can lessen the environmental harm of cosmetic creation/use, while also encouraging an inclusive (non-commercial) perspective on beauty.

Why My Plan Will Be Effective:

With this project, my work relates back to our units on vegetarian ecofeminism and the woman-nature connection in animal testing, or the “acquisition of raw materials” from the Earth which parallels the patriarchal view of women as consumable (Fletcher). Adams, in her Antennae interview, states, “Consumption is the fulfilment of oppression, the annihilation of will, of separate identity” (14). Cosmetics companies, like the meat market, profit off the objectification (and stripped identity) of nature/animals and women, together. By ignoring/reinforcing harmful practices (animal testing, single-use plastic products), companies cause further environmental harm. At the same time, their reliance on patriarchal/dated beauty standards as a marketing tactic (for profit) may further belief in these ideas, not only from men/observers, but from women, themselves, who might equate their image to their worth. Curtin argued, “An ecofeminist perspective emphasizes that one’s body is oneself, and that by inflicting violence needlessly, one’s bodily self becomes a context for violence.” While she was referring to vegetarianism and meat consumption, the message may be applied to cosmetics/beauty standards as well. By upholding patriarchal beauty standards in environmentally destructive ways, women become both the harmed party and (in the use of non-sustainable products) the assailants of nature. By sharing this message (with the inclusion of research,) I can encourage changes which 1) offer women agency in a patriarchal society; and 2) lead to cleaner choices to benefit the environment. To be clear, if global makeup companies were considerate of how their practices affect the environment and social standards, I would have no issue with a woman’s choice in enjoying beauty products, but this should not be out of insecurity or pressure, and nor should it do damage to Earth’s ecosystem.

Work Cited

Carol J. Adams, interview by Annie Potts. “The Politics of Carol J. Adams.” Antennae, Autumn 2010, pp. 12-24. University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 7 April 2025.

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 7 April 2025.

Fletcher, Charlie. “The Environmental and Health Impacts of the Cosmetic Industry.” Earth.org. 13 February 2023. earth.org/environmental-impacts-cosmetic-industry/. Accessed 8 April 2025.

Gebara, Ivone. “Ecofeminism: A Latin American Perspective.” Crosscurrents, Spring 2003, pp. 93-103; University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 7 April 2025.

Gutierrez, Lukas. “Beauty at What Cost? The Environmental Impact of Cosmetic Ingredients and Materials.” Sustainable Earth. 30 March 2023. sustainable-earth.org/cosmetic-ingredients/. Accessed 8 April 2025.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

As observed in the readings, connections between the oppressions of women and nature come in the reinforcement of ideals and behaviors which prevent women from achieving any true social or ecological advancement, leaving them perpetually fighting for their equality and challenging the oppressive beliefs which continue to harm women and the environment. Gebara writes, “while all these [ecofeminist] discussions are going on, the destruction of the Amazon forest, the rain forest, and others, continue” (94). Activism has to move beyond theorizing solutions, and begin enacting them. Otherwise, the very issues we so passionately converse over will never change, contributing to lasting harm. Corrêa, writing on the issue of poverty and environmental degradation in Brazil, notes publicity on the issue, “hasn’t yet resulted in the other children of the slums getting more money or services.” Gebara also notes this lack of action, which causes further harm, writing “they have not tried other alternatives to the garbage…they are hostages of their own poverty and inconsistency” (96). Oppression and inequality, even when recognized, are maintained without action to counter their validity.

One challenge in making real change, however, is the resistance activists meet. When Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan environmentalist and women’s rights advocate challenged the creation of a skyscraper which would lead to immense natural devastation, she faced appalling harassment and threats which specifically targeted her femininity: “a government-run newspaper questioned her sexual past…and [government officials] threatened to mutilate her genitals in order to force Maathai to behave ‘like women should’” (Maathai). This resistance to her work exemplifies the overlapping oppression of women and nature, as feminine protection of nature is seen as a threat to a patriarchal (President Moi) ideal of control (threats/political action/environmental degradation); thus, the angered masculine power relies on gendered social assumptions (in this case, gender-based violence) to intimidate diverse thinking, and neutralize the perceived threat.

 

 

 

 

 

Image by Dominic Wunderlich from Pixabay

Patriarchy (and other social inequalities) is/are reflected in human-nature interactions. And, despite the reality “that humanity itself is inseparable from nature as a whole,” one is less likely to experience or understand the inequalities of harm if their circumstances offer them the privilege of ignorance (something I mentioned in my blog on women in politics) (Kings 71). Environmental degradation does not impact people equally, and a system (patriarchy) which reinforces privilege (and social inequalities) does not have the framework for appropriately handling these issues in an inclusive/caring way. Hence, according to Gebara, “the solution of social and environmental problems and the oppression of women can’t come from this patriarchal structure of dependence” (96).

I agree; deeper issues of disempowerment and environmental degradation underlie the material deprivations and cultural losses of the marginalized/poor. When our society is fundamentally based in hierarchal belief systems, this hierarchy is going to adapt itself to various situations (in America, patriarchy, capitalism, and “Christian traditional theology”) (Gebara 98). By doing so, American society/values is/are structured around systems of inequality. With knowledge of intersectionality (pertaining to ecosystems and humanity), if these inequalities are upheld, those most affected by environmental degradation will be the ones who are not only causing less damage to the environment, but the ones with the least influence/capacity to stop the damage/fix the problem. According to Stokes, “one and a half billion people depend on forest directly for survival.” Further environmental destruction will eliminate the natural resources they rely on. Norgaard and York write, “in an unequal society, the impacts of environmental degradation fall disproportionately on the least powerful” (507). However, these impacted citizens may be more likely to advocate for the proper handling of an issue, championing causes and requesting support from those in power. It comes back to devaluation; when privileged groups devalue nature, and people with less social privilege, these inequalities (due to systemic prejudices) will leave socially underprivileged groups more vulnerable to the effects of environmental degradation (likely caused by the privileged groups). Thus, as I have argued in previous blog posts, impactful change requires 1) a shift in values, prioritizing environmental care and social equality; and 2) that we lift the voices of, and listen to, those most affected by environmental issues, coming together to develop sustainable solutions to heal the environment and help struggling communities. Our activism must reflect these opinions and values, challenging oppressive systems which disregard environmental and human diversity.

Works Cited

Corrêa, Talita. “The Brazilian Slum Children Who Are Literally Swimming in Garbage.” Vice, 20 January 2014. vice.com/en/article/the-brazilian-slum-children-who-are-literally-swimming-in-garbage-0000197-v21n1/. Accessed 1 April 2025.

Gebara, Ivone. “Ecofeminism: A Latin American Perspective.” Crosscurrents, Spring 2003, pp. 93-103; University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 1 April 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 1 April 2025.

Maathai, Wangari. “Speak Truth to Power.” The Green Belt Movement, 4 May 2000. greenbeltmovement.org/wangari-maathai/key-speeches-and-articles/speak-truth-to-power. Accessed 1 April 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 1 April 2025.

Stokes, Calum. “Why the Chipko Movement is More Important Than Ever.” Academia.edu, n.d. academia.edu/34345657/Why_the_Chipko_Movement_is_more_important_than_ever. Accessed 1 April 2025.