Author: pshogren

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.

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.

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.

Ecofeminist philosophy argues the oppressions of women and environment are inherently linked, requiring theory, practice, and solutions to consider the complexities of both issues together. The attached image portrays the fairytale, Little Red Riding Hood. Though many retellings exist, they share a young girl preyed upon by a (personified) male wolf. According to Hobgood-Oster, “ecofeminism claims that patriarchal structures justify their dominance through categorical or dualistic hierarchies: heaven/earth, mind/body, male/female, human/animal, spirit/matter, culture/nature, white/non-white” (2). The aforementioned fairy tale is a curious specimen under an ecofeminist lens—artistic analysis of Betidraws’ depiction offers greater depth to ecofeminist theory.

Ecofeminism considers male oppression of women and nature inherently linked. This duality of societal structure reinforces patriarchy and systems of oppression (Hobgood-Oster 2,3). From this perspective, ecofeminists believe “all dualisms and binary oppositional forms must be dismantled otherwise humanity remains ‘divided against’ itself” (Hobgood-Oster 3). Dualisms present in the image, and the Little Red Riding Hood tale, itself, come from the artist’s color palette, depth, and theme, accenting menacing, masculine dominance over a vulnerable female and nature. Warm and cool hues outline the difference between femininity and masculinity. Shades of red and yellow bring warmth to small, “weaker” figures, such as flowers and Red Riding Hood herself. Meanwhile, cooler colors (grey and dark green) define powerful figures within the painting—the silhouette of a predatory wolf, or towering trees, with razor-edged branches. The wolf looms over the young girl, like men assert power over women. Red Riding Hood’s depiction is also significant. Her dress is red like flowers in the foreground, comparing flora (dainty and beautiful) with women to accent their vulnerability in the presence of danger. Her golden-yellow hair echoes the sky’s color, implying women should be “warm” like the sun. In the upper-right-hand corner, bright, white light emanates from behind the wolf’s back. Its shape recalls a woman in a dress, with the wolf carrying her, reinforcing a theme of women’s victimization.

Artistic decisions regarding depth offer a perspective where women are small, compared to larger threats, and nature is vulnerable to men’s destruction. Both the girl’s and wolf’s shadows extend outward to the audience. Her shadow spreads over ground in the bottom center of the picture, while the wolf’s exaggerated silhouette devours a mass of central canvas area. According to Hobgood-Oster, some early ecofeminist academia “proposed that patriarchal cultural structures revolved around layers of symbol systems that justified domination” (Hobgood-Oster 4). In Betidraws’ art, the wolf’s shadow is as tall as, if not taller than, some trees, obscuring realism to portray the (male) wolf as greater, or more powerful, than a lone woman. Further, depletion of foliage—naked trees at center, despite lushness in the foreground bottom corners, suggests the looming figure’s (a.k.a. man’s) violence, harming women and nature. To note, because shadows spread to the foreground (advancing toward the viewer), the painting’s light source (in nature, the sun) must come from the center-right, to the back of the painting (behind the wolf’s shadow). A triangular patch of white appears within the curves of the wolf’s shadow. The top of this silhouette resembles a woman’s dress, as curved edges between the wolf’s silhouette outline her long hair (to the left) and her shoulder or chest (in white curves between the three claws). These edges are also similar in shape to a pine tree’s branches (as in the painting’s background). The shadow could be both tree and woman, as men’s destruction of nature (deforestation) is akin to their abuse of women.

Masculine violence against women and nature is a shared theme in the artwork, fairy-tale, and real life. Hobgood-Oster states, “feminine language used for ‘nature’ and the parallel violent approaches of control assigned against unruly nature and unruly women are obvious” (Hobgood-Oster 8). When men/patriarchy equate(s) women with nature, they devalue both, rather than recognizing the inherent value of each. Perrault’s version of the “Little Red Riding Hood” tale states, “who does not know that these gentle wolves are of all such creatures the most dangerous!” (“Little Red Riding Hood”). In the artist’s depiction, portraying the wolf with more masculine, bulky size (compared to the stick-thin shape both Red Riding Hood and nature—distant trees, flowers—share) leaves the girl and nature vulnerable to attack/destruction. Even friendlier retellings include a male hunter/lumberjack who saves the women, despite his prior violent destruction of nature. Thus, in depictions of the old fairy tale, whether male characters are hero or villain, they remain a threat to the environment, and women.

Works Cited

Betidraws. “Little Red Riding Hood Wolf.” Pixabay. 29 December 2024. Web. pixabay.com/illustrations/little-red-riding-hood-wolf-forest-9296256/. Accessed 28 January 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 28 January 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 28 January 2025.

n.a., “Little Red Riding Hood.” Wikipedia. 27 January 2025. Web. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Red_Riding_Hood#Plot. Accessed 28 January 2025.

n.a., “Charles Perrault.” Wikipedia. 11 November 2024. Web. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Perrault. Accessed 28 January 2025.

Hello all,

My name is Piper, and I use she/they pronouns. I am a Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies major at UMass-Dartmouth. I reside in Minnesota with my parents. Beyond my classwork, I have two part-time jobs: I am a music lesson teacher, and a cashier.

After some exploration, I chose to reflect on the feminist blog, Women’s Media Center (WMC). One particular page of this blog was entitled, “WMC FBomb,” and is described as “an intersectional teen feminist media platform created by and for socially conscious youth” (WMC). On the surface, the greatest reason this blog would not model my own work is that multiple authors curate the blog, whereas my work would solely reflect my views. Diving deeper, this blog contains posts on a variety of themes (ranging from gender-based violence, to gender identity, to poetry.) My blog, on the other hand, would have a significant focus on the relationship between women and the environment (hence, ecofeminism) and the work I wish to do in furthering an inclusive/diverse society, while also respecting the environment which supports us all.

As a side note: I was intrigued by a post from Jessica Sennett, in which she relayed the impact writing poetry had on her. Sennett engaged in a slam poetry night, and in her words, “I picked poems that I was yearning for the world to hear (topics included gun control and the patriarchy, of course)” (Sennett). Having studied intersectionality and standpoint theory in previous classes, I believe there are many issues which overlap in people’s lives, and we all interact with them differently. Given this focus, I believe my blog will act, for me, as poetry does for Sennett: to provide an outlet where I may share my perspective on prominent issues to begin making a change.

One such issue relevant to where I live is the presence of harmful Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs), long-lasting materials resistant to “heat, water, and oil” which “harm human health,” and “are linked to a variety of adverse health conditions and illnesses” (Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, MCEA). While these chemicals were used to enhance consumer products, they are linked to conditions such as cancer and infant mortality. As these chemicals do not break down over time, and cause harm, “even at extremely low concentrations,” their continued use (and careless disposal) shows a lack of regard for human and environmental health (MCEA). As examples, “St. Louis and Olmsted counties have fish consumption advisories due to PFAS contamination” (MCEA). But this issue is not limited to Minnesota, nor is it new. As a matter of fact, as I learned in a previous class, “though the 

U.S. government didn’t recognize PFOA as a dangerous chemical, both DuPont and 3M knew it was potentially toxic” (Tran 8:48). DuPont had even “classified PFOA as a confirmed animal carcinogen, possible human carcinogen” (Soechtig 45:42). As my blog expands, with the inclusion of further ecofeminist concepts, I will analyze how systems of oppression are furthered by the cultural norm of devaluing nature. And, I hope the written expression of my ideas and learning will encourage and guide me to the activism I want to partake of in the future. Further, I hope my work will encourage others so we may work together to improve this world for everyone. I hope to develop an informative and influential place where my desire for both environmental balance and social diversity encourage real change, as I learn to put theory into practice.

Image by tsaloka from Pixabay

Image by Eva Michálková from Pixabay

Work Cited

Sennett, Jessica. “The Power of Poetry for Teenage Girls.” WMC FBOMB: Arts and Culture, Women’s Media Center (WMC). 12 December 2023. Web. womensmediacenter.com/fbomb/the-power-of-poetry-for-teenage-girls. Accessed 24 January 2025.

The Devil We Know. Directed by Stephanie Soechtig, Atlas Films, 2018. Web.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJFbsWX4MJM. Accessed 24 January 2025.

Tran, Jake. “DuPont: The Most Evil Business in the World.” YouTube, uploaded by Jake Tran, 22 November 2021. Web. www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pW2ATrDnA8. Accessed 24 January 2025.

n.a.1 “WMC FBOMB.” Women’s Media Center (WMC). 5 October 2023, 2025. Web. womensmediacenter.com/fbomb/. Accessed 24 January 2025.

n.a.2 “Toxic Chemicals: Defending Minnesotans’ Health from ‘Forever Chemicals’.” Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA). n.d. Web. www.mncenter.org/defending-minnesotans-health-forever-chemicals. Accessed 24 January 2025.