Something I found particularly interesting was most of the responses I had, in fact all of them, were female. I unfortunately did not get as many responses as I would have liked, but of the women who gave their feedback– I found a common denominator. Every one of the responsive women was pro-recycling. Their reasons varied, but all had a similar connection. Most of them felt that we should respect our planet, and the life of humans and animals as well as nature that inhabit it. By not recycling, they feel we are closer to global warming and destroying our planet. Someone even said that by not recycling, we are disrespecting our planet and just bringing about the eventual decline of our race as a whole.

To these few women, I must agree. Recycling is so incredibly important because it saves our planet, improves out quality of life, and respects the other life that surrounds us. We are not alone on this planet, and we take it, and the beautiful nature and resources it gives us for granted. By recycling, we can clean up the messes we create, and keep our earth alive and striving for longer, instead of helping it along to deteriorate with our negligence.

I had this idea to use a dating app that also functions as a “find a new bff” app to take a sort of poll. Because recycling is incredibly important to me, I want to ensure anyone I date, and also any new friends or chatting buddies, feel the same way. So, my idea is to use Bumble BFF to ask each individual person whether or not they recycle, and why? If they don’t recycle, would they consider it, and if not to ask why they refuse to. Without preaching, I will try to help them understand from an ecofeminist prospective about the harmful effects of waste on our planet and in our oceans, and explain how recycling alone can help us start to improve our planet and quality of living.

My plan is to take the next 3-4 days and message as many people as possible. Those who respond to my question will be notified that it’s for an assignment, and I will keep names anonymous. I would like to ask 10-20 people if possible to get a good varied handful of responses. With each response I will mark down their age, location, and opinions on the matter of recycling. Once I get all of my data collected, I will post the results and my analysis for you guys.

The connections I see between the oppression of women and the oppression of nature in our readings for this week, is that these women are fighting FOR nature, and in doing so dealing with the consequences of the patriarchy. Those in society that view women’s movements as an outlandish act, that these women are not acting how they ought to in society creates chaos. This chaos that stems from noble acts such as the Chipko movement, and the Green Belt Movement to end the defamation of nature results in brutal hate crimes, and violence against these resilient women. One of the readings I found exceptionally upsetting was The Brazilian Slum Children. “Many of them wade through garbage to eke out a living just as Paulo does, but it was only after his image appeared in the press that the local government and international authorities took notice of their plight. In response to the photo and the accompanying article, the government promised to place Paulo, his mother, and his five siblings on welfare (Corrêa)”. So, this quote tells me that the government has to see a child physically wading around in WASTE to grant them and their mothers and families basic needs? Seriously, how messed up is the world we live in that a child swimming through garbage is the big “wake up call”?

Women fight for nature, whereas the patriarchy simply overlooks it, much like they overlook women’s fights for equality. The Chipko movement was one of the first of many to connect women with nature, and their fight to protect it.  “From their origins as a spontaneous protest against logging abuses in Uttar Pradesh in the Himalayas, supporters of the Chipko movement, mainly village women, have successfully banned the felling of trees in a number of regions and influenced natural resource policy in India (edugreen).” Even after the odds were stacked up high against them, the courage of these women had a domino effect, allowing more and more people to step forward in the fight to prevent the destruction of nature.

The Green Belt Movement was another strong advocacy project where women, even after receiving horrible threats and acts of violence, refused to be silenced and fought for their beliefs that nature had just as much a right to respect as anyone else. “Following the incident, Moi’s ruling party parliamentarians threatened to mutilate her genitals in order to force Maathai to behave “like women should.” But Wangari Maathai was more determined than ever, and today continues her work for environmental protection, women’s rights, and democratic reform. From one seedling, an organization for empowerment and political participation has grown many strong branches. — Kerry Kennedy”. Despite these horrible acts and threats, the bravery and drive of these powerful women is what carves a path for us as ecofeminists in the future.

     The first time I learned about intersectionality, it stuck with me and I absorbed this concept like a sponge. I adored that the belief I always had that the layers of each of us made us special, had a name and a practice to it. I began bringing intersectionality into my every day life and dissecting more about what the scholarly definition entailed. While I grasped the concept of celebrating our differences, I fell short in understanding that intersectionality also has a negative side. The side of intersectionality that shows us how we can be privileged and oppressed simultaneously, and yet be completely overlooked in the eyes of society. For example, I am a cisgender woman, so I have sexual identity privilege. I am of mixed nationalities, but my parents always told me to mark down “white” on my academic tests, even though fifty percent of me is Lebanese. “The dominant group assigns roles to the subordinate that reflect the latter’s devalued status, reserving the most highly valued roles in the society for themselves (Tatum, 12).” I never quite understood why, but now I totally get it. It’s easier to mark down “white” as that is racism at its core, those who are white, or appear to be, get this white privilege handed to them and my parents wanted that for me, instead of embracing my Lebanese heritage more proudly. My parents aren’t incredibly progressive, so this mindset is not surprising, though I am working on chipping away at my family’s ignorance when I have the opportunity. I am also gay, which then turns that privilege around to now oppress me to homophobic degradation. Knowing each of us is made up of individual, unique layers has it’s pros, but the cons can definitely outweigh them if society deems them “wrong” enough.

Intersectionality in itself can also be problematic, due to it being filled with predominantly white and westernized feminists thinking they are helping marginalized minorities, but in fact they are part of the issues at hand. Black feminists are not getting nearly enough recognition in intersectionality, and at times are completely overlooked. However, with the help and advocacy of a handful of amazing black feminists, this is becoming subject to change. “Black women are involved with the environmental justice movement because environmental racism often directly affects their homes, families, and communities (Cain)”. Black feminists not only get involved because of the need to be included, but to fight to be included to show that their oppression is affecting the livelihood of their communities.

Because of intersectionality being defined as so many different things, Kings defines it as a “web of entanglement”. “A spider’s web preserves the necessary complexity of [End Page 65] intersectionality and the potential ‘stickiness’ of cultural categories, which can often leave people stuck between two or more intersecting or conflicting social categories (Kings)”. I like this definition better than the junction or traffic jam definition because it defines intersectionality in less of a chaotic neutral and puts it in the image of something that is beautifully constructed, but can be dangerous when entrapped. The webbing is sticky, representing, at least to me, the feeling of being stuck inside oppression while it appears that freedom is only a few inches away. That we struggle against the confines of the oppressing web, but to no avail. The beauty of the web and how it is constructed also goes back to my argument about layers, and each layer of our own person being unique. However, one of those layers or more can also lead us to an oppression or marginalization, no matter how beautiful our differences are.

In our readings for this week, we see that women are a crucial asset to the state/gov. However, we are still seeing a drastic gendered gap in our political jobs. Some areas (countries and states) see it as beneficial to include more women in office. Because women are a valuable contribution not only to society, but to nature, it seems only fitting to make more political spaces gender-neutral. However, the push back from this idea is still common, and in place to this day. So, how do we fight to create change?

“Greater gender equality may have a sim-ple numerical impact: If women tend to be more environmentally progressive, theinclusion of women as equal members of society—as voters, citizens, policy mak-ers, and social movement participants—should positively influence state behavior (Norgaard and York, 3).”

I chose this image because not only is it stunning artistically, but it shows one woman, with a multitude of ethnicity and races surrounded by political and government buildings. The statistics next to these only further assert that more women should be in office. Not just white women, but women of all nationalities and inclusivity of minorities.

“Practice inclusion and prioritize the participation of indigenous women, women with disabilities, women of color, LGBTQI and young feminists/women’s rights activists, particularly from developing / least developed countries (WEDO).”

I chose this image to pair with the quote above because as we see here, women of different ethnicities (and possibly even sexualities), doing the famous pose to empower women. This is exactly what WEDO stands for, and what makes their mission so powerful. To see images such as this that includes a diverse group of women empowering themselves is something we need more of in our state/gov politics.

“Furthermore, from the interlocking systems perspective, nation-states with greater gender equality on the whole are expected to take environmentally progressive stands due to the influence of gender on all state processes. Indeed, whether individual women vote for or against specific legislation, gender equality may affect behavior of both women and men, creating an atmosphere in which environmentally progressive state behavior is viewed as positive (Norgaard and York, 3).”

I think this image suits the quote because we see statistically, Demograts are suggesting we put more women in office and positions of power. Challenging the gender roles in one of the biggest wings of politics is a great start to educating and convincing other branches and wings of politics to follow suit. We have progressed over the last decade, but not nearly enough. Women are still not being adequately recognized and represented in office, and these big steps will help to hopefully change that one day.

Putting it simply, I do not support one argument or the other concretely. To me, it’s hard to talk about this subject because I honestly feel it heavily depends on the woman and her situation around why she wants to receive an abortion. If she is doing it for horrendous, evil reasons and completely discarding the life of her unborn child, no, I don’t support that. However, say a woman is raped, or her body is rejecting the child and she has the chance to die during childbirth…I am more inclined to give that decision to her, as it is not my body. Therefore, it is not my choice, and not my place to judge what she wants to do. I have a personal experience with this subject, so I tend to not know how to write about this eloquently, I apologize. However, I will say regarding Hawkins: I don’t feel comfortable agreeing with abortion being a means of population control, or ‘birth control’, for that matter. While, yes, I agree abortion is a way to allow women to not have more children than they desire, and a way to give them a choice with their bodies, I don’t agree that the subject of abortion can be secluded to one notion. I don’t think that it’s implemented into society JUST to control our numbers growing too rapidly. I believe, it is implemented to give women that choice, a right to their body and a decision on what to do for themselves. I believe that abortion is something that should not be shamed, as women who have to undergo this procedure are often devastated, it is not something they do proudly (unless you are a terrible human being with no regard for human life). What we do with our bodies is our choice, and no one else, friend/family/society as a whole, has a right to dictate what we do with our own life, and the life of the ones we carry inside of us. No one claimed that this was easy for women, so it should not be assumed that abortion is handled lightly, because it’s not. Yes, the baby is a life, but there are so many negative consequences of having a child when you are not medically or emotionally ready that can harm that child in the future as well. I don’t agree with abortions being done when it is a reckless and immature act that caused it, or a woman who has no regard for her baby. I do, however, support her right to terminate her pregnancy if it endangers her life, the life of the unborn baby, or will cause unimaginable, damaging trauma for one or both of them in the future. Women should have the right to their own choice, without judgement from outside parties.

“In fact, viewing some individuals as consumable is so central to Western culture that most of us fail to notice it. “Advertisements,” Adams writes, “are never only about the product they are promoting. They are about how our culture is structured, what we believe about ourselves and others” (p.14). (Adams)”

“Those in category ‘Not A’ are the consumables: women, people of color, and animals (Adams).”

Perhaps one of the grossest things about sexualizing women and animals, is the psychology behind it. The psychology that puts animals and women in the same sexually desirable box that, to the ‘consumer’ (mainly white males according to Adams), saying that due to them being inferior, they want it. They sexualize THEMSELVES. To essentially victim blame women, and animals whom do not even process sex in the way humans do, is just insanity. The image above shows this, claiming that by the man milking a cow, another name given to women as degrading as well as referring to their breasts as milk-makers, saying he got to ‘second base’. This is claiming that a cow and a woman are on in the same, due to them both being of a female gender with breasts that produce milk.

“Such ads, Adams notes, suggest that not only do women promiscuously want sex, but the same desire is applicable to others in the ‘Not A’ category – nonhuman animals (p.111). Adams holds no punches in her analysis of how these ads sugar-coat the flesh industries. “Anthropornography gives you a hooker on your plate. Nonhuman animals are whoring for you. Nonhumans want you, too. Suffering? Slaughtering? Inhumane acts? No. They want it” (p.111). (Adams)” This picture perfectly matches the quote, with how women are referrred to as ‘chicks’. The chicken is jutting her legs up in a sensual position, fishnets running up her toes and thighs to reveal the leg. This attire is usually attributed to sex, and sensual acts when worn by women. Also, this sexual position and attire under the word ‘menu’ suggests that men would be eating this ‘chick’, very pornographic language and suggestive content to sexualize a woman as a literal piece of meat on a menu.

The example I found-

Need I say more? This picture really speaks for itself. You have the woman marked up like you would an animal ready for slaughter, labeling the parts of her body to ask the male consumer what his favorite ‘cut’ is. ‘Tender juicy beef’ suggests that this image is linking the woman with cattle, and the suggestive, submissive position she is in (down on her knees looking back at you, smiling) offers the assumption that she wants it. This further supports Adam’s article about how women are perceived as happy when being sexualized and compared to slabs of meat, and due to our society turning a blind eye and ‘barely noticing it’ because it’s so common, this is extremely problematic.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I notice the meat is not only red meat, but beef, something seen as a masculine food. Also, large knives, one sticking out from the back of the meat, and one being held by a silhouette with no feminine features, so one may assume this is a ‘male’ chef cutting the meat.

Gendered Foods- “men, athletes and soldiers in particular, are associated with red meat and activity (“To have muscle you need to eat muscle”), whereas women are associated with vegetables and passivity (“ladies’ luncheons” typically offer dainty sandwiches with no red meat) (Curtin).” A couple examples that come to mind are that of steak, beef, red meats mainly for more of a ‘masculine’ feel. On the other coin of the gendered food discussion, things like salad, chicken and light meat as well as lighter food such as the quote suggests, a sandwich or wrap, are seen as more ‘feminine’ food items.

Gaard- I found this article very interesting in that Gaard is talking about how speciesism is similar to slavery, in that if we view these animals as dependent on us for basic needs, we are essentially enslaving them to be in our control. While that makes sense, I can tell that there are two sides of that argument. One, saying that yes animals have souls and hearts and are alive, but that due to us being more intelligent and advanced, it’s simply us being different. Though, I also see the argument that this is similar to arguing that animals being known as pets can be compared to slavery. It reminds me a bit of the subject of BDSM, and how the argument there is on if this is glorifying abuse, or if it should be accepted as something people do consensually behind closed doors. In BDSM, the ‘submissive’ is called names such as a ‘pet’, ’slave’, ’sub’, etc. The ‘dominant’ is known as the ‘Master’. We consider ourselves the ‘masters’ of our pets, so, I feel like these all walk a fine line that interconnect with one another, and it’s definitely a new and interesting thing to mull over in our heads.

Curtin-

“The point of a contextualist ethic is that one need not treat all interests equally as if one had no relationship to any of the parties (Curtin).” Curtin expresses how if they needed to kill for food to provide a longer life for their children and family they would. On that same line of thinking, there are cultures whom do not have the luxury of choosing an omnivorous diet over vegetarianism. In this instance, those must kill animals to survive for food, so, is this seen as morally wrong? I definitely agree that the factories and meat facilities we see today are terrible and cruel, and how we as a society take for granted where we get our food. We are careless, and cruel to the point that we are not eating because we have to survive, but simply because it’s delivered to us on a silver platter, and we have the OPTION. I think it is drastically different for us, than it is for someone in another country or culture who must get what they can get in order to live another day.

I am an Arizona girl, born and raised, and I hated it. I hated the heat, the dryness, and the deadness around me constantly as I grew up. Any chance we got, we went traveling to other places. (Places with greenery and life, whoo!) I got hooked on the countryside, the smell of the ocean, and the visually appealing imagery of green trees and grass that don’t come in bundles. I guess you could say I was raised a city girl, with a country girl’s heart. So, when I moved to Massachusetts three years ago, it was like I finally felt peace, and found my place. (The newly formed allergies weren’t a very welcome gift though, thanks Mass.) I digress, I feel like my ‘place’ growing up was in Arizona, just because it’s what I knew. The ‘place’ my heart desired was somewhere with an ocean, trees, life, and a more progressive, LGBTQ+ forward community that celebrated diversity as much as I did.

Arizona Desert

Gooseberry Island, MA

See what I mean?!

Anyways, onto the readings. Do we need ‘wildness’? Kingslover states: “Wildness puts us in our place. It reminds us that our plans are small and somewhat absurd. It reminds us why, in those cases in which our plans might influence many future generations, we ought to choose carefully (pbs.org).” I would argue that yes, we do, but the terminology of ‘wildness’ may differ from person to person. I have met many classmates who look at me and say ‘why on earth would you move here? I would love living somewhere with no snow!’ (Arizona has snow, in certain areas, but that’s besides the point.) I think the understanding of wildness really comes down to that person, their nature vs. nurture and upbringing, as well as where their soul really longs to go. Wildness is everywhere, joking aside, Arizona has some gorgeous areas to enjoy as well. I feel that describing wildness in only one way, with one certain set of areas, or a singular are in mind, is not taking into account the intersectionality of our own uniqueness.

A lot of how I described finding my place, plays into the similar descriptions of William’s article. Willams talks about how green is pleasing to the eye, that reminds us of oxygen, breathing and a place of serenity against the bareness of drier landscapes. However, Willams also explains how the desert is crucial to our history, and how it endured and persevered through droughts and other atrocities to befall it, it can be seen as a standing structure of survival, endearing to most. “…this is not hard to understand: falling in love with a place, being in love with a place, wanting to care for a place and see it remain intact as a wild piece of the planet (Williams, 16).” Jut because an area is not your ‘place’, does not make it any less deserving of protection. Your place may be in the desert, where mine is by the ocean. Regardless of where your heart soars, our planet is in dire need of some TLC, and we have to be the ones to nourish it respectfully. The bedrock democracy comes down to owning your part to care for this planet, and love all aspects of it equally to remain diligent in saving and securing it for brighter futures. to respect and admire each unique aspect of this earth, as we respect each unique aspect of our own selves, and the ones we know.

One of our articles that I found in particular that grabbed my attention, was our frist reading for the week regarding women’s link to water and climate change. The fact that women in the global south are the primary caregivers, on top of not having the means to get themselves a higher paying job without adequate schooling was a heartbreaking read. It was interesting to me that women’s link with not only the environment, but to water specifically was brought up in this article. Like the articles we read last week with Warren and Hobgood-Oster, we see yet another example of women connected to a source of nature that’s connected to the earth.

The issues women and their families face in these countries regarding something as basic and crucial as water, greatly impacts their quality of life. ”Around the world, water stress, or the “economic, social, or environmental problems caused by unmet water needs,” is an ongoing issue. Women are most vulnerable because they often work in informal markets and do not have the resources to participate in competitive markets that are worsening water scarcity(Women and Climate, feministcampus.org).” Water is vital to continue living not just any life, but a life at all! If someone is drinking dirty water, even though they may be receiving some form of hydration, it can still be full of chemicals and harmful items that can cause more damage to bodies than good.

Climate change in these countries and around the world is another harmful and endangering factor that impacts resources such as water and nourishment. “Climate change poses threats to human health through increased droughts and floods, and further reduces water access and quality; in fact, according to experts, water will be the first resource impacted by climate change (Women and Climate, feministcampus.org).” The article states that the families and women in the lowest economic status are the most at risk due to their inability to access sufficient resources to live a healthier life.

While Agarwal shares some common ideas with Warren and Hobgood-Oster, such as women being more connection with nature, and men culture, she also has a different opinion that states women are also, in her words, ‘actors’ in this topic. “The feminist movement the environmental movement both stand for egalitarian, systems. They thus have a good deal in common to work together to evolve a common perspective, theory, practice (Agarwal, 120).” While our authors last week seemed to really strike the patriarchy hard and pointed the finger primarily at men for the connection of women to nature in a derogatory sense, Agarwal argues that the two have an equal opportunity to work together and end the inequality. I feel that Agarwal wants both women and men, all persons to take responsibility for the issues at stake, and work together in a compromised effort to make positive change around the world, instead of focusing on who to blame. She says following that quote that women, because of their position underneath the domination of nature, have the power to be the ones who end it.

I find that Agarwal’s perspective, regarding us coming together as a group effort and working together to end the issues placed on women and nature is a great way to go about advocating and ending injustice. I do understand each side, and I think that the patriarchy definitely has a large hand in creating the rift that is made to keep men and women separate, pitting them against one another. However, I feel that pushing back despite that rift, and working together to bind it will be more powerful than saying it will only take one group to fix the issue. Men are feminists as well, and that is not often recognized, because feminist topics are consumed by the patriarchal oppression and how to fight against it. However, men do not always equate the patriarchy, and a man should not be penalized if he has had no hand directly in the cause of said issues. What we as a people and a society, in all countries should be focused on is how to come together as a team and battle injustice together, regardless of gender.

Works Cited

1. Agarwal, Bina. “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India.” Feminist Studies, vol. 18, no. 1, 1992, pp. 119–158. JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/3178217.
2. http://feministcampus.org/campaigns/women-and-climate/