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/

I chose this image because it reflects Warren’s writings on Symbolic Connections. This image sexualizes a pig, calling her “Lady Edison” the “Hoofed Temptress”. I, for one found this incredible offensive. The imagery is essentially not only doing what Warren claims in this section by describing a woman, in how she said “animal terms”, but also still using the sexual language that feminism and ecofeminism are trying to eradicate. “The development of theory and praxis in feminism and environmental philosophy that does not perpetuate such sexist-naturist language and the power over systems of domination they reinforce is, therefore, a goal of ecofeminism (Warren).” This image was clearly created with the male gaze in mind.

“They proposed that patriarchal cultural structures revolved around layers of symbol systems that justified domination. For example, they interpretthe creation stories in the book of Genesis, foundational for Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as demonizing both woman (Eve) and animal (the snake) (Hobgood, 4).” Much like in the ad I posted, these animals are used to not only represent women, or an aspect of femininity, but in a degrading and dehumanizing manner. In the quote, Hobgood explains how the snake was used to represent evil, and if you have read the Bible, we know Eve gave in to such evil. However, this is problematic because like Hobgood states, it essentially demoralizes both women (Eve) and the snake. This issue has gone back generations before even our time, and has only begun to be called into question in the past few decades. Male-dominated culture and the patriarchy is so toxic, but so normalized, that any attempt to challenge it seems cantankerous to others not involved in the movement.

I am still struggling a bit to understand the concept of ecofeminism. So, to explain to another newbie to the topic I suppose I would say that ecofeminism is the link between women and nature. Beyond that, it is the tying of the two together that fights against dehumanizing both nature and women by patriarchal power and the male gaze.

I will go again with Warren’s Symbolic Connections and choose the example of the media. While this is broad, it is one that has really stuck out to me over the years in my WGS courses and even my Communications course where I learned more in depth about the male gaze in media. (While this is not connected to animals, I felt it was important to connect the ideas as it’s not too far off in my opinion.) Something that we did in that communications class was take a quiz while watching the music video to “Stacy’s Mom”, and we were to at the end, describe random objects in the video. Such as what color the car was, or what kind of plants were in the garden. To our shock, a lot of us did not know the answers, because of the male gaze imagery distracting us from anything other than the sexualized woman in the music video. The fact it slipped by us college kids, was a real eye opener to how society molds us as a whole, generation after generation.

My question: What can we do to bring more awareness, besides education and teaching younger generations, to stop perpetuating these ideals?