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.