After going around from apartment to apartment, I was able to have most residents sign the petition. I met up with my building manager, Nate, and I explained to him why we were upset about this and that they should replant every tree and bush they cut down. Nate was very understanding and agreed with me that they should replant. Although it hasn’t begun, steps will be taken so that my building can hopefully begin to replant every tree and bush that they cut down!  Obviously, I won’t just take his word for it and I expect to see what he has promised me. If they go back on their word, I have his bosses’ contact information and I have a few other contacts as well that would be of use to me. 

(How it looks after they removed the cut trees and bushes outside of my apartment)

(After clearing out the cut trees and bushes)

Although my plan was successful, I think it was weakly executed. Luckily, my building manager is my next-door neighbor and I know him better than one would normally know their building manager. He helps one of roommates out a lot and that’s another reason I know him pretty well. I think it helped my case that we knew each other because if I did this with any other manger, I don’t think they would’ve listened to me. I would absolutely handle it the same way but I think I would have to speak to the higher ups about it because I would be turned away. 

(Trees and bushes that were just cut down outside of my apartment)

Last week, my apartment building sent out an email stating that they would “be removing the trees and bushes from in between the buildings in an attempt to upgrade the community”. After reading this, everyone assumed that it was going to be three to six trees, maybe, because none of the trees or bushes were dead or even close to dying. They started on April 3 2019 and they are still cutting down trees today, April 14 2019. From what I have seen, they have cut down over 50 trees/bushes and that’s probably not even half of it. I felt sick to my stomach the moment I walked out of my door and saw trees lying all over the place. They cut down the only life this apartment building had and they did it for absolutely no reason at all. I hate whenever anyone cuts down trees but especially right now, it’s extremely important that we preserve all natural life on this planet. 

(While they did mention removal, “trimming” was an understatement)

(This is a few of the trees/bushes that were cut down in the front of the building)

For my plan, I want to handle it from a more general level. I’m planning to go around to each apartment in every building with my roommates and we’re going to ask them sign a petition saying that our apartment building must replant every single tree that they just cut down. After we get signatures, I’m going to speak to my building manager about this to ask them to replant the trees and if not, I will be contacting the higher ups. If none of this works, I will go to social media about this as well. I think this will be effective because (hopefully) every resident will say that is wrong and they won’t have any other choice but to replant what they have taken away. 

For forever now, people have constantly associated women with nature. People often describe the earth as “Mother Earth” and often use female pronouns when discussing the earth (her trees, she’s hurting, etc..). In the readings, I can see many connections being made between the oppression of women and nature. For one, Gebara goes into detail about how ecofeminists and intersectional feminists will discuss ideas about the world but while they’re doing this, our world is being destroyed along with women and children. “While all these discussions are going on, the destruction of the Amazon forest, the rain forest, and others continue… lots of paper is being used, lots of trees are being cut down and used by industries, polluting the rivers and the air… lots of women and children are starving and dying with diseases produced by a capitalist system able to destroy lives and keep profit for only a few.” (Gebara). The problem is not talking about these theories, it’s talking about them and trying to understand them while lives are being destroyed at the exact same time. Gebara explains how different groups of women in Latin America are tasking themselves to provide a new order of meaning including marginalized people. “The option for the poor is an option for life. Our goals should be to build a world where poor and marginalized people have a place to live with peace and integrity. We know that without this option we are not building a world with justice and love” (Gebara). We have to respect nature and all living beings or we will never find peace, “we choose to die by our own bad decisions” (Gebara). 

In the Speak Truth to Power reading, they explained that women in Africa are the ones who interact with nature on a daily basis. Because of this, the women can tell when their food is full of pollutants and impurities (Maathai). In direct response to these problems, Wangari Maathai founded the Green Belt Movement in 1977, this is meant to encourage farmers to plant “Green Belts”, as it would “stop soil erosion, provide shade, and create a source of lumber and firewood” (Maathai). Today, “the movement has planted over fifteen million trees, produced income for eighty thousand people in Kenya alone, and has expanded its efforts to over thirty African countries, the United States, and Haiti” (Maathai). 

I absolutely agree that disempowerment and environmental degradation are behind the material deprivations and cultural losses of the marginalized and the poor. Marginalized groups aren’t able to get resources and things they need to better themselves/their communities and environment because the greater populace is dismissive of them and doesn’t allow people who they view as “below them” to change things for the better. 

Works Cited:

Gebara, Ivone. “Ecofeminism: A Latin American Perspective.” Cross Currents , vol. 53, no. 1, 2003. Arts Premium Collection, search-proquest-com.libproxy.umassd.edu/docview/214936990/abstract/1516EEDAA5CD464DPQ/1?accountid=14573.

Maathai, Wangari. “Key Speeches & Articles: Speak Truth to Power.” The Green Belt Movement, 4 May 2000, www.greenbeltmovement.org/wangari-maathai/key-speeches-and-articles/speak-truth-to-power.

To understand how ecofeminism is related to intersectionality, first we must understand what intersectional feminism is. Intersectional feminism is a term that was first coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw back in 1989 as a way of thinking where one has to see the intersections of feminism and how it individually affects people. For example, a gay black woman has less privilege than a gay white women because although they’re both female and gay, one is white and the other is black. Whiteness is the biggest privilege of them all and people need to understand that although they are not privileged in some aspects, they are extremely privileged in others. “Intersectionality is a concept that helps us think about the ways that a person might be oppressed in one category, and be privileged in another. It is also about how a person might be oppressed by more than one category at a time”. The point of intersectionality is to understand the “interconnectedness of race, class, gender, disability, sexuality, caste, religion, age, and the effects which these can have on the discrimination, oppression, and identity of women and the natural environment” (Kings, 64). There are three main aspects of intersectional theory: 1. “intersectional theory viewed at the micro or individual level, this is a concept that helps us think about the ways that a person might be oppressed in one category, and be privileged in another”, 2. “intersectionality is also a framework for analysis, we can apply the concept of intersectionality to any ‘women’s issue'”, and 3. “intersectionality as praxis: social justice movements, when looking at social justice through an intersectional framework, it means that ending sexism will never be complete unless we also end racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, etc.. because they are deeply connected to sexism”. 

Ecofeminism has some slightly different main principles compared to intersectionality: 1.”the building of Western industrialization in opposition to nature interacts dialectically with and reinforces the subjugation of women, ecofeminists take on the life struggles of all of nature as our own”, 2. “life on earth is an interconnected web, not a hierarchy onto nature and then used to justify social domination, ecofeminists seek to show the connections between all forms of domination”, 3. “A healthy, balanced ecosystem, must maintain diversity, we need a decentralized global movement that is founded on common interested yet celebrates diversity and opposes all forms of domination and violence”, and 4. “the survival of the species necessities a renewed understanding of our relationship to nature, of our own bodily nature and of non human nature around us” (King). The ecofeminist “interconnected web” perspective explains how all life on earth is connected between all forms of domination. According to Kings, intersectionality is an interconnected web as well, “a spider’s web preserves the necessary complexity of intersectionality and the potential ‘stickiness’ of cultural categories, which can often leave people stuck between two or more intersecting or conflicting social categories” (Kings, 65).

Ecofeminism and intersectionality both make “attempts to attend the variety of ways in which women live and the range of circumstances, which influence their often vastly different experiences” (Kings, 64). Intersectionality has provided ecofeminism “with a convenient opportunity to confront some of the skeletons in its closet” (Kings, 64). Intersectionality has allowed ecofeminism to broaden it’s theory a lot, “the success of intersectionality in feminist and ecofeminist work points to the self-reflectivity of both disciplines and to the capacity of intersectionality to be interpreted and practiced in multiple ways” (Kings, 65). Intersectional feminism helped develop the “practical application of ecofeminism by ‘initiating a process of discovery’ (Davis 2008) by acting as an analytic tool or ‘lens’ to aid critical thinking on ecofeminist debates” (Kings, 69). Something that many people forget it that ecofeminism and intersectionality are theories in progress and shouldn’t be viewed as the ‘end all, be all’- instead, they should be seen as theories that continue to adapt to the changing political and environmental landscape in which it finds itself (Kings, 82). Also, one must remember that ecofeminism is mainly full of white, middle class people who lack intersectionality (lack care for black people and their struggles as well) (Cain). Ecofeminism struggles to focus on how “sexism affects black women in its intersectional approaches” (Cain)  and this has made it so that “black women are involved with the environmental justice movement because environmental racism often directly affects their homes, families, and communities” (Cain). 

Works Cited:

Cain, Cacildia. “The Necessity of Black Women’s Standpoint and Intersectionality in Environmental Movements.” Medium, Black Feminist Thought 2016, 14 Apr. 2016, medium.com/black-feminist-thought-2016/the-necessity-of-black-women-s-standpoint-and-intersectionality-in-environmental-movements-fc52d4277616.

Kings. “Ethics & the Environment .” Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism , vol. 22, no. 1, 2017, muse-jhu-edu.libproxy.umassd.edu/article/660551.

In the readings on page 508, Norgaard and York believe that nations where women are in the government/parliament, are much more likely to support environmental policies. Norgaard and York point this out so people will understand that there is a connection between women and the environment and see how large of an impact that gender roles have on environmental policies. Because of this connection between women and nature, “women tend to be more environmentally progressive, the inclusion of women as equal members of society- as voters, citizens, policy makers, and social movement participants should positively influence state behavior” (Norgaard and York, 508).

Although this is an image of a bill being signed, it’s an exact example of a woman who is in politics and is positively influencing state behavior by enacting environmental protections. This bill was established in Sweden, where equality is extremely prevalent, “Sweden has never finished lower than fifth in the Gender Gap ranking” and they continue to fight gender inequality everyday. Luck for Sweden, they’ve enacted many things to fight gender inequality but that doesn’t always happen, “nation states with greater gender inequality may be less environmentally responsible due to the hegemony of the logic of domination” (Norgaard and York, 510). Basically, with gender inequality comes environmental degradation and for nation states where gender inequality is rampant, they’re less likely to enact environmental protections. 

This is an image of Aleksandra Koroleva who is a Russian environmental activist. Koroleva worked in and out of the government multiple times and she had a huge impact on Russian environmental policies. She was able to “stop dangerous projects, prevent tree clearings,…  educate officials by participating in numerous public councils, drafting new laws, and criticizing public officials sho closed their eyes to environmental crimes” (Milovanov). As unorthodox as her approaches may seem, Koroleva has been extremely successful with preserving natural resources and protecting citizens from dangerous environmental pollution. 

This image is showing how each gender views and understands global warming. As you can see, it’s blatantly obvious that women are more concerned about global warming than men. This is exactly what Norgaard and York were explaining- women worry about environmental degradation more than men because of the connection between gender inequality and environmental problems. 

Works Cited:

Bureau of International Information Programs, and United States Department of State. “Global Women.” Global Womens Issues Women in the World Today Extended Version, Bureau of International Information Programs, United States Department of State, 1 Jan. 2012, opentextbc.ca/womenintheworld/.

“Gender Differences in Public Understanding of Climate Change.” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/gender-differences-in-public-understanding-of-climate-change/.

“Gender Equality in Sweden | The Official Site of Sweden.” Sweden.se, 28 June 2018, sweden.se/society/gender-equality-in-sweden/.

Lövin, Isabella. “Just Signed Referral of Swedish #Climate Law, Binding All Future Governments to Net Zero Emissions by 2045. For a Safer and Better Future. Pic.twitter.com/OqOO2y8BU6.” Twitter, Twitter, 3 Feb. 2017, twitter.com/IsabellaLovin/status/827457588094758912.

Norgaard, Kari, and Richard York. “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism.” Gender & Society, vol. 19, no. 4, 2005, pp. 506–522., doi:10.1177/0891243204273612.

When I began to look at the readings, I was actually pretty surprised by Hawkins stance on abortion. Hawkins begins by stating that “environmental considerations are relevant to the abortion debate and, conversely, that the abortion dispute ought to enter into a discussion of “feminism and environment”” (Hawkins, 690). Basically, Hawkins believes that we need to look at the “moral implications, from an environmentalist perspective” (Hawkins, 690) and see how life can ruin our planet. In the last few decades,  the human population has grown between 5 and 6 billion people and is still growing to this day (Hawkins, 690). The problem is that the projected maximum number of people is between 10 and 12 billion and it’s coming up a lot faster than it should. We should not be able to have 10-12 billion on our planet until the end of the next century but “the links between population growth, poverty, and environmental degradation, however, are becoming increasingly well documented, resulting in what has been called a “downward spiral”” (Hawkins, 690). “With the destruction of habitats and fragmentation of population, entire species are dwindling and disappearing as a result of human activities… The changes are so enormous that conservation biologists… have been discussing a possible end to evolution” (Hawkins, 691). To combat this, Hawkins begins by saying it would be useful to begin limiting the population. Many people would agree that this is necessary but that it should only be for the Third World nations and not a wealthy nation (Hawkins, 691). The best way to limit the population is abortion but “abortion is seen as isolatable from the larger picture, not an “acceptable method” of birth control” (Hawkins,691). Abortion plays a huge role in the long-term welfare of developing countries and by “limiting the ecologically damaging effects of the human population in all parts of the globe (Hawkins, 692). The birth rate in developing countries has lowered which is great but “the environmental toll taken by each new human born within the “developed” world will be very much greater than that of one born elsewhere.” (Hawkins, 692). To help with this, those living in “industrialized nations can lower our overall destructive effect on the natural environment both by reducing the amount and nature of our consumption and by reducing the number of us that consume the planet’s precious resources” (Hawkins, 692). Hawkins stated that all of this material is meant to educate others about the “practical importance of ecological concerns to the abortion debate… It also suggests the theoretical importance of ecological concern to the abortion debate” (Hawkins, 693). I stated at the top  that I was surprised by Hawkins stance on abortion and it’s due to the ecofeminist stance on abortion. Abortion is “viewed as a “masculine” response to unwanted pregnancy that “fails to respect the interconnectedness  of all life”” (Hawkins, 693). However, Hawkins does not stand by this view and explains that “at the time, recognition of our connectedness with all other life on the planet reinforces the need for abortion. When the interests of life in this larger sense are taken into consideration, the prochoice position is the one most deserving of the adjective “profile”” (Hawkins, 693). 

Hawkins stance on abortion is significantly different compared to others. There are three main views on abortion: the extreme conservative view, the extreme liberal view, and moderate views which lies somewhere in-between both (Gordon). Conservatives see abortion as murder and they claim that personhood begins in the womb, this often comes from a very religious standpoint. Even though it often comes from a religious standpoint, some religions are all for abortion. I am Jewish and in my religion, we believe life starts after birth and that abortion is okay. I took a class last year at my old college where my professor was a world renowned Rabbi, he went into great detail about how abortion is allowed in our religion and how we do not have the right to tell others what to do with their bodies. Liberals claim that personhood begins after birth and moderates believe they are both wrong and right.When reading, I saw something that I did not agree with. I read that although feminism is linked to abortion rights, it’s not necessarily connected and I have to disagree with that. I view feminism as equal rights for all and that includes the right to choose what you do with your body and when. For myself, abortion and feminism go hand in hand and if someone claims they’re a feminist but not prochoice, I cannot see them as a feminist. Personally, I would have to agree with Hawkins/extreme liberals on this. I am all for abortion if the person carrying the child wants or needs one but I also see how abortion can help us preserve our planet for future generations. 

Works Cited:

Gordon, John-Stewart. “Abortion.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/abortion/.

Jaggar, Alison M. Living with Contradictions Controversies in Feminist Social Ethics. Routledge, 2018.

This is one of three photos I will be analyzing from Adams collection of photos. As you can see, this is a “sexy” female chicken wearing very short shorts, a slightly cropped shirt, and high heels. The chicken looks as if she is trying to entice the customers to come inside and I’m sure that was the intention when designing her. This is a clear cut example of Adams “anthropornography”. This means that animals are shown as sexually consumable in a way similar to the sexualization of women. (Adams, 14). Advertisements constantly depict animals very sexually because it gains male attention and it’s drawn the way that society views women. Women are viewed as sexual objects and what’s better than mixing meat and sex? 

This next photo may not be an animal dressed “sexy” but it definitely sexualizes a dead animal. They use sexually explicit words to describe a dead turkey as a female who is on their back waiting for sex. Adams explains that these ads and images are “mixed with degradation. That equation has one answer: the dead animal equals the female position” (Adams, 15). This image also made me think of what Adams said about heterosexual politics, “heterosexual politics are also imbedded; the assumption is that women is available as an orfice for men” (Adams, 15). This seems to accurately describe this photo because of the man’s assumption that the “woman” is on their back ready to be eaten, or in other words that they are an orifice for men.

Finally, the last image I chose depicts a pink, female pig blowing a kiss and saying “I’m a prized pig. You can bank on me being high maintenance.”  The image of the pig isn’t extremely sexualized (unless we’re talking about the kiss) but what the pig says explains it all. In society, women are always viewed as being high maintenance and very snobby, the pig is shown as being just that! I also can’t help but think about how the color of the pig means something, “whenever whiteness appears, it is a choice… black women are often depicted as “wild” animals who have to be captured” (Adams, 16). This is clearly meant to be a white female pig who is being sexualized for ticket sales… saying it that way makes it sound even more wrong.

I chose an ad that I vividly remember seeing online and I was shocked when I saw it. It’s an ad from Burger King that shows a women with her mouth open, waiting for a seven inch sandwich to be put in her mouth. The ad uses sexual slogans as well, “It’ll blow your mind away”, “BK super seven inches”. They purposely use these words to insinuate the women giving a blowjob and being shocked by how large the item is. It’s disgusting how blatantly obvious this and all of the other ads are. I’m sure Adams approach to stopping this would be to stop eating meat completely but that won’t change anything. I’ve seen ads that sexualize fruits and vegetables as women but apparently that’s not an issue to Adams. 

Works Cited:

Adams, Carol J, et al. “The Politics of Meat: The Antennae Journal of Nature in Visual Culture Interview with Annie Potts ‘The Politics of Carol J. Adams,’ with Annie Potts Was First Published in Antennae, 14 (Autumn 2010): 12–24. Used by Permission.” The Carol J. Adams Reader : Writings and Conversations 1995–2015, no. 14, 2010, pp. 1–24., doi:10.5040/9781501324369.0009.

Adams , Carol J. “Examples of The Sexual Politics of Meat.” Carol J Adams , caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/.

Widmann, Jackie. “Targeting Women – Fast Food Advertising.” Advertising & Society 2014, 28 Apr. 2014, advsoc2014.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/targeting-women-fast-food-advertising/.

I think the image was chosen because of the cliche that men are considered to be the head of the table and are chosen to be the ones to carve the meat. I also think it chooses meat because society has completely gendered meat and view it as a men’s food. This might be a stretch, but I think the fact that this person doesn’t have a face or show any expressions is an example of how people don’t care that they’re eating animals that were once alive.

When thinking about gendered foods, yogurt immediately popped into my head. Yogurt is always marketed towards women. I can only recall seeing women eating yogurt in commercials (that’s not to say men aren’t in them as well but I’ve seen more women). I also recall seeing a yogurt commercial with John Stamos where he is trying to seduce a woman with yogurt and if that isn’t blatantly obvious I don’t know what is. I also immediately thought of energy drinks. Every commercial is about male athletes needing energy drinks but never females because of the stereotype that women can’t play sports. After reading about gendered foods, I can’t help but think of all of the gendered foods right in front of me. 

Ecofeminists see animals as our equals and believe that we need to stand up for animals since they can’t do that themselves. Greta Gaard says that “feminists who politicize their care for animals see a specific linkage between sexism and speciesism” (Gaard, 19). Terms for animals are often used in negative ways to hurt women and ecofeminists believe that “speciesism is a form of oppression that parallels and reinforces other forms of oppression” (Gaard, 20) and this directly links the oppression that women and animals face. Gaard also goes into detail about why she believes having animals as pets is wrong. Gaard says “to be a pet is to have all one’s life decisions controlled by someone else… the pet-owner relationship constructs humans as masters in a way that few people would be comfortable treating other humans” (Gaard, 21). I understand where Gaard is coming from and I would love nothing more than for all animals to be free but we can’t do that. That would’ve worked years before we domesticated animals. If we stop taking in these animals they will be killed in shelters or they will die in the wild because they have been domesticated. In my opinion, I think it’s more humane to give these animals a chance to live than to throw them out in the wild to die. If someone like Gaard were around years ago, maybe we could have stopped the domestication of animals but we didn’t and we can’t change that. Gaard also believes that society should try to stop eating meat and become vegetarians. She says, “many people in first-world nations can choose healthy vegetarian diets, thereby reducing the suffering of other animal species confined in factory farming operations, and reducing our own suffering of ill health as well” (Gaard, 21). While Deane Curtin believes in vegetarianism, she understands that some cultures must have meat or that it’s just not possible for some people to live without meat. I agree with Curtin on this, I think vegetarianism is a wonderful thing and if you have the ability to be a vegetarian please do it. I can’t be a vegetarian, I have a Selective Eating Disorder that makes it very difficult for me to eat many, many foods and it so happens that chicken is one of the few foods that I am okay with eating. I would love to stop eating meat completely but if I do that, I won’t get enough protein and I won’t have many options food wise. Like Curtin says, “I cannot refer to an absolute moral rule that prohibits meat eating under all circumstances. There may be some contexts in which another response is appropriate” (Curtin). I agree with more of Curtin’s points than Gaard’s because she is more understanding about real life and still wants vegetarianism but understands it’s not realistic for everyone.

Works Cited:

Curtin, Deane. “Contextual Moral Vegetarianism .” The Animal Rights Library, www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/curtin01.htm.

Gaard, Greta. “Ecofeminism on the Wing: Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations.” Academia.edu , 2001, www.academia.edu/2489929/Ecofeminism_on_the_Wing_Perspectives_on_Human-Animal_Relations.

The summer before first grade, my family moved us from North Carolina to a small town called Locust Grove – located in central Virginia. This was a place that I had been trying to leave since the moment we got there. Our house is located in a gated community that was originally meant be settlement of vacation homes for retirees but that later changed. My home town was a paradise for conservative southerners. My house is located on the corner of Battlefield and Confederate and right outside of our community are multiple battlefields from the Civil War. I was surrounded by many farms and many, many Confederate flags. My family never fit in and we never felt like we belonged there. As many negatives as I have about my hometown, I can definitely appreciate the beauty I was surrounded by for so many years. I lived close to many hiking spots, lakes, beaches, and mountains that were breathtaking. My hometown has definitely dealt with things similar to what Williams was going into. When Williams spoke up about how residents need to stand up for the wilderness surrounding us so it isn’t “destroyed under the banner of progress, expediency, or ignorance” it reminded me of something that happened at home. Members of our planning commission approved a re-zoning application and they wanted to replace an agricultural zone with a high-density residential area. 90% of local residents requested for denial when they voted on this but the application was passed. It was extremely frustrating but my community came together to try and stop what Williams was saying we need to stand up for. 

(This is a photo I took of the lake that is in my housing development)

Thankfully, I was the first one in my family to get out of Virginia. Once I graduated high school in 2017, I moved out to California for college and attended school in Bel Air for a year. I left the college (too expensive and snobby) but I decided to stay in Los Angeles and I got an apartment with my boyfriend and two other roommates in Reseda. I had been wanting to move to California for forever because my aunt lives out here and my family would visit her every year. As much as I love California, I hate Los Angeles. It’s very dirty, overpopulated, and it’s just too much city for me. As much as I hate the countryside like my hometown, I also hate cities. My adventures with moving aren’t over yet; I just have to figure out where to move next. 

(This is a photo I took while crossing the street to the bus stop by my apartment)

According to Barbara Kingsolver, people need wildness in their lives and I agree 100%.  Kingsolver says that “people need wild places. Whether or not we think we do, we do. We need to be able to taste grace and know once again that we desire it”. I don’t think people realize how often we need a wild place and how it can bring one back to reality, “wildness puts us in our place. It reminds us that our plans are small and somewhat absurd” (Kingsolver). Wildness really does put us in our place, it makes all of your problems and everything going on completely insignificant when you’re in this space. I absolutely think that someone living in the city can experience this. I’m currently living in a huge city but there are plenty of hidden gems where one can be with just the planet. 

Works Cited:

Kingsolver, Barbara. “Knowing Our Place .” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript_smallwonder_print.html.

Williams, Terry Tempest. Red: Passion and Patience in the Desert. Pantheon Books, 2002.

Women in the Global South are affected by environmental degradation in many, many ways. In the Global South, the women are the main gatherers of fuel, fodder, and water and a workday for them is around 10-12 hours (Agarwal). Due to environmental degradation, many of the drinking water wells have dried up or have been rendered unusable, fertilizer and pesticides have contaminated waters and have destroyed fish life and polluted the water (Agarwal). Often times, people claim the cause of environmental degradation is excessive population growth when in reality, trying to control the population growth can lead to environmental degradation (Agarwal). Environmental degradation could cause reduced education for young girls, fewer employment options for women, decline in income due to fodder shortage, and this has led to an increased number of suicides among young women in the recent years (Agarwal). 

Hobgood-Oster describes ecofeminism as a connection between the oppression of women and nature through the patriarchy. Hobgood-Oster wants to tear down this oppression by destroying the patriarchy, the main focus is to “make visible these “women-nature connections” and, where harmful to women and nature, to dismantle it” (Warren). Hobgood-Oster also explains that if we view the oppression of nature and women separately, we will never change it. 

Unlike Hobgood-Oster, Agarwal believes that the relationship women and men have with nature is “rooted in their material reality, in their specific forms of interaction with the environment” (Agarwal, 8). Due to the “gender and class (/caste/race)-based division of labor and distribution of property and power, gender and class (/caste/race) structure people’s interactions with nature and so structure the effects of environmental change on people and their responses to it” (Agarwal, 8). For her perspective, Agarwal uses the term “feminist environmentalism”. 

I found Agarwal’s ecofeminist perspective to be the most appealing. Agarwal has a very realistic approach to ecofeminism and I understood every point she made, unlike Hobgood-Osters approach. Agarwal is trying to help change things for others and herself without putting the blame on everyone else like Hobgood-Oster. 

Works Cited: 

Agarwal, Bina. “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India.” Feminist Studies, vol. 18, no. 1, 1992, p. 1., doi:10.2307/3178217.

Warren, Karen J. “Warren’s Introduction to EcoFeminism.” There It Is . Org, Michael E. Zimmerman, 29 Mar. 2015, thereitis.org/warrens-introduction-to-ecofeminism/.

Hobgood-Oster, Laura. “Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution .” 18 Aug. 2002, users.clas.ufl.edu/bron/pdf–christianity/Hobgood-Oster–Ecofeminism-International Evolution.pdf.