Month: March 2020

Intersectionality is meant to be inclusive. Intersectionality in feminism means that feminist principles are not just for one kind of woman – they are for every person. Robby Soave, author of “Intersectionality 101,” offers a broad definition. In that piece, he wrote, “What began at the intersection of race and sex now includes economic class, gender identity (the gender category to which a person feels attachment, which may be different from the person’s biological sex), gender expression (the way a person looks and behaves), sexual orientation, immigration status, disability status, age, religious belief (though certain believers—such as Muslims—are perceived as more oppressed than others), and size (whether you are overweight or not).”

Intersectionality is important in feminism because it recognizes that there are many things people can be oppressed over, not just gender. Equality needs to be fighting for everybody, and fighting against oppression of all kinds. Intersectionality is thus related to ecofeminism. If ecofeminists are fighting against the oppression of the earth, and intersectionalist feminists are fighting against oppression of any kind, then they are easily on the same side.

In her piece “The Ecology of Feminist and the Feminism of Ecology,” Ynestra King writes, “Life on earth is an interconnected web, not a hierarchy.” This represents the blending of all forms of life on earth – not just nature, not just humans, but every living thing. King goes on to say, “A healthy, balanced ecosystem, including human and nonhuman inhabitants, must maintain diversity.” This is true for both intersectionalism and ecofeminism. All different forms of life (such as different races of humans, or different plants) have privilege and oppression throughout life.

The meshing of intersectionality and ecofeminism relate back to a topic we’ve talked about before – being vegan.  If all living creatures are considered equal, and we are trying to not oppress any living thing in order to have equality all over the earth, then humans should definitely not be killing and eating animals.   Greta Gaard writes about it in her piece “Eco-feminism on the Wing: Perspectives on Human Animal Relationships.”  She writes, “feminists who politicize their care for animals see a specific linkage between sexism and speciesism, between the oppression of women and the oppression of animals.”  If we are trying to not include living creatures in any form of opression, this trickles down to the earth and animals.

 

Works Cited:
SOAVE, ROBBY. “Intersectionality 101.” Reason, vol. 51, no. 3, July 2019, p. 57. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=136518165&site=eds-live&scope=site.
This is an article written by a college law professor. It cites all of it’s sources and was published in a feminist magazine.

When women politicians are running for an office, they are always set up to be scrutinized in a different way. Assumptions are easily made about what they should or shouldn’t be. While these women in politics are expected to display certain “feminine” personality traits (empathetic, patient, kind, etc) , they are also supposed to support “feminine” issues. One issue that is traditionally seen as feminine is the environment.

In a reading from Norgaard and York, they talk about the relationship between gender and the state. They believe that that state is typically patriarchal. They also argue that nations with a greater gender equality are more likely to protect the environment. This is for a few different reasons. One is what I mentioned above – according to research, women are more likely to defend the environment and think about the consequences of their actions on the environment. This will come to no surprise to anyone who has been reading my blog about the connection between women and the environment. It goes back to the very basics of how oppressing the earth is the same as oppressing women.

Another reason is that in nations where there is more gender equality, it is more socially acceptable to be somebody who supports the environment. That accepting, “forward-thinking” environment breeds the positive influence that wants to protect nature.

In American politics, a shining example of this theory is the Green New Deal. The Green New Deal is a plan that would massively change a lot of norms in our society in order to try to save our planet. It is controversial because of it’s extremities, but supported mainly by Democrats. The Democratic party is known for being more liberal, more feminist, and more concerned about the environment. There is a feminist sect of this deal from different political groups that can be read about here: https://wedo.org/feminist-green-new-deal-press-release/. The press release for this group says: “The 10 key principles call for advancing reproductive justice, the creation of regenerative economies centered on feminist analysis and understanding of the care economy, a shift from exploitative and unsustainable production patterns and a rejection of false solutions to the climate crisis” (WEDO).

Another example of Norgaard and York’s theory comes from a Yale study. The study states that countries with more female politicians pass more ambitious climate policies. This is almost exactly what the Norgaard and York reading said. Researchers studied the legislatures of 91 different countries, then compared the percentage of seats held by women. They found that the more women represented, the more the environment was too. To double check their work, they also compared education levels, overall political affiliations, etc. None of these influences correlated – it was only women. More can be read about the study here: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/09/countries-with-more-female-politicians-pass-more-ambitious-climate-policies-study-suggests/

An interesting fact I found about how equality in governing relates to climate change came from Switzerland. Switzerland has made a plan to meet their Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. The government has been providing resources in order to help them meet this, and provided an image to show how women’s equality plays a big role in that. This is the government recognizing feminism and women’s equality, like the reading said.

 

More can be found here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/why-women-cannot-be-spectators-in-the-climate-change-battle/

Works Cited:

Harrington, Samantha. “Countries with More Female Politicians Pass More Ambitious Climate Policies, Study Suggests ” Yale Climate Connections.” Yale Climate Connections, Yale, 9 Sept. 2019, www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/09/countries-with-more-female-politicians-pass-more-ambitious-climate-policies-study-suggests/.

Sinha, Vaishali. “We Can Solve Climate Change – If We Involve Women.” World Economic Forum, www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/why-women-cannot-be-spectators-in-the-climate-change-battle/.

“Women’s Rights and Climate Activists Launch a Feminist Agenda for a Green New Deal.” WEDO, 25 Sept. 2019, wedo.org/feminist-green-new-deal-press-release/.
This is a source that was recommended by my teacher. It is a real organization, not a random .com website. It provides additional resources and cites it’s sources.

Abortion is a sensitive topic.  There are many different stances on it.  There tends to be three main stances on abortion.  The first is the conservative view – this says that abortion is murder and should never happen.  The second is the extreme liberal view – this is pro-life and that women should always have a choice.  The third is moderate, which is a balance of the two extremes.  The moderate view tends to believe that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or incest.

Ronnie Zoe Hawkins states that abortion is often seen as a “masculine” response to an unwanted pregnancy, and that it is seen as disrespecting the connection of women and nature.  However, Hawkins also argues that abortion is part of a needed human population limitation.   While in Western countries abortion should not be seen as a standard everyday birth control method for somebody, it is something that contributes to population control.  For less wealthy countries, abortion is sometimes the only access to a form of birth control somebody has.  Population control and population balance is something that is needed in order to preserve the Earth and its resources.

 

As a feminist, I believe that women have the right to choose what is best for their body.  I believe women should be able to choose if they have an abortion or if they have a bunch of kids.  At the same time, I believe that we have a responsibility to the world around us to not harm the environment.  Ecofeminism means respecting not only human beings, but the Earth as well.  If a person is pregnant and cannot have a child without it negatively impacting their environment, is it still feminist to have that child?  If adding to the population is hurting the overall quality of life and the Earth, how can somebody with good conscious reproduce?   In the article “Abortion isn’t about the right to privacy. It’s about women’s right to equality,” feminist writer Jessica Valenti argues that overall, abortion is good for women.   Not only that, it is a public good.

 

Population and the effect on the environment is a topic that rings true especially during times like we are currently experiencing.  We are currently navigating a national emergency, and a lot of people are making decisions on how to best protect themselves, their families, and the general public.  We are seeing in countries such as Italy and China that when a national emergency happens and a sickness strikes, there is not enough room and there are not enough supplies to take care of the people currently residing in those areas.  People are literally dying because we are not prepared.  This will be happening soon in America as well.  While we are experiencing this pandemic, how are people who are currently pregnant feeling about bringing another child into this world?  Is that an ecofeminist thing to do, to add another life?  With a virus running rampant, pregnant women and newborns are going to be more susceptible.  Would it not be safer for a woman, especially an at-risk one, to have an abortion rather than go to an overcrowded hospital to deliver a baby?  These are all personal decisions people need to be making in these trying times.  According to an article in the Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law,  the number of induced abortions rose after the nuclear disaster of Chernobyl.  People were concerned about the unknown effects that radiation may have on their children.  This could be the same situation for the Coronavirus outbreak.   Considering it is a new strain of virus, we cannot be sure of the long term effects.  How is this going to impact the amount of children being brought into the world at this time?  Will this make people reconsider having children because of population control?

 

 

Works Cited

 

FRANȚ, Ancuța Elena. “The Link between Environmental Factors and Abortion.” Journal of Public Administration, Finance & Law, no. 7, Jan. 2015, pp. 158–163. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=108970440&site=eds-live&scope=site.

This source is from a peer-reviewed academic journal.  It was written by a faculty member of a university in Romania.  It cites multiple other publications.

 

Valenti, Jessica. “Abortion Isnt about the Right to Privacy. Its about Womens Right to Equality.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 14 Oct. 2014, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/abortion-right-to-privacy-women-right-to-equality.