Not on board with ecofeminism.
A short, opinionated critique of ecofeminism:
When speaking to one of my Women’s Studies instructors, the area of ecofeminism was brought up to me. I admit, it sincerely sparked my interest. Having no previous knowledge of this feminist movement, I made a lot of presumptions that ended up in severe disappointment on my part. What can I say? When I first thought of ecology and environmental issues mixed in with feminism, I thought of equaling the scientific playing field. It has been recognized time and time again that women are often undermined and underrepresented in the world of science, and in the case of women like Rosalind Franklin, their research used with little to no credit towards them. Though the playing field has started to level, there is no argument against the fact that the scientific world still faces under representation by women.
A feminist perspective on ecology and environmental issues was something I thought would be interesting, and enlightening. I honestly thought it dealt more heavily with the issues of women within these fields and our role in increasing our presence as women. And while those issues do play a role in what ecofeminism is, I was severely disappointed by the rest.
For one, there are too many conflicting sides in the arena of ecofeminism. In my opinion, this is in no way a cohesive movement. There are criticisms from other feminisms, environmentalists, and there seems to be a lot of intra-movement arguments. No one seems quite sure where to stand on issues or what issues should even be tackled by ecofeminists. They have been present in many situations from anti-nuclear protests to heading the front on animal liberation; many ecofeminists promote veganism and the de-feminization of nature. But even on these fronts, the lines seem to get blurred on where ecofeminists stand and what exactly the issue is with these particular areas.
Ecofeminists are certainly not the only group that promotes a nuclear weapon free world. While in an ideal world, such weapons would not be needed, yet the ecofeminist view takes the need for weaponry and lumps it in completely with the evil of industrial progress. Ecofeminism seems to take the view that progress, especially industrial, does nothing but propagate the destruction of the earth and increase the patriarchal authority of men, therefore the oppression of women. The plights of women and children in Third World Countries are laid at the feet of Western men, blaming the pillaging nature of Western technologies on the defeat of local tradition, loss of unification of nature, and oppression of women and children. To me, this is a terrible, vast oversimplification of what happens when you see a “Third World Country” situation arise. Patriarchy certainly does play a part; violence against women and children, as well as the denial of basic human rights, in Third World Countries has to do heavily with sexism and patriarchal order. Yet it is far too complex of an issue to simplify into an “evil Western influence” issue.
The view of women and children in many Third World Countries (the definition of which is disputed by many feminists) are as equally due to cultural and religious influence. The term “Third World Country” encompasses many areas and countries that each have unique overall and regional cultures. Gross oversimplification of the issue of oppression fails to recognize these areas and countries, regions even, as geographical, cultural, and religious entities all of their own. Ecofeminism criticizes advancements (placing all “negative” advances uniformly under the classification of being “Western”; i.e. in most cases seeming to stem from America or Western Europe) in technology and science as being universal evils and dismiss the good that it has done. It is right to question some of the ethics our country portrays when dealing with undeveloped countries; where do we draw the line between helping and hindering? No one would argue that America has a heavy hand in the international arena; our foreign policies are too aggressive and cost us relationships with allies and drain us of valuable resources. We’ve used underdeveloped “Third World Countries’ as political stomping grounds; we’ve supplied fractions with weapons when we believed it would fall to our favor.
There is no doubt that America, and Western Europe, have had shady dealings with Third World Countries but we are far from the only offenders. One of the inherent problems I find with ecofeminism is that it takes a far too narrow look at progress and advancement; technological advancements and sharing of ideals between nations, and not just Western nations, have led to a revolution among the women of many nations. In countries such as India, rape is an everyday threat for women and girls. Rape is underreported due to corruption within the police and the cultural view of women that stems from an outdated caste system. Yet the young women are beginning to stand up to their oppressors; in my Gender Justice course, we looked at the Red Brigade, a group of women and girls who are acting as vigilantes to shame rapists and force legal action against them. These young women realize that they aren’t tools for sex; they’re worth more and the atmosphere of their country that protects rapists is wrong.
Ecofeminism takes the broad view that all expansion is evil and disrupts native beliefs and systems; yet in looking at different ecofeminist resources (which are varied and none seem to agree), few want to look at the successes that shared technologies and ideas bring to women and children. The sharing of ideas through technology and science have led women in many countries to realize that rape is not an acceptable part of life and fight against rape culture that is supported by cultural tradition and religious notions. More so, women in areas blighted by sexually transmitted diseases and poor living conditions for children have begun to fight for the right for contraception, abortion access, and the right to decide whether or not they will be mothers. By being able to share ideas, women all over the world have banded together to fight against the oppression. These technological advancements are not just Western; problems arising from expansion are not just caused by Western countries. Ecofeminism takes a narrow world view; the proponents and supporters of this movement view any technological progress as bad. They lay the blame at the feet of Western countries, failing to recognize the systems of oppression in the forms of religion and cultural heritage that are found in countries around the world. Technology is seen as inherently bad, stripping native peoples of their culture, of their land, and food, and spread by Western ideas of industrialization; to me this is insulting to the technological progress that countries around the world have made without the influence of the Mighty West (as it seems to be to ecofeminists).
When it comes to technology, ecofeminism simply refuses to recognize advancements in women’s health and rights. It blankets all advancements and all cases of environmental destruction on Western expansion. This to me, is indeed a hard sale; it takes a narrow, Western white female view on the world by underplaying the advancements that societies make on their own. As women in Western countries, we have rights and privileges that enable us to cast these judgments. It is easy to glorify all old institutions and ways of working with the environment when we reap the benefits of technology every day.
In my opinion, there are ways to view this in a more balanced way. FWhile America and Western Europe have a wide track record of invasive foreign policy, we are by far not the only regions in the world that have had a history of spreading our ideals and advancements by way of conquering. In the area of conquering, enslaving, and oppression, America and Western Europe are fairly new to the frontline. These issues are deeply stemmed within human history and occur many times within the past. What should be the focus is the general rights of individuals, nations, cultures, and ethnicities. Domination by another alien culture or country, whether the offending country is Western or not, is a crime against the native populations and no matter the offending country, has harsh repercussions for the people (not just the women) and native beliefs of the oppressed group. While the environment historically suffered due to technological advancements, we are seeing the birth of a new era where environmental effects are being universally recognized, and where they are not, these companies and businesses face harsh critique. This is still a movement in progress towards environmental recognition; whether it’s too little too late, we can’t be certain.
In terms of technology and the environment, as well as women’s rights, my view is this: instead of focusing on the demonization of technology and the West as inherent oppressors of women, we should be focusing on the spread of information to women around the world. It is every person’s right, whether man, woman, or child, to receive education and health benefits. The focus should be on helping women and children know what rights they have as human beings and standing behind them when they decide to challenge cultural and religious tenants that would force them to live as oppressed peoples, such as the Red Brigade has done. Seek to show how certain technologies can lead to the oppression of women and instead of simply waving a rebellious flag, work to educate people going into technology fields on how to make sure that technologies are widely available to all groups of people. Offer solutions; be aware that the world is not one big, heterozygous group of people. Respect and recognize other cultures, the advancements that countries make, and realize that not all problems can find the West at the root and are often far more complicated than a simple “evil Western caused” problem. Focus on how patriarchy takes a role in oppressing women, but look at it within a cultural context to better understand how the problem takes root. Fight for better environmental enforcement and work with companies who actively seek to balance environmental safety with their companies. When it comes to technology and oppression of the environment and women, ecofeminism finds a lot of problems but offers few practical solutions.
Another area of ecofeminism that I find issue with is animal liberation. Animal liberation is an issue that is argued even among ecofeminists, but the general view seems to be that animal liberation and the liberation of women go hand in hand. The factor relied on tying these two happens to be men; men are the oppressors who by way of enslaving nature are further enslaving women. Now, as someone who is a proponent of animal welfare, animal liberation sticks in my craw for many reasons.
Animal liberation, in general, wants to end all forms of use of animals. That means not only should we not eat animals or hold them in captivity, but we should not have pets. They should not be used in scientific settings, agriculture, or for animal products. Groups such as PETA and ALF are animal liberation groups, both of which are often followed closely by the law due to threats of domestic terrorism on their parts. If it were up to them, everyone would go out today and dump their cat, dog, fish, reptile, etc. out into the wild.
It’s a view that allows for no compromise. It takes the road that freedom and death is better than say a dog enjoying the benefits of laying on the couch. According to many animal liberation groups, mass death of humans is simply a matter of karma and even if studying on a dog or monkey would lead to the cure of a disease, it would not be worth it. Simply put, animals are viewed on a level of sentience equal to humans. In some cases, animal liberation supporters believe that all animals should be afforded the same protections or none should be protected; meaning, a common, non-threatened species should be afforded the same protection as a species in recovery otherwise neither of them should be protected even if it is at the cost of the other species’ survival. They rely on the anthropomorphizing of animals and nature in order to guilt followers. There is no recognition of hard science that proves many of their ideals wrong, and they often attack animal welfare individuals and groups as not doing enough or providing for the further oppression of animals.
My main problem as someone who is concerned with animal welfare rather than liberation is that groups such as PETA and ALF do far more damage than they do help. Their finances have been under fire for years, as have the finances of affiliate groups such as the HSUS. They rely on shock tactics and blatant misunderstanding of many confinement situations and leave no room for middle ground. As a proponent of animal welfare I find the tactics of many animal liberation groups to be deplorable. When I’ve told people in the past that I stand for animal welfare, the automatic assumption is that I’m a member of a PETA like organization, which is far from true. I hold the deep belief that we can both utilize animals for produce, byproducts, and companionship while still acting in a humane fashion. Treating animals fairly does not mean the automatic release of all animals into the wild. In fact, the damage that would cause would be even more reprehensible.
Because of these ideals, many people are hesitant to stand behind animal welfare organizations for fear they will be lumped in with these extremist groups. Ecofeminists may not be to the extreme of these groups but at the core, their ideals are the same. Any and all oppression of animals is bad; feminists should promote veganism as a way to free ourselves from the patriarchal oppression of both men and women.
Which brings me to another issue with this; there is no way to show that men are solely historically responsible for the captivity of food and companion animals. This is in direct conflict with one of the core beliefs of ecofeminists that many, many years ago, we all lived in a primitive utopia where nature and women were equally worshipped or respected. I personally fail to make the connection between patriarchy and the oppression of animals as being an indicator of the oppression of women. If a man is a farmer, does that automatically mean he will try to and oppress me as well? If a man keeps an animal as a companion, will he try to deny me my rights? Am I guilty of perpetuating the oppression of women since I have three cats and a stingray leather purse? The relationship between the two is highly tenuous in my opinion. I know one of the base arguments is that patriarchal systems will never successfully recognize women as beings of equal rights until they recognize all species of creatures as having sentience and as being deserving of autonomy. Yet this seems a far stretch to me. It ignores sustainable, humane animal keeping practices and focuses on the unsustainable while promoting veganism, which by virtue of supporting crop agriculture, also supports practices that are unsustainable.
There’s also the whole “respect all life equally but eat plants and such” double standard that drives me up the wall. Plants are capable of distress and basic communication within and between species; how is the determination made which plants are humane to gather from or even completely harvest made?
Anyway, that is a stretch on my part.
But the respect of all life does being me to my final, personal critique of ecofeminism. Ecofeminists seem to be fond of the idea that the feminization of nature leads to the oppression of nature and the over harvesting of the Earth’s resources. Yet if you do some quick reading about ecofeminism, you’ll quickly find that many sects of this movement actually glorify the idea of “Mother Nature” and encourage women as viewing the Earth as our natural mother, whom we should worship. Some portions of ecofeminism even claim that the only way to get back in balance with the earth is to go back to pagan-like Earth worship and begin seasonal fertility rituals again. Now I know plenty of people who do worship or at least respect a Goddess figure, and that’s a good fit for them. HOWEVER…
I don’t want religion mixed in with what boils down to being a scientific issue.
Many of the women I know are quick to jump on the “ARGH RELIGION” bandwagon when they see anti-choice material or the painful stories of crimes done against women. If they see someone bring religion into those arguments they jump on them with all the foaming viciousness of rabid dogs. And I can say that because I’m wholly willing to admit I do the same. But if someone questions their loving, mothering, all-encompassing Goddess or Goddess figure, then heads start rolling. And I think it boils down to them believing that their views are inherently better at promoting equality, respect of nature, etc. Which they might be buuuuuut…
Once you ring religion into ANY issue that involves science and fact, the argument boils down into nothing but a pissing match between who thinks their make-believe super-being and the tenants surrounding his/her worship is better.
Meanwhile, the cold rational behind science is lost along the way.
If Mother Nature was a Goddess, she would not be a kind one. She would be vengeful, cold, and care nothing for the boho, Mommy-esque depictions of her that so many Nature-worshippers love. Nature, and the Earth, are unfeeling entities that could not give one flying f*** about our survival.
What makes me the MOST irritated with this movement is that it revolves around the selfish misconception that we are capable of destroying the world. Whether you’re a chauvinist pig or conscientious ecofeminist, the belief that we hold the world’s future solely in our hands is small minded and egotistic. Unless we somehow manage to blow this world into complete oblivion, we will leave nothing but some interesting artifacts behind when we do leave. Nuclear warfare, poisoning of the ocean, and any number of catastrophes would not demolish life as we know it. When we finally burn out as a species or jump ship, the Earth isn’t going to become some lifeless shell. Somewhere, sometime down the road, the resistant little microbes that defy our understanding even today will develop into new forms. Should we be conscientious of how we use the resources we have and try to save the multitude of species on this little hunk of rock. Yes! It is within our best interests to do so. But even if we don’t, humans won’t be the final players in the lifespan of the Earth.
Am I a feminist? Damn skippy I am. Am I ecologist? At the end of my schooling I had better damn well be or a lot of time and effort was wasted. Do I care about the environment, sustainable agriculture, and how we can ease the suffering of millions of people world wide by making sure medicines and contraceptives are widely available? Yeeeeesssssssss. But do I want to be associated with a movement like ecofeminism?
