Ecofeminism: Gender on Environmentalism

Rebecca SE Tan

30 September 2022

Finally – a piece I can tag as both environmental and political science :)

“Silent Spring” – a monumental environmental science book that systematically exposed the tragic impacts of DDT that was then used in pesticides – discredited on the account that Rachel Carson was female. While we have surely come far from this incident, it galvanised the birth of ecofeminism – the idea that gender is linked with the natural environment.

There are two schools of thought on this concept: radical ecofeminism and cultural ecofeminism. Using the table below, I hope to elucidate their differences.

School of thought	Radical ecofeminism	Cultural ecofeminism
Argument	The dominant patriarchal society uses the link between nature and women to degrade both.	Believes that this linkage between women and nature is positive, as it empowers women to fight environmental degradation.
How is this perpetuated?	​Linguistic in nature Men are often depicted as rational and ordered, while women are portrayed as chaotic or in need of control. A subconscious justification of the patriarchal society in exploiting women by equating them to animals and vice versa. Example: calling girls “chicks” or saying that Mother Nature was raped.	Cultural role in society Believes that women are more sensitive to the sanctity and degradation of the environment due to historical, cultural, and biological reasons. For example, women tend to have a predominant role in nurturing the family and are more likely to have prolonged interaction with nature. This greater intimacy of women with the environment hence fuels action to conserve nature.
Case study	Collection of water in rural communities When water resources are depleted from exploitation, collecting water from afar falls predominantly on women and girls. In total, women and girls spend a collective 200 million hours every day collecting water. (Pregnant women are not spared either!) Not only is collecting water physically demanding, but it also carries a huge opportunity cost. With less time for education, the social mobility of women is also lowered. Shockingly, despite their prominent involvement in collecting water, a study in northern Kenya found that the local water management committees do not even invite or allow these women to speak! This case study elucidates how women may not have a say in resource management, even if its degradation affects them the most.	The “Chipko women” in India In 1970, commercial logging for infrastructural development led to massive deforestation in India. Women were particularly impacted as they were solely in charge of cultivation, livestock, and children, and relied on the forest for food and fuels. Hence, in 1973, the Chipko women physically embraced the remaining trees to prevent them from being axed. Even under gun threats, they did not back down. Their bravery and persistence saved 2500 trees and led to a 10-year ban on all commercial deforestation in the area. Even today, organisations such as “TreeSisters” encourage women to “embrace their femininity” and protect nature. In 2016 alone, 2300 women were giving monthly to this organisation, funding the plantation of 1 million trees.

While these two schools of thought may differ in many ways, they collide in the understanding that fully appreciating environmental degradation has to come with a gendered lens and advocates for the empowerment of women to conserve nature.

Of course, these concepts are far from perfect. There are many other nuances, such as gender definitions, stereotyping and intersectionality such as race and class. Even then, ecofeminism is still useful for questioning our biases and exploring our belief systems. Personally, I resonate with some amount of radical feminism, as I believe words matter more than we realise. How about you? What are your thoughts on these two conceptualisations? Let me know in the comments below!