Article by Caitlin Harley

Photo by Leonardo Basso on Unsplash

The time has come to stop addressing only the symptoms of climate change and instead confront its underlying drivers, and they may not be as obvious as you think. Ecofeminism is a branch of feminism that argues and asserts that the degradation of the earth and the exploitation and oppression of women are inherently intertwined.

It is argued they are both the direct consequence of patriarchy and capitalism, where nature and women are often viewed as objectives and a value that can be extracted from, as argued by Vandana Shiva – In her book “Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development,” critiquing that capitalist development treats both nature and women resources for economic gain.

Ecofeminist ideas shine a light on how ecological degradation disproportionately impacts women, yet men hold most high-level decision-making roles in companies, and thus sustainability objectives are often overlooked. This disparity has inspired many women to be at the forefront of environmental advocacy, championing sustainable practices and leading community initiatives. Is this leadership because women are more likely to work in roles directly connected to the earth? Or does it stem from their innate sense of care and responsibility to protect the planet, maybe a desire to be the voice for nature as they understand the shared experience of marginalism?

Women have long led impactful environmental activism. The Chipko movement in 1973 is thought to be one of the first ecofeminist demonstrations and was where 2,000 women surrounded trees hand in hand to protest the destruction of nature. Women have always been forefront, spearheading initiatives to combat climate change and this is thought to be because they are disproportionately affected by its impacts. Sherilyn MacGregor argues that women are more likely to work in the field and thus their income relies more on the environment around them. That a higher percentage of people with low socio-economic status are women, which means they have less access to education and technology. According to the United Nations global review of developing countries women and girls are responsible for water collection in a staggering 80% of households. This ties them closely to the land and means they are the first to notice signs of environmental decline. Domesticated duties reinforce that women tend to be rooted in one place, they travel for work less often and spend more time at home, again allowing them to take notice of failing crops, sick family members and changing rainfall patterns. But we see time and time again, women are affected but their voices are scarcely heard in decision-making, again the UN highlights that globally, 38.7% of employed women are working in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, but only 13.8% of landholders- essentially the ones who are making the decisions- are women.

This begs the question: why should women bear a heavier load in cleaning up this ecological mess when they are not the ones driving industrial and policy decisions that contribute to them? Ecofeminism argues that many environmental issues can be traced back to the global prioritisation of attributes that are deemed masculine- aggression and domination by means of

military conquest, and imperialism. This sentiment echoes the work of Petra Kelly, a pioneering ecofeminist and co-founder of Germany’s Green Party, the first of its kind in Europe. Her activism was deeply influenced by the ecofeminist principles that militarism, environmental destruction and the oppression of marginalised groups were rooted in hierarchical power structures. Her work highlighted the contradictions of society, where women must advocate against issues like nuclear damage—threats they had no role in inflicting- and never would have been considered to do so.

So why are there not nearly as many men advocating for environmental justice? Sherilyn MacGregor argues that men are more likely to deny anthropogenic climate change as it is perceived as unmanly to embrace environmentalism. So the burden falls to the women, as men protect their masculine identities as leaders. Women, who are socialised to be caring, connected to the earth, and attuned to their surroundings. Cultural associations like “Mother Earth” and “divine feminine” reinforce that women and nature are intertwined and exploitably feminine. These ideas have even made their way into pop culture, with references like Doja Cat’s “Planet Her” and films like Moana, where femininity and nature are intrinsically connected. This notion is even seen simply in the terms used in environmental activism; “saving” the planet or “preserving” nature- language that signifies domination of one over the other and subtly enforces a hierarchical “saviour” complex. Karen Warren highlights this language In

“Ecofeminist Philosophy,” pointing out that these terms assume nature is passive, weak, and in need of human guidance.

Ecofeminism argues that for true change, women’s voices must be heard and valued in decision-making spaces, they need to be given positions where their ideas can actually be followed through- they must be seen as strategic thinkers, capable of more than “caring” roles. Addressing the climate crisis cannot be done by ignoring gender inequalities, it requires listening to those closest to the land, giving them platforms to lead and spaces where they can make change.

Related