ECO FEMINISM 307 2020 SPRING

While this wasn’t my first time trying to make environmentally conscious decisions, broadcasting my intentions to my family held me accountable in a way that I have never been before. One reason that people post pictures on social media showing off workout progress is to invite the pressure of letting down onlookers to force themselves to take their initiative more seriously. By letting my family know what I was doing for this class and trying to rally the household I was able to take sustainability on a household level more seriously.

To limit water usage, I started by taking my bad habit of leaving a faucet running while washing hands seriously. I wash my hands about 10 times a day for an average of 12 seconds, this effectively cut 2 minutes off water usage, or 2 gallons at an assumption of a gallon a minute. Showers are a guilty pleasure of mine, so cutting my long shower down by 10 minutes to a conservative length saves a whopping 20 gallons a day. I reminded my family constantly of their own usage. Twice in the past few days, I pointed out that the volume of water being used to rinse fruit could be turned down. Even though the water was only on for a short duration, the nozzle was fully open when it didn’t need to be. Cutting it back in half produced enough of a flow to achieve the purpose.

In terms of food, we were able to cut back a bit on what we ended up throwing in the trash. To do this we simply relied more on leftovers, repurposing the food we already bought instead of buying more. We were able to recycle a meal about every other day, which if continued will save us monetarily at least $30 a week. To cut down on what we were throwing out, I put a bin by our kitchen back door that we fill with food scraps to be brought to a compost pile I placed out back. Not everything is compostable, so I was careful to weed out processed foods, meats, and dairy products. Those continued to go in the trash. Composting is a long process, but the goal is by next year to have rich soil to be able to use in a garden for veggies, further reducing our need to buy at a store. We’ve also worked at being more creative with what is already in the cabinet and the freezer. Today, a crockpot meal used up a frozen roast, some seasoning packs and potatoes and carrots that were starting to get old in the refrigerator.

To cut back on electricity, I informed on standby electric loss from leaving things plugged in. One example is the coffee maker. It has a built-in clock and programmable timer, which we don’t use. There is no need to keep it plugged in when not in use. Also, we have multiple iPhone and iPad chargers, since there are 7 of those devices in our household. Even though keeping each charger plugged in for a full year would only consume the equivalent of about $3.50/year, I though it important to think about what is really necessary. To consolidate, I installed a charging hub in a central location (the kitchen). When I looked into it, I also learned that charging a phone overnight – longer than necessary – also causes a shorter life span for the battery. Centralizing a charging hub away from the bedrooms therefore had multiple benefits.

Recycling presents a continual challenge. The volume of mail and paper board products surprised me, once I started to focus on. Junk mail often gets thrown in the trash. Pulling envelopes, unwanted mail and box containers out of the trash and putting it aside to recycle accumulated almost a full additional grocery bag containing 28 ounce of recyclable paper after just 3 days.

At first, it felt like constant work to be aware of what was going in the trash that could be moved elsewhere, to monitor the electricity usage in the house, and to communicate my concerns with other members of my family. But it took less effort as the days went on. And while the changes I worked to implement in our household may seem small – sometimes they felt that way – the goal is that these simple changes in awareness will stay with us all even when we’re not home, and the hope is that others we spend time with will follow our example. It is that cumulative change among multiple people in multiple settings that can make a real impact going forward.

 

 

The amount of waste in this world is truly staggering. EPA.GOV states that 80% of experts predict water shortages within the next decade, but at the same time the average family alone waste over 9,000 gallons a year. The fact that we can so easily let precious resources be carelessly spent when there is such dire need in other communities in addition to depleting stockpiles is not good practice for maintaining a sustainable and ethical world. It would be silly of me to simply gripe about how we all need to be better collectively without first owning up to what I myself must do to cover my own tracks. If at the end of the day I don’t put in the effort to be less of net burden on the planet, than it is clear I must take a sober look at how I can fix the problem that is myself before expecting the world to step up and mitigate catastrophe. There are many ways to impact your community and promote positive change, and one of the most simple and effective is to be a good example to others. I believe that if I can inform those around me of the benefits of living sustainably, then I can inspire myself and others to make conscious decisions to reduce our harm inflicted on the planet.

My goal in the coming days is to demonstrate specifically how much we could repurpose and save on a household level compared to how we were living before. I will do this by starting a compost initiative to repurpose food scraps, calling attention to our usage of water, electricity, and food to find the difference between our necessary consumption and what is excess, and demonstrating how responsible household recycling practices can make a significant impact in cutting down on the waste we send to landfills. We won’t have hard data to showcase what we can cut out for water and electricity until at least a whole month of changed behavior has been undergone, but I will make an attempt in the meantime make quantitative assessments on how much we can stand to lose in our usage. Placing an importance on recycling and composting will showoff practices that not only dispose of our waste but also utilize them in the most responsible way. My intent is not to uproot anyone’s lifestyle, but instead show how small efforts can accumulate into big changes. The process of becoming more sustainable can be both education and pain-free if I take an approach to make critical tweaks appropriately. I can prove to my family that it’s easy to make changes that can so simply ease our burden on the Earth, then they will hopefully be encouraged to influence others to be more environmentally considerate.

The abortion topic is hard to dissect from an eco-feminism perspective, because you could make an argument that both pro-choice and pro-life stances aren’t in line with the beliefs of the movement. We have heard a lot from the pro-choice camps advocating for abortion rights and how they grant women more freedom that men commonly enjoy. With that in mind, any policy that restricts their decisions on abortion conflicts with eco-feminism ideals because it limits their freedom and ability to catch up to men, who enjoy a power dynamic that favors their interests. But if we consider the power dynamic of the individuals involved in abortion, being the potential mom and the unborn child, the woman’s interests are the only ones being considered in instances of abortion, aside from those that are done to spare a child from birth defects. Between the woman and the unborn child, the woman is in the position of power as the fate of the child is up to her. The weight of each party’s interests is not necessarily equal, but in an eco-feminist mindset we must not view the issue based just on how it can benefit those who are in a position of power, in this case the woman. Hawkins makes a compelling argument to consider population control via abortion in addition to birth control, and while I agree with the need to sustainably exist moving forward, I think the abortion topic deserves recognition beyond its global environmental impact

 

If you evaluate the different opinions on the issue, you find yourself with the pro-life and the pro-choice camps. This would imply that they can inversely be referred to as the anti-choice and anti-life camps. In order to fairly incorporate opposing perspectives in reaching a conclusion to this debate, we must at least consider their viewpoints and the reasons they justify them. We must view abortion advocates as more than just those wishing death on unborn children, as well as those who do not want abortion as more than just those who deprive women of rights. Pro-life advocates reason for their beliefs is quite simple, and that’s that they are pro-life, a life which they view as a priority to protect over rights of the mother. The premise of their being a life at stake trumps any other consideration, if the fetus is being determined to have that right to life. For that reason, it is not in the best interest for feminists to reason with pro-life activists that abortion restrictions rob woman of their right to make decisions regarding their own bodies, since that is not what is the priority in the eyes of those who differ. In their opinion, what the fetus will lose, being life, trumps what the mother has to gain, which is independence. You cannot successfully convince them that the death is justifiable because of how it would benefit the oppressor because it does not change anything about the state of the oppressed. For that reason, it is important to consider the rights that a fetus has to life, since that is the most pressing concern to pro-life advocates, whereas the ripple effects of the decision like women’s flexibility in career paths, is of lesser concern.

 

The articles for this section view the abortion issue with different perspectives, with Hawkins focusing on the environmental implications and Jessica Valenti on women’s rights. I believe the most relevant article for settling the debate that we read though is the internet encyclopedia of Philosophy’s analysis of Abortion. Instead of listing all the positives of abortion, the analysis instead tries to dismantle the argument against abortion, which is that killing human life forms is wrong and the fetus is a human life from so therefore abortion is wrong.  It then goes on to evaluate what rights a human life form such as a fetus has, and if at any point during the pregnancy the fetus could develop into a human with rights. There is a lot of common ground between many involved in the debate, as many pro-choice advocates concede that fetuses that make it into the third trimester have a right to live. The only difference is that the pro-lifers believe that there isn’t a breaking point where it suddenly becomes wrong to abort. Since both camps can agree on the rights of the unborn after they have reached the breaking point, the validity of the pro-choice movement to nay-sayers rests on justifying such breaking point, as that is where the disagreement stems. It is not up for debate whether or not it is morally acceptable to kill a person, so the nature of the argument must be to distinguish a fetus from a person. The internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy addresses what is pressing to the pro-life advocates by dissecting the designation of rights and moral agreements regarding unborn children, and so I think it’s the most effective and relevant point of discussion for the topic. A strong case for legitimate breaking point is very important as it would explain why abortion is justifiable up to a certain point and highlight the difference between appropriate and inappropriate circumstances, and the Encyclopedia of Philosophy recognizes it’s significance. “If there is no morally significant break, then the fetus has the same high status as a newborn, or the new born has the same low status as a fetus” (Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Pro-life advocates currently believe the former and don’t differentiate between a fetus and newborn, so evidence of breaking point would lead them to consider why a fetus’s life could be expendable when we almost collectively agree that a newborn is not.  To do that though, you must differentiate between a fetus not worthy of personhood and one that is. I think in this instance it’s more effective to attempt to poke holes in the oppositions logic of trying to defend the unborn as a person when it may not worthy of personhood than to try to persuade them with the environmental positives of not doing so, which aren’t related to the life that their opinion is centered around.

The existence of a point in the pregnancy where a fetus transforms into a person and gains the right to life is hard to determine, since personhood is not easily defined. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy references Mary Anne Warren who considers the fetus to be worthy of personhood when it gains certain but not necessarily all abilities, specifically consciousness and sensitivity to pain, reasoning, self-motivated movement, communication, and self-consciousness, with an emphasis on the first three. The Encyclopedia goes on to state that the first brain activities are discernible after about 7 weeks, but concluded that just the ability to feel pain isn’t enough to necessarily consider a fetus a human. While abortions may occur up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy, the time between the start of brain activity and a later term abortion is important to consider from an eco-feminism standpoint, because if the pain is valid than it should be recognized and attempted to avoid for the same reason many are against slaughtering animals needlessly. Even though animals are not recognized people, their pain does not come lightly, and neither should fetuses. The Charlotte Lozier Institute released a fact sheet relating to fetal pain and added that at around 7 weeks’ sensory receptors for pain start developing around the mouth, and as early as 8 weeks the fetus reacts to invasive procedures. As the baby continues to develop it becomes increasingly aware of pain, becoming sensitive even before the 20-week mark when connections from the spinal cord to areas of the brain the sense pain are nearly complete. Going off a reference from their fact sheet, “From the 15^th week of gestation onward, “the fetus is extremely sensitive to painful stimuli, and that this fact should be taken into account when performing invasive medical procedures on the fetus. It is necessary to apply adequate analgesia to prevent the suffering of the fetus”” (Charlotte Lozier Institute). Halfway through the stretch from 7 to 24 weeks, the fetus is already vulnerable to suffering, and requires painkillers to offset any invasive procedure. While medication can fortunately prevent the suffering of the fetus, the recognition of fetuses’ ability to be extremely susceptible to pain at such an early stage in the pregnancy illustrates the importance of the unborn in the abortion scenario and that it is not something that can be overlooked when forming a stance on the issue. Being able to prevent the fetus from suffering during an abortion is favorable from an Eco-feminism perspective, however its ability to feel pain so early on might suggest that personhood is achieved sooner rather than later in the pregnancy, something that cannot be clearly assessed but rather inferred based off abilities observed according to Warren, many of which cannot be easily detected.

I agree with Hawkins urgency to consider the human impact on the planet, especially considering that the projected upper threshold of a sustainable number of world inhabitants is fast approaching at only 10-12 billion occupants. Hawkins is right in saying that abortions would slow this problem. Hawkins claims that abortion serves a significant role as countries transition into more developed societies to help limit the surge in population as death rates decline, but before birth rates start their decline. As nations qualities of life are improving and people are living longer with less need for a larger family to get by, people prefer smaller families. In her passage, Hawkins references Japan and South Korea who had recently made the transition into becoming more developed nations. “The abortion rates in Japan and South Korea, for example, which underwent rapid transitions to a low birth rate during this century, rose when fertility was declining most sharply, then fell dramatically as the rate of contraceptive use gained” (Hawkins). Abortion serves as essentially a Band-Aid to unwanted population growth for developing natures until they can become successful in utilizing birth control, which is a more logical approach. Abortion fixes the problem of an unwanted pregnancy, whilst birth control measures prevent the problem from occurring in the first place. Preventative health care is usually less costly than corrective healthcare, so it makes sense to me to put an emphasis on birth control, especially one and done type methods like an IUD. A single procedure could prevent unwanted pregnancy for 5 years. Hawkins notes that developed countries cause more environmental damage than less developed ones, who unfortunately suffer more because of the damage. “Estimates of the consumption of world resources and stress to the global environment generated per capita for citizens of the industrialized nations relative to those of the poorer countries have ranged from fifteen to more than one hundred times as great” (Hawkins). Hawkins markets abortion to developing nations even though it is not their population that is causing significant environmental harm because decreasing birth rate while they are developing will result in a lower population by the time their environmentally degrading lifestyle comes around down the road. While any reduction in population eases the strain we put on our planet, the problem isn’t entirely just the number of us here but also the way we treat the Earth. There isn’t a need for abortion for ecological concerns, there is a need to be collectively sustainable, and abortion is just one method of reducing our harm inflicted, but is certainly not the end all be all.

 

 

 

 

Hawkins ends her argument addressing how abortion could be viewed as negating the core values of eco-feminism by interfering with the natural reproduction and development of humans, but then goes on to explain how we need to change the way we evaluate human’s role on the planet and to essentially own up to the unattended consequences of rapid population growth. “At the present time, recognition of our connectedness with all other life on the planet reinforces the need for abortion” (Hawkins). Her explanation for looking beyond just the impact the decision to have an abortion has on a family level is that every person on the planet makes an impact, and we must be cognizant of the damage we are doing. Hawkins view on abortion is utilitarian because it considers the absence of the unborn child’s life a positive in relation to the Earth’s sustainability, completely negating the impact at the personal level for better or worse. Viewing each life as a statistical factor is important for making global assessments, but cannot be the only perspective we have as it negates individual rights.

I agree with Hawkins desire to protect the future of our planet and future generations, and the perspective that she offers is an important one to consider. Another perspective we must consider is also the impact on women’s rights, which Jessica Valenti touches on in her article Abortion isn’t about the right to privacy. It’s about women’s right to equality. In this Jessica notes the independence woman gained from having more control over their own reproduction because of birth control, something that she wants to be at the forefront of the movement for abortion. “Going on pro-choice offense also forces those who identify as pro-choice to stop equivocating about the morality of abortion and take a more hardline approach to our rights” (Valenti). There is indeed a need to address the issue and advocate for rights and liberties, but we can’t get tunnel vision and not appreciate the broad scope of an extremely controversial and emotional topic. There needs to be respectful and fair deliberation involving the many important viewpoints that have been mentioned, whilst also an attempt to understand the oppositions reasoning and what that is rooted on, as well as the common ground between the pro-life and pro-choice sides. Just as Valenti does, Hawkins offers us a valuable perspective to incorporate into the issue at large, however a conclusion cannot be derived so simply. Pieces like the Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s analysis of abortion help as they process many perspectives thoroughly, but still a clear, informed enough conclusion is elusive to me, as there are unanswered questions as to what is really a person and what our moral obligations really are. I agree with the movement to empower women and to respect the planet, but I also cannot undervalue the delicacy of our notion of personhood and our moral agreements to how to protect that. I am uninformed enough to not be assertive enough to have a definitive stance on something so incredibly critical.

 

Fact Sheet: Science of Fetal Pain

Carol Adams work is another example of literature that illuminates the inequality and wrongdoings that are so apparent in our culture. Adams work focuses on the ideas we have let go largely unchecked when it comes to our relationships with animals and women. Adams sets the scene by first off examining genocide, one of the most abhorrent atrocities that mankind is capable of. To understand why we can so easily slaughter, she firsts asks why we allowed ourselves to do so to humans. We allow ourselves to be so lethal towards each other because we in fact do not consider the victim to be of the same status as ourselves, so we do not empathize with them. By doing this it is easier to accept the abuse because we don’t imagine what the pain associated must feel for the victim. We do not consider each victim as an individual, we just lump them together and address them as a singular entity. In the case of genocide, the victims are looked at as an infestation that must be eliminated, and are reduced to a being that is below humans in the hierarchy. The derogatory words used to describe the victims being are important, and help illicit hate and disgust without any real justification, instead being based solely of association.

Adams references Jacques Derrida, author of “The Animal that Therefore I am” who explains that we have a campaign against compassion that has allowed us to not blink an eye at the mass slaughter of animals. “Such a campaign instantiates objectification: both the objectification of the other animals who become mass terms, and the objectification of feelings so that they fail to be heeded in making decisions about the fate of terminal animals” (Adams 10). While the campaign on compassion not only diminishes those who we perceive to be lesser being, it as well negates any feelings of guilt and empathy towards the victims, allowing atrocious acts to both occur and then go unrivaled. This has let us become complacent, and stray further and further away from where a pure conscious should conclude that violence should not be inflicted on those who cannot defend themselves. “The war on compassion has caused many people to think it is futile to care” (Adams 10). Our political system is not set up in a way that allows for us to object to the status quo. People may have these thoughts, but they commonly fizzle out before they transform into anything that can truly enact change.

When discussing the portrayal of women and animals in society, it is important consider how our society views what’s around us. Adams references Rosemarie Garland-Thompson author of Staring: How we Look, who said “In late Captalism, the predominant form of looking, the mass exercise of ocularcentricity, is what we might call consumer vision.” “Animalizing women and feminizing animals helps in this process because it renders women and dead animals used as flesh as commodities” (Adams 15). By reducing woman and animals to lesser beings, they can be viewed as merely object for one’s own satisfaction, whether that be sexual or food-wise.

The first picture I chose to discuss is the one with a chicken head cropped onto an incredibly robust body. The placement of the chicken head alludes to the idea that meat makes someone physically strong. In the background, you can see what I assume to be dead chickens hanging on meat hooks, which certainly do not evoke images of health and strength.

 

This next picture shows a carcass of an animal on a meat hook that is dressed in women’s clothes, stating it’s not acceptable to treat a woman like an animal. The subtext goes on to encourage men to be vocal, as it assumed that most would agree with the message. This falls in line with the notion that dissenting views are often not welcomed, so we are conditioned to keep them mostly to ourselves. While the add addresses gender inequality, it does not mention anything about the violence towards animals who are degraded to be viewed as nothing more than a slab a meat.

The last picture from the catalog I wanted to examine is this restaurant add asking Rod Stewart if he thinks the sandwich is sexy, alluding to one of his songs, since he is performing after the restaurant opens. While advertisements are obviously meant to appeal to the viewer, we see here that it is not the restaurant asking if the sandwich is sexy, but instead the sandwich itself, so technically the animal that the meat is derived from. The idea that a cow would want to be deemed sexy is absurd, and coincided with the idea that many woman who are raped are in some way asking for it, based off their behavior or appearance. “They mix death with degradation. That equation has one answer: the dead animal equals the female position. Pornographic conventions bleed into the bloodied animals that are shown wanting to be consumed, that is, wanting their own death” (Adams). The idea is that any sort of apprehension towards the consumption is reduced by the animal consenting in the same way women are made to be submissive and consenting to man.

The image that I found for myself is one of an attractive woman devouring a burger on a beach. This image is supposed to evoke the raw urges of society to exploit naked women and fresh meat.

The connection between fetishizing woman and meat is strong, so I decided to see how they may be linked to each other biologically. I found an article on the link between meat consumption and sex drive, and apparently, there is a connection where low meat intake leads to low libido. “Individuals who don’t consume enough protein actually risk having a low testosterone level, according to recent research. And low levels of this important hormone can cause not just poor sexual function, but muscle loss, damage to bones, and reduced red blood cells” (Black).  Testosterone is not the only factor, zinc also increases libido as well, the article attributes to Tanya Zuckerbro, MS, RD. However, the article does not say that it is the meat itself that leads to the higher libido, just the nutrients meat provides. “Protein is important, but you can also get it from other sources” (Black). As we covered in the vegetarian portion of the class, there are many substitutes to meat. It’s important to consider these substitutes as they would not cause for needless suffering of animals. Perhaps there is another link outside of the ecofeminism perspective, where society has been associating woman and sex with meat because the more meat a guy eats, the more they think about sex, and the more likely they are to have a high meat diet if they are consumed by the idea of sexualizing woman.

When it comes to art, Adams advocates for the rights of the animals affected by the art over the artistic freedom of the creator of the piece. She is trying to challenge the system in which we allow art to overstep individual boundaries because it is trying to illustrate something grand, all the while creating casualties. Adams argues that artistic expression isn’t a viable reason to infringe on the rights of those being exploited.

Whether in art, advertisements, or the interactions between different divisions, it’s clear that we have become desensitized to the marginalization and abuse casted towards woman, animals, and any group that is less privileged. In whatever scenario, when a hierarchy is introduced, it allows for the concerns of the those below you on the hierarchy to be disregarded. Women and animals can be looked at interchangeably, they both simply represent the oppressed. “Ultimately it wasn’t about taste. It was always about their sense of self, their sense of entitlement and privilege” (Adams 24). When we examine different forms of media presented to us, like ads urging us to eat meat, we realize that it’s not so much the claim to eat meat that is harmful, but the perpetuation of a hierarchy that allows for some to be placed above others.

When these hierarchies exist, they seep through to other aspects of our lives and how we interact with the world around us, and importantly it’s beings, and create a scenario in which the privileged want’s triumph the right of the victims.

.

 

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRSFwnd6v4aSMQk6AzMS0DhMjYw1ZYUEB8-hxfm233xk2liSXzI

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/874634/sex-libido-diet-testosterone-red-meat-zinc-best-supplements

I included this image to show the contrast between a meat bases diet and a vegan diet. As you can see they are portrayed as comparable, however the vegetable alternative comes off as much cleaner and natural.

One example of a gendered food is a hungry man TV dinner. Hungry man dinners are frozen meals that you pop in the oven/microwave and suddenly you have a hot, semi-fresh meal usually consisting of a generous portion of meat. Hungry man TV dinners are clearly gendered as they have the name “man” right in the title. One could also attribute the fact that they are basically already cooked and arraigned and all the consumer must do is throw it in the oven to it being a male oriented product. This helps further the narrative of men being above the idea of having to labor in the kitchen. Another construct that is the idea that burping is not lady like. While its rude in American culture for anybody to burp, I feel as though that falls under a pre-conceived notion of being un-lady like.

When discussing human’s relationship with animals, Gaard first covers the nature of oppression. Oppression comes in many forms according to Marion Young as Gaard explains, and can be seen through exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence. Through factors we see how in meat production animals are exploited and looked at as a product rather than a sentient being. The conditions in which these animals live as well as those confined in cages for any reasons sees them marginalized and powerless, as their own well-being is being disregarded, and they are entirely at the whim of their owners. This leads to cultural imperialism, as their own way of life is being entirely diminished and substituted with filling whatever roles their owner has for them. This unfortunately also leads to violence, whether in the form of abuse or of actual slaughter in the case of livestock. Gaard argues that women’s identity of self comes from their relationships with others, whereas males is formed separate and is rights based instead of ethics based. I think Gaard’s explanation has made the most sense to me so far when comparing the oppression of woman to the oppression of other aspects of society, specifically environmental. In drawing that connection, Gaard explains as to why she is compassionate to Bella. Both the suffering of Bella and of the rest of the oppressed world comes from the actions of those who have a rights-based ethic. In the case of Bella, her owners wanted Bella to perform a very specific role by sitting by the counter and talking to customers, without ever thinking about the consequences of that on the bird. As a woman, Gaard sees the connections and her assessment of the bird does not stop at just viewing the bird as a piece of property that one has the right to. She instead understands the implications of the actions on the subordinate. Gaard reflects on what to do and concludes that Bella would be better off being better taken care of in a larger cage with more amenities and companions, although being completely cage free would be difficult. “Responding to Bella’s suffering means accepting a responsibility for my own complicity in a system of inter-species domination, and acting on my commitment to serve as an ally” (Gaard). Gaard visit Bella often and tries to bring her goodies to cheer her up. Importantly, she recognizes Bella’s oppression and tries to defend and advocate for her.

Curtin describes herself as a contextual moral vegetarian. By asserting herself as such, she admits that there are times when eating meat is pretty much necessary for one’s survival. In cases like this, it is acceptable to kill put your own interests ahead of the animal that you would eat. But there is a stark difference to situations like that and the scenario in a country such as America, where we generally have an abundance of food choices available that do not require any slaughtering.

For those living in an environment in which they have options and can ultimately decide whether to eat animals, Curtin offers up some insight into the attitude that is consistent with the themes of eco feminism. Curtin makes the case that choosing to not eat meats avoids needless suffering for the animal, and that it is our part to enact change that we would like to see permeate other areas of society. “It should not be understood as an injunction that include the imperative to rethink what it means to be a person connected with the imperative to rethink the status of nonhuman animals.” (Curtin) What I found interesting however is that she doesn’t go as far to say that in that decision we should place ourselves as equal to the animals. Instead she implies that we can try to transcend the unneeded oppression that we see around us by starting to make decisions ourselves that eliminate oppressive tactics.

Gaard makes note of the idea of human and non-human animals being equal mentions in her article. “Admittedly, the feminine caring ethic feminists criticize does not include the caregiver as an equal to those she cares about. Equally important from an ecofeminist perspective, is the fact that the relational self-theory as originally constructed is entirely anthropocentric; it fails to account for trans-species relationships with non-human animals, with plants and place, relationships the also shape self-identity” (Gaard). Gaard started off in saying that even though it is her relational self that gives her compassion to Bella, that very form of identity leads to subordination among females. However, even with their caring disposition, the feminist perspective is still rooted on the idea that humans are superior to other species. Curtin acknowledges this as well, however she comes to the conclusion that they should continue to not look at each other as necessarily equal, but should animals none-the less be treated with dignity as much for the sake of the human in making sure that they do not perpetuate any unnecessary violence at all.

To bring in an outside source I decided to look up how important our relationship with meat is. As it turns out, except for b12 humans can find pretty much everything else they need naturally growing on the Earth. “Neal Barnard of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine even notes that when people switch from meat-eating to plant-eating, their intake of vitamins and other nutrients improves” (King). While of course as Curtin pointed out, some people don’t have much options when it comes to what they eat when they decide on animals, but fortunately many people do not take the animal for granted by expressing gratitude and respect. But we in America tend to glorify meat consumption. In her article, Barbara King often mentions Marta Zarask and her book Meathooked: The History and Science of Our 2.5 Million-Year Obsession with Meat. “Zaraska wrote Meathooked primarily to discover why humans across the world crave meat” “Factors of biology including certain genetic predispositions and culture, ranging from family habits and cultural traditions to the sexual politics of meat as explained by Carol J. Adams, all play a role, she says.” (King). I find it interesting that they mention a genetic predisposition towards meat, because I feel like that implies that meat is an essential part of their diet, although at else some of that may be substituted with b12 supplements and vitamins. As I meat-eater I certainly understand the desire for meat, especially if it is essential to diet, however it’s clear we live In a society that pushes us in the direction to consume more meat than we have to/

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/05/19/478645426/humans-are-meathooked-but-not-designed-for-meat-eating

https://cdn.shortpixel.ai/client/q_glossy,ret_img,w_800/https://whoopwellness.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/vegan-brain-vs-meat-eater-brain.png

 

In her piece Small Wonder, Kingsolver explains how setting impacts her state of mind. As a writer, she admits that a lot of her material is organic, in that she simply imagines it. This isn’t something that she can just conjure up at her whim whenever she feels like though, she very much gets distracted by things interfering with her writing process. What she comes to find is that the best environment for her is one that is a natural and undeveloped as possible. Even though she is very much removed from Africa at her house in the southwest, she can put herself their through imagination. “I needed only to be someplace where I could think straight, remember, and properly invent. I needed the blessed emptiness of mind that comes from birdsong and dripping tress.” (Kingsolver). I can relate to the point that she is making, that somewhere quiet can and tranquil can calm the noise in your head and allow vivid stories to manifest. I am not used to writing as Kingsolver does, because when I write, such as now, I have an objective. I can do this completely removed form nature in a room with no windows at all if I had to. But to write creatively, I agree that the beauty of nature helps inspire.

Bell Hooks “Touching the Earth” offers an interesting perspective into the struggle of Black Americans adapting to life after the abolishment of slavery, during the migration from rural to urban areas during the late 19^th and 20^th century. Recently liberated, these people left in search of a better life and opportunity, which is understandable seeing as they were oppressed so severely for so long. Although they were objectively better off living freely, they became collectively distressed adapting to urban life. As we all know, although no longer kept under slavery, Black Americans did not get the privilege’s to be put on the level playing field that White people had enjoyed, something that is still occurring today.  Although they were now independent and self-sustaining, “without the space to grow food, to commune with nature, or to mediate the starkness of poverty with the splendor of nature, black people experienced profound depression” (Hooks). When I think about it, Hooks makes a compelling point. When it comes down to it, we are not hardwired for a life surrounded by cement and artificial lighting. We are biologically accustomed to living amongst the land, as the black farmers had. Although under slavery, these Black slaves saw the direct impact they had on the land they tended, and became enveloped within their local ecosystems. Like the birds and bugs and forest critters, they didn’t so much fret on the bigger picture of what awful oppression they endured, they instead mostly just focused on what was right in front of them, the land which they have been biologically accustomed to. Once that connection to nature was taken and the oppression remained, although changed appearance, the distraction was gone and the angst became much more real.

Terry Tempest Williams covered a very sensitive issue by discussing the designation of land, specifically in the Colorado and Utah area. “It is a battle over public and private uses of land, what will remain sovereign. Guns are replaced by metaphorical monkey wrenches and shovels” (Williams). I have understanding for both the government authorities and the locals living on the land. In the example he gave, when the federal government wanted to permanently close a road that was damaged from a flood to protect the Bull Trout from extinction. Residents demanded the road stay open for their own convenience. It is ironic because we have talked about how larger entities such as big businesses degrade the environment for their own incentives, often harming those who are physically attached to the land as they live on it. In this case though, the big guy being the federal government just simply wanted to protect the eco system, while the preferred actions of the locals would do the opposite.

From my interpretation, Kingsolver defines place quite literally, which greatly impacts her state of mind and creativity. For Hooks, place also directly correlates with state of mind. In the case of Black Americans, when they migrated away from rural areas to suburban areas, they lost nature and became stripped of what helped keep their peace all along. Williams views place as a physical entity that is owned by either private or public entities. Williams often mentions how many millions of acres are being designated as what. Those that are outplaced are those that do not have say over land, however that is not always a bad thing because their actions could likely be damaging if not restricted. Kingsolver and Hooks would view those who are deprived of natural surroundings and immersed solely in developed areas as robbed of what helps provide joy and peace in Hooks case and creativity and freedom in Kingsolver’s.

I grew up in South shore Massachusetts, between the towns of Norwell and Rockland. I find it to have just the right touch of human interference for my preference. I’m not too inconvenienced finding restaurants, stores, and other perks of living in an industrial nation, however I can retreat and enjoy a walk in the woods or day by the beach that is quiet enough for me. For my picture, I included the bridge crossing over the North River separating Norwell from Marshfield. I find this symbolic because to stand on the bridge and look over the river, I can admire the view and have a great appreciation for the place I live. However, the bridge enables us to cross over into the neighboring town easily, right over what is considered a natural border. In that sense, the bridge gives us freedom. It is the right balance for me, not for everyone. While eco-feminism talks about philosophy, we do not see the truths associated with it apply to everyone. Some Black people are perfectly happy in urban life, choosing the fast pace of life over the slow contemplative life in rural areas. “Unmindful of our history of living harmoniously on the land, many contemporary black folks see no value in supporting ecological movements, or see ecology and the struggle to end racism as competing concerns” (Hooks). Whilst this is very true that there is a connection to the exploitation the Earth gets and the oppression of minorities, in the context of what it means to the individual, being closer to Earth isn’t always the answer. While the black community collectively were oppressed, they certainly felt the loss not being near nature, so that was a clearly bad thing that happened to them. While oppression is objectively bad, for some though, that loss of nature. may be offset by the advantage they gained from moving to a place with more modern conveniences that you can find in a northern city, it just depends on what ends up working out best for their personal well-being.

The end of slavery marked the beginning of a new era in America called reconstruction, which sought the rebuild the nation after the damage from the Civil War. The Black American were most vulnerable during this time, as they were now just experiencing no longer being forced into slavery, and now got to make their own choices as to how their time would be spent. Many chose to pursue education. “Many teachers commented that their classrooms were filled with both young and old, grandfathers with their children and grandchildren, all eager to learn” (memory.loc.gov.) With their new-found independence, they chose to fill up their days becoming more educated. The benefit of doing this is that they are keeping themselves busy and adapting to their new opportunities. Had they not occupied their time, they would more severely feel the loss of what occupied their time before, which often involved working directly with nature. Also, now being recognized as more than just slaves, Black people also could find a place in the government. “African Americans became involved in politics not only as voters but also as governmental representatives at the local, state and national level” (memory.loc.gov.) Here we see how the expression people + place = politics. While Black people had been in the America for some time by then, it was the fact that they were now being treated more equally that they were able to become a legitimate part of the politics. When they were enslaved, there was no choice for them to become part of the political process that helps make decisions. Only after they were recognized did they have that accessible to them. Being able to adapt to their new freedom in a reconstructing America created great opportunity for African Americans to flip the script and create a new life for themselves outside of the agricultural setting that they were so used to, and by being recognized as more as slaves they could become part of the fabric of the government and then have more sway in creating policies to shape how the future would turn out than they had before when they were reduced to just tools for agriculture.

aopart5b.html

Environmental degradation is a sad occurrence for our planet. However, not everyone carries that burden evenly. Women are often the ones who directly interact with nature more, gathering water, fuel, and food for the rest of the family. When the local water supply is damaged, the women are inconvenienced and must go further for fresh drinking water. The opportunity cost of going out of their way to retrieve such takes away from important activities like school, where women’s attendance goes up 12% just by having their water source 15 minutes closer. Essentially, women are expected to do just as much with less. They are expected to be able to support their family and community as they always have been despite environmental degradation robbing them of the natural resource to do so. Going out of their way to find these diminishing resources puts a strain on them and leaves them in danger. All the while, they have less time for other areas of life. Agarwal notes that their habitat being destroyed negatively affects their time, income, nutrition, health, social survival networks, and indigenous knowledge. While they are burdened with many chores putting them close to nature, the women shoulder a huge responsibility and as a result are very invested in the state of the natural world around them.

 

 

While all ecofeminism perspectives are a breath of fresh air, the difference between the western and the non-western perspective is that the non-western perspective directly looks at how the most disenfranchised are affected by environmental degradation. In the western world, we are often very removed from nature, because we are part of a culture where we don’t need to step out into it every day to procure the essentials for our families. We can easily go to the store for everything we need. If something is in short supply, it’s reflected by a higher price on the shelves. For those living in third world countries however, if something is not readily in supply they must go searching far and long for it. We are clearly disconnected from what is going on at the ground floor level where are goods are procured, so we aren’t as directly affected when something goes sour, because we don’t understand the full gravity of the implications and the hardships that follow.

Both the western and non-western ecofeminist perspectives have something to offer. We need to of course think of how women are oppressed in American society, and how we see those oppressions play out in the home, work and political sphere. Gender oppression and exorbitant consumption are abundant in our society, and they give way to justifications that allow them to remain the status quo. That is why it is so important to attack the ideas that got us here in the first place. If the ideas are dismantled, then we can rebuild our notions and design a world that is more inclusive and diversity. The diversity that we talk about in the United States is much different than the need for diversity in places such as India. One thing that Vandana Shiva advocates strongly for is biodiversity. In doing so, she is undermining big business incentives to grow cheap cash crops that are ridden with fertilizers and pesticide, instead opting that the best seeds and growing methods rely on nothing more than what’s already in your backyard. The move back to simple, indigenous agricultural practices emphasizes the need to let locals have more control in their community. It is them who should be tending to the crops as they are the ones who know the land and live directly off it. This method embraces diversity, allowing each farm to be diverse and wonderful as those who live on it, which in term helps produce clean, diverse food grown sustainably. Those like Shiva fighting on that behalf can feel good knowing that they are on the ground floor advocating for differences that have been proven to be successful biologically all long. On the western front, the attack is more ideological, and helps to transform the schools of thought that allows farms like those in India to be viewed monetarily, with no regard to the people living on them. As it’s been said, there is no correct, fully formed view of ecofeminism, so it’s important to encompass all existing ideas into a framework that can be used to enact change globally.

 

When trying to relate to ecofeminism, one recent issue we can look at is the me too movement. This movement really took off after some high profile celebrities made headlines after being accused of sexual misconduct. Like always, it was the men who were abusing the women. While it has unfortunately pretty much always been a way of life that women are mistreated by men in a position of power, whether that power is physical or by status and clout, what really made the me too movement shocking is just how many people stepped forward. The reaction was now not just sympathy toward the woman and shunning the man, but also shock at the fact that it was so prevalent but had been kept under wraps so well. While we knew this whole time what dangers men can pose towards women, we didn’t know just how acceptable it was to actually inflict harm. It almost seemed like it was to be expected, and it was just part of the package that you had not other option than to take. There was not justice to be found until they could all could unite and stand strong together. The me too moment really shone a light on the injustice that women face everyday, however it made it much more real and tangible by including people that you have heard about and highly regarded for years. It was a sobering moment for society, that such an ugly truth was right in front of us all along. In line with ecofeminism, we have to ask how it came to be, and more importantly, why it is still that way. If we are moving forward and time and trying to collectively be more conscious of the world we live in and help maintain, how could we allow these wrongdoings, resulting from an inequality we have all been aware of, exist so comfortably among the public figures we revere so much?

Ecofeminism is a way of both looking at both how we interact with each other and the world around us. When I think of feminism, my mind immediately goes towards issues like hot button issues like wage inequality and abortion, but after viewing the materials, I gather that its not that simple at all. Ecofeminism has to do more with how as a society we have the need to dominate instead of share. Especially in capitalist nations like U.S. we are taught to fend for yourself, earn what you can, and advocate for your own self interests. While that mindset has inspired many innovations and breakthroughs, it also has created clear winners and losers. We think about the short term gains we can achieve for ourselves even though they can be detrimental to the rest of society. When you take the ecofeminism approach at evaluating this, you realize that we do the same thing to nature that we do to nature. How often is it that companies conduct their business in a way that harms the environment all just to get a leg up on earning some short term profits? While the money is short lived, the damage to the environment often is not. That happens as a result of not thinking about the long term, all inclusive picture, but instead the here and now and just your own interests. The same attitude reflects on how we interact with each other, with males for the most part enjoying a playing field that they designed for their own benefit.

Warren’s conceptual connection was on that I found particularly interesting because it seemed like it really summed up what I am beginning to think about eco-feminism. In this Warren talked about how things are often pitted against each other, such as mind and body, culture and nature, and man and women. When put against each other, one of these always comes out on top. While one comes out on top, we then see that “Superiority justifies subordination.” So while we started off with two things that are different, men and women, it came to be that men were then put over women, and from that men held the upper hand and women were knocked down a peg. This isn’t something that we see people out right say, but we see it played out in every day life. Look at the expression “the man of the house.” That sums up patriarchy. While they both have roles, the man as the protector and woman as care giver, it is ultimately still the man’s house. This is something that people have come to accept because of conditioning, so even questioning it requires taking a step back and evaluating how being different could be deemed as better or worse.

Welcome to UMassD WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!