We all know that women from the beginning were excluded from politics. The first time in history since the world has came to its existence, women were allowed to vote in mid 19th century during suffrage and since then many women have made their way into government. But we still find gender inequality in politics.
Such argument was shed light on by Kari Norgaard and Richard York in their ‘Gender Equality and State Environmentalism’. They write, “Indeed, whether individual women vote for or against specific legislation, gender equality may affect behavior of both women and men, creating an atmosphere in which environmentally progressive state behavior is viewed as positive (508).” To test this and other feminist, sociologist theories, Norgaard and York conducted an experiment to find out the correlation between women and state environmentalism. In their experiment they studied different places to deduce the correlation if any. According to the results they obtained from their study, showed that women has greater impact on state environmentalism when there’s gender equality in politics. They compare two places; Norway and Singapore. Norgaard and York find out that Norway has higher number of women in parliament and environmental treaties. However, Singapore on the other hand does poorly on both women in parliament and the behavior of the state with respect to the environment.
In Norgaard and York’s reading, they mentioned how there is a connection between women in political power and state environmentalism. Specifically, they mentioned how women policy makers and social movement participants are needed in order to create a more positive state behavior. The Women’s Earth Alliance reinforces this idea. Through this organization, they support women leaders across the world to push for more environmental legislation and changes. In Indonesia, there are many grassroot and community-based organizations that help advocate for the ban of single-use plastics. At the forefront of this battle is Tiza Mafira, a lawyer and director of Gerakan Diet Kantong Plastic Indonesia. Through her campaigning and her leadership skills in policy making/coalition-building, she was able to put in place plastic bans in four different cities and is hoping to expand this to the whole country. This is especially essential in Indonesia, as they are the second leading contributor to the plastic trash crisis in the oceans, behind China. Mafira believes that women in power should take initiative in the country’s environment and to create a change, you have to do this through “…policy – if we are talking about nationwide change, something that includes up to 240 million people then we’re talking about a policy – and that is what I am trying to do” (Womens Earth Alliance).
Another example that reiterates this notion, is the effect of women leaders on the European Parliament. As this study showed, when there’s no women in power to create policies, the environmental protections that are needed will not be passed by their male counterparts. There is a noticeable disparity world-wide regarding environmental policies and women tend to have a more pro-environmental stance than men. For example, in the Swedish polity there are many varying attitudes regarding this matter based on the gender of the politicians. They have noted how women legislators show greater environmental concern than men, but in the case of nuclear power, there is a higher amount of opposition which differs from their male counterparts (Lena…). In conclusion, more research needs to be done to determine if there is truly a connection between women in power and state environmentalism. However, this is the issue as there is an under-representation of women in the political arena and as Norgaard and York mentioned we need to create programs that ensure this.
One such step to determine the connection between women in power and state environmentalism is taken by Canadian president Justin Trudeau towards gender parity. Carles Muntaner and Edwin Ng in their article, ‘Here’s Why Having More Women in Government is Good for Health’, mentioned about Trudeau who formed first gender balanced cabinet in Canadian history in which 15 out of total 30 members were women. Based on public health research to find out the correlation between women and population health, showed that women in government do have positive impact on public health as evident from the graph bellow. 
They researched about other relations between women and death rate, expenditures and working in collaborative way. Preceding to their research, Carles and Edwin find out that as the number of women in government has increased, mortality rates has decreased. This mortality rate was decreased by virtue of four types of spending: medical care, preventive care, other social services and post secondary education. They also find out that women in government work in collaboration rather than leaning towards one side.
Thus, I’ve chosen the above example because I think that the idea Carles and Edwin have showed strong connection to what Norgaard and York findings were. They both conducted researches to show relation between women in political power and environmentalism. Though Carles and Edwin’s research is limited to one country only but it gives us a central idea similar to Norgaard and York’s findings.
References
I really think that your statistic adds a whole additional layer to this discussion about what being environmentally conscious means. You lay out the purpose of this very well when talking about Carles and Edwin, but I think its interesting to think about what it all means. When talking about decreased mortality rates, I think that is a huge step to understanding why these leaders succeed. Norgaard and York talk about countries with similar results to Canada, by stating, “Although there are differences in their levels of foreign investment and status as core nations, Norway and Singapore are modern nations with high material standards of living yet very different outcomes in terms of the representation of women in Parliament and the ratification of environmental treaties.” I think these findings also enlighten us on the value of diversity in general. While many of these female leaders are white, diversifying the people in power to include different genders gave us palpable improvements. Expanding this ecofeminist discussion to include women of color in power would be a very crucial step to take. Immediately, leaders like Michele Obama spring to mind, as she has expressed pro environmental views in the past. Keeping people healthy, and our people in power diverse, will help push us forward toward finding a way to save not only ourselves, but the planet.
Hey Afreen! Wonderful blog post you did a great job explaining the reading. I found Norgaard and York’s reading to be very interesting especially seeing as for decades and even currently women’s ability to lead has been questioned. However, unlike previous and even current day leaders who refuse to recognize important environmental issues like climate change. Women are more likely to “perceive various hazards as more risky than men” with women being “less willing than men to impose health and environmental risks on others” (Norgaard and York). When thinking about influential women who made a positive impact to our environment, marino biologist and nature writer Rachel Carson comes to mind. Within her 1962 book “Silent Spring” Carson was able to outline the dangers associated with chemical pesticides, which ultimately led to the nationwide ban on DDT and other pesticides. Without her influence the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may have never been created. I think it’s necessary to highlight monumental female activist that played a part in saving our environment. As well as, recognizing that women are often the first people impacted by any natural disaster making them more intone with our environment.
https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/rachel-carson
Do you think that research that Carles and Edwin performed may be better explained by the development of the national capital, and the general acceptance of society of a more progressive form of thought? There is evidence that supports many things like health care, infant mortality rates, life expectancy, and environmental health are strongly correlated to GDP and capital a country produces. I think that the idea of women in government is important, but not because of it women, but social acceptance of groups different than themselves, more minds, more ideas to help combat problems that society faces. As society becomes more able to look in on itself it can realize it owns problems, for hundred of years homosexual marriages were, and still in places are outlawed around the world, even in some countries that have increased the number of women in government. Do you think governments 200 years ago would have accepted them if 50% of the government was women? I think the idea of extended human life is more connected to people being able to reach healthcare providers and the general advancements of medical technology that corresponds to the turn of the century. In fact, if you use the chart provided by Norgaard and York, Japan ranks 104th in gender equality, but not only has one of the highest life expectancies in the world also reach their industrial and technological boom in hundreds of years ago. Do you have an idea of how Carles and Edwin’s research would defend this claim? The expansion of the education system would allow people to gain more access to education which has direct implications on the number of jobs one can get, and their average annual income. Education would not only help prepare the next generation for the changing job market of tomorrow but pushes for higher education could help America experience large innovation bombs as well, which could provide even high life expectancy and quality life.