Throughout this semester we were enlightened by the concept of ecofeminism and how in the world women and nature are oppressed by patriarchal, male dominant society. Such topic was argued on by, Wangari Maathai and Ivone Gebara. Most important thing which I think is very disturbing is, not only our patriarchal society oppresses women and nature but religious entities too. And I don’t think so that any religion existing on this planet ever allows that, but rather ask us to preserve nature and to respect women.
I guess that was never the case before and to some extend even today. “In this cultural context of masculine and white domination, in Christian churches, feminism and ecofeminism are not well known and are sometimes considered a kind of heresy disturbing the community. (pg.93)” Ivone mentions her experience in Brazil in a conference where she realized that “word ecofeminism is not in Brazilian dictionaries”. She goes on explaining and describing three points, 1) Ecofeminism as an echo of feminism; 2) beyond Theology; 3) A new Utopia for our time. She argues that while discussing theories to understand women’s life and ecosystem, we often forget to find solutions for our ecological crisis due to which so many living things are getting killed for. She explained the cycle of a girl who experience pregnancy in their teenage. This restricts them from gaining education and limits their choices in life because education to get a better living is vital. Ivone further explains that how “women in Latin America feels that traditional theology rooted in patriarchal anthropology does not have a path for women’s emancipation and autonomy. A new Utopia for our times. In literal meaning, Utopia means “an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.” According to the feminist perspective, Utopia is in “general the construction of new human relationship among women and men based on justice, equality and solidarity. It is not simply a place for women in this same hierarchical and unfair social structure, but a place, a glimpse, of utopia, built on new relationship. (99) ”
Wangari when narrated her experience about her ‘Green Belt Movement’ mentioned the violence that she had to face. When she was asked to call down her campaign she refused to do so, due to which she had to deal with harassment campaign and threats. She was hospitalised after pro-government thugs beat her and other protesters. She was further threatened to mutilate her genitals in order to force her to behave ‘like women should’. These sufferings of Maathai, protesters, marginalized women are all evidence of oppression on women by male dominant patriarchal societies.
Now comes the oppression of nature which is also very common. The protest that Maathai was doing and suffered for was all because of protecting nature. Now the question raised in my mind was that is nature worth protecting above our own life? If you are not feminist or ecofeminist you would definitely say no!! but if you are, your answer would be yes. Same was for Maathai too. For her, protecting the life of nature was important than her own life. Whole point of her ‘Green Belt Movement’ was to stop erosion, provide shade , and create a source of lumber and firewood. If you think about this movement by being mean, all of this is actually for us only. Because its we who need all these resources. Once these resources wouldn’t be enough, we will be the ones to suffer the most. But the only reason she was being punished, was because she protested against a male president who wanted to build the longest skyscraper on the only park that was left in Nairobi. So if you see, it wasn’t the protest it self that risked her life it was actually whom that protest was against to. Which again reinforces the idea of how women and nature are oppressed by patriarchal society.
Ivone also highlights the importance of nature. How the argument of what ecofeminism and feminism is and all the theories people have, women and nature meanwhile are being affected the most which is neglected. ” While all these discussions are going on, the destruction of the Amazon forest, the rain forest and others continue. While this discussion is taking place… women and children are starving and dying with diseases produced by a capitalist system able to destroy lives and keep profit for only a few. (94)” I want to focus on one point which raised in my mind while reading all these articles that if you think about it all these nature protecting movements done were by women only. There were no men who initiated any movement like, ‘Green Belt Movement’ or ‘The Chipko Movement’; protest by a lady and followed by many villagers, to prevent deforestation and preserve nature. Men that participated in the protest was only because they saw that women were doing something which is giving them more attention and also because of their own benefit. “A lot of women participated in the planting, though not in the nurturing of the seedlings at the nursery as the women do… they will have huge trees to sell (Mathaai, 2000).
Material deprivation and cultural losses of marginalized and poor lies in the deeper issues of disempowerment and environmental degradation. According to me, both of these are a result of patriarchal societies. “Throughout the Africa (as in much of the world) women hold primary responsibility for tiling the fields, deciding what to plant, nurturing the crops, and harvesting the food…; they can see it in the tears of their children and hear it in their babies’ cries.” It’s the women who have nurturing abilities and not men. Disempowerment of women is because these male dominant culture doesn’t allow women to be higher than men and it’s men who only sees nature as of their benefit. The best quote that relates this is from Ivone’s reading. She says, “Female Poverty depends on the destruction of ecosystems.” It wouldn’t be wrong to say that material deprivation affects marginalized, especially marginalized women and poor. I would like to quote from Mathaai’s article which I liked, “Environmental protection is not just about talking. It is also about taking action.”
Hi Afreen!
I like that you started your blog by also mentioning the oppression religions face. I don’t think this is something that people often think about but you’re right. I want to talk first about the echo of feminism mentioned by Gebara. Gebara talks about which you have mentioned in your blog how we spend time “discussing theories.” While in these discussions’ disasters are occurring all around us. Gebara states “An ecofeminism as an echo of feminism wants, in this perspective to go beyond sterile discussions and go back to searching for concrete solutions to daily life problems” (Gebara 9). By daily life, Gebara is speaking of lives of the poor and the lives of women who aren’t living lives at all but are rather in a prison of responsibilities such as cleaning and providing for their families. These are the kinds of problems we need concrete, permanent solutions for. Onto the Maathai article. The beating of women activists is a prime example of oppression to women as well as nature because in her articles, the women are trying to start movements to save nature. Much like the Chipko Movement to save trees. Starting that movement was also women. I noticed a connection between the Norgaard and York study when they mentioned how women were more likely than men to be concerned about the environment and would be more likely to work to save the environment. I believe these two movements, The Green Belt Movement and the Chipko Movement help to support that part of the study. The movement mentioned by Maathai she spoke about how men even started joining when they saw it was positive and was successful. I agree that the issues we see today are due to patriarchy and capitalism and with the help of ecofeminists we may soon have those concrete solutions we need. I really enjoyed reading your blog this week and look forward to the next!