Trail & Tread

Across many marginalized communities, there is a recognition that the degradation of the environment and the oppression of women are not separate struggles, but entangled realities, rooted in the same systems of power. In rural Kenya, the forests of India, and the urban peripheries of Brazil, the consequences of environmental harm fall most heavily on women, not because of biology, but because of longstanding structural inequalities that position women as both the stewards of natural resources and the least empowered to protect them.

One recurring theme in this week’s material is the intimate knowledge women possess of environmental damage, because they are the first to see and feel its effects. As Wangari Maathai explains in her article “Speak Truth to Power”, “if the well goes dry, [women] are the ones concerned about finding new sources of water and those who must walk long distances to fetch it” (2000). When water is polluted, food becomes scarce, or forests are cleared, it is women who must absorb the burden of care and adaptation.  Despite the often romanticized and abstract connections between women and nature, this is a real and political issue. It’s about who has responsibility without power and who labors without recognition.

Ecofeminism emerges here to challenge the logic that sees women and nature as passive, exploitable resources. Ivone Gebara writes in “Ecofeminism: A Latin American Perspective”, “feminism lies inside this common utopia with its own particular struggle and will also be a particular utopia for all women living in hierarchical structures in different cultures” (2002). This vision is not about elevating women’s suffering, it’s about recognizing their agency. In many communities, the simple act of planting a tree becomes a revolutionary act, one rooted (pun intended) in practical power.  Wangari Maathai describes this type of grassroots activism during the Green Belt Movement: “Tree-planting empowered these women because it was not a complicated thing. It was something they could do and see the results of” (2000).  This is a clear example of how beyond flowery existential debates, women have the ability to take control of their environment and their future.

However, these efforts are rarely welcomed by patriarchal power structures. When feminists challenge environmental exploitation, they also threaten the culture that enables it. Maathai was dismissed by officials as part of “a bunch of divorcees and irresponsible women” and her group faced threats of genital mutilation for “refusing to behave like women should” (2000).  These are blatant attempts to discredit women’s claims to public space and quiet their voices.

At the heart of the material this week is a shared critique of the structures that serve to disempower women. Material deprivation and cultural loss do not occur in a vacuum, they are the outcomes of systemic exclusion. “Daily life for most poor women is like a jail,” Gebara writes. “You have to live there as a prisoner without choosing alternatives for a better life” (2002).  The destruction of ecosystems is mirrored in this lack of autonomy, especially for women in rural and poor communities. The connection here is clear: environmental degradation reinforces disempowerment, and vice versa.

We can free women from these jails, we can strengthen and empower them through activism, but it begins with awareness. In the Green Belt Movement’s educational programs, the metaphor of the “wrong bus” is used to help people understand systemic failure. “If you are afraid, you can get onto the wrong bus. If you are arrogant… if you are not mentally alert… There are many reasons,” writes Maathai. In other words, misinformation, fear, and illiteracy all conspire to put people on the wrong bus, the one that reinforces the cycles that perpetuate their circumstances. But once people realize they are on the bus, they can decide to get off, to act, to plant, to organize, to resist. This is the seed that plants the action.

Stories of grassroots ecofeminist movements show us that meaningful activism is deeply practical. They show that healing the earth is not separate from healing relationships with our community and ourselves. As Wangari Maathai puts it, “the clarity of what you ought to do gives you courage, removes the fear… and now you are out of the bus and moving in the right direction” (2000). These movements intentionally critique but also offer pathways forward that are paved with the urgency of lived realities. In this light, environmental degradation is not only a scientific or economic issue, it is a moral and political one. And women, often pushed to the margins, are speaking up in that conversation. Not through grand speeches or platforms, but through daily, deliberate acts of resistance.

Works Cited

Gebara, Ivone (2002). Ecofeminism: A Latin American Perspective. Theology, Ecology, and Feminism: A Conference Honoring Rosemary
Radford Ruether. Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary.

Maathai, Wangari (2000). Speak Truth to Power. Green Belt Movement. https://www.greenbeltmovement.org/wangari-maathai/key-speeches-and-articles/speak-truth-to-power

Last winter I took a course called Law & Society. It was an intensive, engaging study of how law is intertwined with society. One of the assignments was to read a book called The Alchemy of Race and Rights by Patricia J. Williams, which is a diary-like account of how the language of law and rights shapes our culture and perpetuates inequalities. The overarching message of the book, and the course itself, is that legal rights are not enough to effect social change because they are limited in the scope of what they can accomplish. As Kimberlé Crenshaw highlighted in her essay “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics”, for example, anti-discrimination laws do not properly protect affected groups because they only account for one identity at a time. With these ideas in mind, I’d like to examine ecofeminism through the lens of intersectionality, a concept that Crenshaw coined and has since elevated feminist discourse beyond essentialist framing.

At its core, ecofeminism regards life on earth not as an exercise in domination but as an interconnected, interdependent, and dynamic web. This perspective has allowed the evolution of the theory of intersectionality, which helps us understand how we are comprised of many overlapping, and sometimes hypocritical, social identities. In her essay “The Ecology of Feminism and the Feminism of Ecology,” Ynestra King explains the core beliefs of ecofeminism: modern society is inherently degrading to nature, life on earth is not a hierarchy, biodiversity is essential, our survival depends on a fundamental reshaping of how we interact with nature, and ecofeminism must account for multiple social identities. In other words, it must be intersectional. The interconnectedness of life forms on earth is complex and meaningful, and King reiterates that in order to effect change, the material conditions and symbolic narratives that sustain harmful systems must be dismantled in full.

Intersectionality is therefore essential for recognizing compound effects of simultaneous forms of oppression and privilege. Within ecofeminist theory, intersectionality makes clear how environmental harm is distributed unequally between race, gender, physical ability, and socioeconomic circumstances. Climate change, for example, disproportionately affects women in rural areas of the Global South. As water resources dry up due to pervasive droughts, Black women and girls, the primary water-fetchers, are forced to walk longer and hotter distances, exposing them to dangerous conditions (UN 2019). Intersectional ecofeminism moves beyond universal claims of “women” and “nature” and instead centers on the lived experiences of those most impacted by environmental degradation.

A central theme of ecofeminism is that biodiversity and interdependence is essential for all species’ survival. Similar to how biological monoculture weakens ecological resilience, ideological and cultural homogenization chips away at our compassion for crisis. Intersectional approaches remind us that the domination of nature is not an isolated phenomenon but a result of advantageous power structures that benefit some while displacing others. It also calls attention to how some environmental “solutions” often reinforce existing inequalities. For example, consider the menstrual hygiene interventions in India as described in A.E. King’s “Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism”. Western projects that offered disposable sanitary products ignored local dynamics and introduced environmental consequences. Instead, targeted, intersectional efforts like locally-made compostable products were more effective in resolving ecological inequalities among rural women and girls. In this way, intersectionality is not just a theoretical framework, but a pragmatic tool for effective change. It ensures that responses to environmental degradation are inclusive and culturally appropriate.

To address environmental crises, we need frameworks that can engage in depth. Intersectional ecofeminism is adaptive, dynamic, and asks us to question the systems that structure our society, as true transformation requires dismantling sexist, ageist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and categorical oppression. It doesn’t reduce people to single groups, but encourages us to view the “web” in full and to act from within it. In doing so, we confront systems on a micro/personal level, and acknowledge our own positions of power and seats of oppression, allowing us to take apart and co-create a world that values all life.

Works Cited

A.E. Kings “Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism.” Ethics and the Environment  22 (1) Spring 17

Crenshaw, Kimberlé (1989) “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 1989: Iss. 1, Article 8

King, Ynestra (1989). “The Ecology of Feminism and the Feminism of Ecology”. https://libcom.org/article/ecology-feminism-and-feminism-ecology

United Nations (2019). “Water and Gender”. UN Water by United Nations. https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/water-and-gender

Williams, Patricia J. (1991) The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press.

Massachusetts is one of the greenest states in the nation. It also happens to be a state with strong female leadership. This week’s reading on women and state government posits that there may be a connection between these two facts. Kari Norgaard and Richard York’s article “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism” for Gender & Society is an empirical analysis of 130 countries, examining whether mechanisms of gender equality in state government may affect environmental policy and legislation. The domination of the environment is linked to ecofeminist theory, they say, through the “parallel social and historical constructions of women,” and the fact that nations with higher gender inequality do not prioritize environmental protections (510). They conclude that examining environmental issues through ecofeminist theory and increasing the presence of women in politics can improve “our understanding of state behavior and the relationship between society and the natural environment” (519).

Why might there be a correlation between women in politics and environmental protection? Norgaard & York posit that the traditional roles of caregiving that women are given affects their overall perception of the world, stating that “women are more concerned about the environment because they have been socialized to be family nurturers and caregivers” (509). Norgaard & York also indicate that women are more perceptible to risk than men, and are more likely to “consider a variety of environmental risks, from nuclear power to toxic substances, to be more serious than do men (508). It would make sense, then, that a predominantly female political administration would prioritize environmental protection. Indeed, perhaps women recognize the urgency and plight of the Earth being stripped of resources as they are stripped of their labor, and the planet acts a mirror for their own subjugation.

In 2005, when the article was published, Norgaard & York recommended further research into whether increased female participation in politics actually translates to greater environmental protection (514). Twenty years later, we have the hindsight to examine if this is true. It seems that over the past few decades, developed nations have caught on to the fact that women are valued members of society, and by educating them and improving their lives, we can improve the lives and health of all around us. One way to do this is to specifically include women in cooperative environmental and nature-based projects, especially in rural areas. Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF) shared in 2016 that an initiative in Georgia to teach women to install and maintain renewable energy structures has led to numerous co-benefits, including reduced domestic labor demand for women, increased community knowledge of renewable energy resources, and reduced energy consumption. You can read more about their efforts here.

Another example of female-driven environmental action is right here at home. Over the past few years, the number of women in politics in Massachusetts has steadily climbed, from a baseline 20% to over 33% in 2024 (WGBH 2024). This meets the 30% threshold that Norgaard & York mentioned in their article, as the United Nations recommends a baseline 30% female participation level in politics in order to promote environmental protection (518).  With this rise in participation, the amount of policy directed at protecting the environment has also increased. The female-led Healey-Driscoll administration announced in 2022 that climate and energy policy was their top priority, and have since introduced legislation to double wind and solar targets, electrify public transportation, establish green municipal funds, incentivize electric vehicles, and protect coastal cities from sealevel rise (Commonwealth of Massachusetts). They also established the cabinet-level position of Climate Chief, the first state in the nation to do so. The position is currently held by a woman, Melissa Hoffer.

Even if women and girls choose not to enter the political landscape, they are powerful in the fight against environmental degradation. According to the United Nations, women in developed countries drive 70-80% of consumer spending, and therefore play a key role in enacting change at a household level. Women are also more likely to recycle, thrift, reduce energy consumption, and purchase eco-friendly products (United Nations 2024). This means they lead the charge in switching to more sustainable lifestyles and products. You’ll see this in action if you scroll the sustainability and thrifting communities on social media platforms like TikTok and Reddit. There is a largely female presence in those groups, and it is enthusiastic. As time goes on and gender barriers continue to be broken down, I think the impact of women in the environmental protection space will be loud, clear, and positive.

Works Cited

Cohan, Alexi (2024). The Rising Power of Women in Massachusetts Politics. WGBH.org. https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2024-10-08/the-rising-power-of-women-in-massachusetts-politics

Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2024). Massachusetts Named Most Environmentally-Friendly State in Nation by Forbes. Mass.gov. https://www.mass.gov/news/massachusetts-named-most-environmentally-friendly-state-in-nation-by-forbes

Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2022). The Healey-Driscoll Administration’s Priorities. Mass.gov. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/the-healey-driscoll-administrations-priorities

Norgaard, Kari and Richard York (2005). Gender Equality and State Environmentalism. Gender & Society. Vol. 19, No. 4. pp. 506-522.

United Nations (2025). Why women are key to climate action. UN.org. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/women

Women Engage for a Common Future (2016). Gender responsive energy cooperatives: a social business model to implement renewable technologies within Georgia‘s climate strategy. Womengenderclimate.org. https://womengenderclimate.org/gjc_solutions/gender-responsive-energy-cooperatives-a-social-business-model-to-implement-renewable-technologies-within-georgias-climate-strategy/

During a speech delivered at the 2000 World Vegetarian Congress in Toronto, Carol J. Adams remarked that there should be a word for the sexually explicit ways humans contort animals to sell and consume. Immediately, her friend Amie Hamlin called out, “anthropornography.” Adams would later describe anthropornography in an interview with Annie Potts for Antennae magazine, saying it means “animals are presented as sexually consumable, in a way that upholds the sexual exploitation of women.” Hamlin’s label captured the essence of a complex set of issues, all of which can be traced back to the human exploitation of animals for consumption and capitalism. The human drive to hunt and herd, once a means of survival, has morphed into a conquest of speciesism. Looking closer, the male subjugation of women is mirrored in the human subjugation of animals. “Women are animalized and animals are sexualized and feminized,” says Adams in her interview for Antennae. Let’s take a look at some of the visual examples Adams provides in her signature slideshow, Sexual Politics of Meat.

The image above depicts a limited-edition KFC sandwich, which famously swapped bread for fried chicken. I remember when this sandwich was released. The marketing clearly depicted lumberjack-style men with fistfuls of meat, flashes of red, black, and white, and a thick block font reminiscent of Uncle Sam posters during wartime. As seen above, the ads would describe the item as “the world’s manliest sandwich,” giving the impression that manly men would enjoy it. Or perhaps it would make a man manlier? That particular interpretation is up to the viewer, apparently. One thing is clear: the messaging conveys that is good to be masculine, it’s worth being proud of, and one should seek to increase his manliness through manly acts, like eating a sandwich comprised almost entirely of fried chicken.

The next image is a marquee outside of a strip club, stating they employ “free range grass fed strippers.” This marketing takes real verbiage from ads for animal products, like eggs and chicken, and applies it to a subset of women. There is no subtlety to this language; it clearly assigns a consumable label to the female employees. It lends the impression that the women are housed in a barn, let out to graze, and exist to provide a consumable service to humans. That’s another thing about this type of marketing: it always puts the subject in a feminine category. We didn’t need to know this marquee referred to female strippers; it was implied by the oppressive imagery. “In meat eating, all animals become symbolically female,” Adams says, and as the images in her slideshow tick on, we see more overlap between the sexualization of animals and the oppression of women.

The last image is probably the most shocking, and literal. It takes a raw piece of meat, still hanging on a butcher hook, dressed in a tube top and mini skirt. Text at the bottom states “It’s not acceptable to treat a woman like one. Most men agree, but few speak out. Please, be heard. A man’s voice is an effective way to change demeaning societal attitudes towards women.” Upon first glance, one might think this is a reasonable plea to treat women respectfully. Zooming in, we can see that it upholds an unfortunate hierarchical attitude that humans have projected onto animals: they are inferior, and thus worthy of poorer treatment. The image acknowledges that to be a “piece of meat” is a negative, unwanted thing, and it pleads for men not to treat women like animals. It is, at its core, “propaganda for speciesism,” as Carol J. Adams has said. The underlying message is that humans deserve better treatment than animals, and it’s up to men to save us all.

This last image is one that I found on my own. It’s a vintage Campbell’s Soup advertisement for their beef soup. The language in the add is masculine — “BEEF is Big News,” “deep-flavored,” “hefty pieces,” “thick” — and the tagline is even more oppressive: “FOR MEN ONLY.” The tagline is on a cartoon sign surrounded by cartoon women, looking shocked and impressed at the beefy soup. The subheading reads, “‘He-Man’ is the word for these Hearty Soups! But, Ladies, you’ll like ’em, too!” The overall message here is that this beefy, meaty product is for men, and it impresses women with how masculine it is. Plus, a bonus: women may try the soup with permission from male advertising executives.

Each of these images has one central theme: men, above all, exist to consume and annihilate. Women, despite being part of the same species, are oppressed and subjugated to a similar degree as nonhuman animals. Still, women subjugate and oppress nonhuman animals by participating in the consumption of meat themselves, despite being treated and viewed as sexual objects. Are most women aware of this hypocrisy? “A cycle of objectification, fragmentation, and consumption links butchering and sexual violence in our culture,” writes Adams. Men objectify women on stage, in magazines, through media, they fragment them in conversation (“I’m more of a butt man, myself”), and some consume them through acts of sexual violence. The butcher, in his white shift, raises animals on hooks and completes the same process, ending in consumption in the name of agriculture. And we are too disconnected from our compassion, as Adams would say, to recognize the destructive parallels.

Works Cited:

Adams, Carol J. (2010) The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. London and New York: Continuum.

Aloi, G., Arends, B., Shrumm, R., & Brink, E. E. (2009) Antennae: The Journal of Nature in Visual Culture. Issue 14. pp. 12-24

This week, I’ve explored the philosophy of Greta Gaard and Deane Curtin, ecofeminists who center intersectionality with nonhuman species . Gaard, as shared in her article “Ecofeminism on the Wing” for Women and Environments Magazine, believes when we position ourselves, humans, above other species, we lose part of our compassion (2001). Keeping pets, animal consumption, and using animals for work are all examples of our anthropocentric tendencies. Gaard criticized the hierarchy of society that placed humans at the top and exploits other species, and lamented the “imperfect choices” from which we make our lives, and human-driven circumstances, like industrial farming and food deserts, that perpetuate them.

Curtin shares many of the same beliefs as Gaard, but allows nuance for the human condition. In his essay Contextual Moral Vegetarianism, he explains that moral vegetarianism differs across locations, genders, races, and class because human lives are comprised of unequal interests. He states, correctly, that people can’t be expected to be indifferent to their children, and when faced with the choice between an animal or their child, they will choose the child (1991). Is this another example of our own animal nature? Would a bear not choose its cub? Are we but mere animals, scrubbed and clothed and schooled? Yet from our menu of imperfect choices, we choose again and again to put ourselves above other species. Ecofeminists like Curtin and Gaard seek to correct this hierarchical structure by cultivating compassion and empathy toward nonhuman animals.

Consider the image above. At first glance, it is neutral clip art. Upon further inspection, it’s a layered commentary on speciesism. The white man, an animal in costume, is cutting the flesh of another dead animal with his man-made tools, upon a bed of Earthly wood, slashed and stripped and carved into a board for the white man’s convenience. The tools themselves are made from plastic and metal, materials made by extracting finite resources from the earth. The dead animal is pinned down by the white man’s tool, kept in its place on the board, waiting to be consumed. This is not a Native Arctic village eating meat because there is nothing else; this is a man with agency and a plethora of nonmeat choices, destroying another animal in a controlled, systematic manner. It is factory farming and agricultural dominance, zoomed in and sanitized.

We as humans are aware of and exploit this place in the proverbial food chain. This awareness has entered our lexicon and occupies our day-to-day lives, even subconsciously, as we subjugate others and ourselves. In his essay, Curtin discusses connections between the oppression of women and the oppression of animals, as expressed through food and food traditions (1991). Some of these examples include disparaging nonmeat foods, like referring to people in comas as “vegetables,” associating women with dainty foods, like finger sandwiches, and connecting red meat with masculinity. This reminded me of how men are generally expected to have larger appetites, especially when it comes to meat and dairy products (i.e. Ron Swanson, epitome of masculinity, asking for “all the bacon and eggs you have”). Meanwhile, women are expected to eat smaller portions, more salads. We nibble and we graze. I thought of this tonight when I served dinner for my family. Why am I inclined to pass my husband the larger piece of steak? He often eats less than I do, but my instinct is to give him a big portion. Thinking more about it, the fact that I cook dinner 5 times per week is probably testament to deeply ingrained patriarchal standards within my own progressive family. 

Works Cited

This is a photo of a trail that I’ve walked with my family many times.  It’s called The Meadow Trail, and it’s part of a network of trails at Attleboro Springs, a Massachusetts Audubon Wildlife Refuge. This network of trails features several vernal pools and a large pond. As a child, I spent a lot of time in ponds, streams, and vernal pools, driven by a curiosity to explore the world that frogs and salamanders lived. I still feel a playful sense of wonder when I’m within a wood. So, since my children have been old enough to walk, we’ve taken walks, and later, hikes, through these trails and trails like it. It is important to me that my family is connected to nature, in a boots-on-the-ground kind of way, and since our current lifestyle doesn’t support days spent homesteading, hiking our local trails will have to do.

As Barbara Kingsolver said in her essay Knowing Our Place, “people need wild places” (2002). Her analysis of our sad departure from the land reminds me of the vast acres of timbered forests in my home state of Vermont. When I returned to walk the trails of my childhood, many years later, I was deeply discouraged by the naked, pilfered spaces. Along quiet roads in Swanton, the trees are disappearing. Meanwhile, my peers and colleagues crave remote work and walkable cities. “This exodus from the land makes me unspeakably sad,” Kingsolver writes, and I struggle to return home these days.

Instead, I make the most of the home I have here in Massachusetts. I feel the crunch of packed snow on my boots every winter weekend, I grow vegetables in my backyard in the summer and fall, I teach my kids about science and wilderness and the circular nature of things. I donate to conservation organizations that protect the lands I love. This week I read Terry Tempest Williams’s Red: Passion and Patience in the Desert, which discusses the need for preservation of wild spaces in the American West. Here in the Northeast, there are many missions to preserve the wilderness, piney and humble as it may compare to the West, but I often feel like no one is doing enough. “Haven’t you heard,” I want to ask everyone, “haven’t you heard the world is dying, the air is thinning, and we need every last tree and rock and crumb of dirt to keep on spinning?”

I am a student of Economics, which is great for someone like me who wants to make sense of infinite needs and finite resources. Early on in my undergraduate career, I took a course on sustainability, and learned about “The Tragedy of the Commons,” which states that when we have access to a shared resource, like water or timber, we over-use the resource because we can’t see beyond our own needs. This leads to destruction of the resource and widespread hardship. I remember feeling frustrated when I learned about this concept, because it seemed like a problem with a simple solution: don’t use more than you need. But as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, when people anticipate a shortage or feel otherwise entitled to more than their share, they hoard resources. Is this a survival technique? Perhaps, albeit one that ironically is leading to our own destruction.

“This is all there is,” Terry Tempest Williams writes in closing of the first chapter of Red, and I am reminded of the care we put into the things we know are precious. We take care to pay special attention during the early childhood years, when our babies are squishy and sweet-smelling. We make sure to save the best bottle of champagne for a special celebration. We save our best outfits for first impressions. Finite resources, including all land, needs special care and attention. My place in the world, the location that gives me a sense of empowerment and well-being, is in the woods with my family, in deep appreciation of the woods around me. I take care of this place, for this is all there is.

Kingsolver, Barbara, and Paul Mirocha. Small Wonder: Essays. New York, Perennial, 2003.

Terry Tempest Williams. Red: Passion and Patience in the Desert. Vintage, 30 Dec. 2008.

Ecofeminism, drawing upon Laura Hobgood-Oster’s observations in Ecofeminism: Historical and International Evaluation, is a global concept stemming from a shift in dualities over millenia (2). Over time, traditional hierarchies such as sun/moon, heaven/hell, and man/woman came to symbolize a superior-inferior relationship and promote oppression of the “inferior” subject. Human/nature became another hierarchy to exploit, leading to the degradation of our planet and widespread biodiversity crises within ecosystems. Ecofeminists argue that the oppression of nature mirrors the oppression exhibited in other hierarchies, like the oppression of women in a male-dominated society.

These arguments are based on the following ideas, as stated by Ynestra King in her essay The Ecology of the Feminist and the Feminism of Ecology:
– Western industrial civilization is harmful to nature and reinforces the subjugation of women
– Life is an interconnected web, not a hierarchy.
– A healthy ecosystem needs biodiversity to survive.
– Survival of humanity depends on a renewed understanding of the relationship between all species and nature.

The connection between our treatment of women and our treatment of nature cannot be denied. Nature in itself is life-giving, providing food, shelter, and clean air. Women give life through fertility, childbirth, and caregiving. The life-giving features of women and nature, if they were to cease to exist tomorrow, would signal the imminent end of mankind and life on earth. Humans need women to perpetuate their species, just like humans need nature to perpetuate their existence. Despite this inherent and hugely important link, women and nature are treated with disrespect, and given less-than-ideal conditions to survive.

A reflection of our poor treatment of the Earth appears as low biodiversity. This issue refers to a decline in the variety of different species in an ecosystem. Low biodiversity can impact the health and stability of an ecosystem since different species perform different functions, like filtering the air and water, or providing nutrients to the soil. The consequences of failing to resolve low biodiversity include lower productivity, biomass, and food availability, rapid spread of diseases, poor air and water quality, and infertile soil.

Biodiversity is usually on full display in ecosystems such as wetlands and vernal pools. Within such environments, plant, animal, and microbial species live in harmony with one another, providing essential services like water filtration, habitats, and food sources. Unfortunately, rapid development of land to create housing and commercial structures for humans has deteriorated biodiversity in these ecosystems. When their habitat is destroyed, plants are killed, and animals are forced to migrate to find new food sources and breeding grounds. If they can’t find a suitable habitat, they die. This issue has led to mass extinction of vertebrate species; since the 16^th century, over 680 species have gone extinct directly due to human development (United Nations, 2019). Many more are predicted to do so in the future if we don’t fundamentally change our relationship with the natural environment. We must maintain the earth as a healthy whole rather than assigning rank to each piece and prioritizing only the highest held.

Works Cited:

Hobgood-Oster, Laura. (2002). “Ecofeminism: Historical and International Evolution”.

King, Ynestra. (2019). “The Ecology of Ecofeminism & the Feminism of Ecology”. Libcom.

United Nations (2019). “UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented,’ Species
Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’” UN.org. Retrieved February 4th, 2025 from
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline
unprecedented-report/