I apologize for the late entry this week — how the days have flown by! I’d like to return to last week’s discussion on the principles of Ecofeminism. Last week, I was informed by a primarily Western approach, which essentially argues that the connection between nature and women is inherent, but mostly ideological. Nature is seen as “Mother Earth” in a direct nod to the connections between nature and motherhood due to its life-giving, or supporting, properties. I, too, made these connections in my post. However, a gentle nudge from a fellow classmate reminded me that focusing solely on the biological similarities between women and nature ignores the class-gender implications of the comparison.
This week, I felt particularly moved by Bina Agarwal’s Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India. With a non-Western approach, Agarwal’s discussion of women and nature sometimes contradicted that of the traditional Ecofeminism view. For example, Agarwal separated her philosophy as feminist environmentalism, a distinctly different branch of philosophy that emphasizes the ways women are directly intertwined with, and affected by, environmentalism. She posits that women are associated with nature and men are associated with culture, and since nature is seen as inferior to human culture, women are seen as inferior (Agarwal, 120). Agarwal argues that instead, “women, like men, mediate between nature and culture,” and a dismantling of long-held class-gender ideologies is required to be seen as such. She states that the image of nature as a wild, untamed beast that can only be tamed by the cultural wisdom of men is similar to the way men view women: as pieces of property to be subjugated and used for resources (Agarwal, 121).
One of the key differences in Ecofeminism and feminist environmentalism is that the connections between women and nature aren’t biological, but tangible and measurable. For example, environmental degradation affects women more than it affects men. According to the United Nations, women and girls in rural areas, particularly the Global South, are the primary water-fetchers for their communities. When water is scarce, fetching it becomes dangerous as women travel long distances and grapple with the elements. Lack of water resources also means poorer sanitation and public health, which adversely affects women by reducing their educational and employment opportunities, the effects of which can be seen for generations.
Agarwal offers lessons from India to illustrate the connections between women and nature , namely that environmental degradation erodes the knowledge and livelihood of women, and that the impact of environmental degradation is intertwined with the ideology and politics of property (Agarwal, 150). She states that efforts by women to protect the environment are rooted in a sense of family survival and an “attempt to carve out space for an alternative existence that is based on equality, not dominance over people, and on cooperation with and not dominance over nature” (151). To do this, global policy must shift from relief to development, which would require an overhaul of composition, technology, knowledge, and distribution. Another activist we studied this week, Vandana Shiva, advocated for the development rather than the rescue of communities, primarily through agricultural efforts with farmers and seed banks.
In the West we are so used to throwing money at problems and choosing simple solutions in favor of complex overhauls of harmful systems. Let’s change that with transformative policy. Instead of resorting to monoculture, we should be investing in seed banks and distributing diverse indigenous seeds to farmers directly. Instead of using a narrowly-defined version of “science” that is only created in labs and universities, we should come up with a way to verify information from farmers and other boots-on-the-ground workers, lending credence to their anecdotal success of long-held farming practices (Agarwal 152). I think this non-Western approach of development rather than relief holds a lot of water (no pun intended) because it quite literally gets to the roots of the problem: when the environment suffers, women suffer, and are held under the proverbial thumb of the patriarchy.
Works Cited:
Agarwal, B. (1992). The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India.
Feminist Studies, 18(1), 119–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178217
United Nations. (2025). Water and Gender. UN Water. https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/water-and-gender
Your analysis of Agarwal’s feminist environmentalism effectively highlights the shift from ideological connections between women and nature to tangible, systemic inequalities. The example of water scarcity affecting women’s safety, education, and economic opportunities underscores how environmental degradation isn’t just an ecological issue but a deeply gendered one. Vandana Shiva’s advocacy for seed banks reinforces the idea that real solutions must empower local communities rather than impose external, short-term fixes. Western approaches often prioritize relief over structural change, but as Agarwal argues, true transformation requires dismantling oppressive land and resource policies that keep women in cycles of poverty. Addressing these issues at their root—through land rights, sustainable agriculture, and the recognition of indigenous knowledge—offers a more effective and equitable path forward.