Month: March 2025

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