NickSouzaEcoFem

Betta Fish Care Guide

 

Some quick facts first

1. Betta fish can and should live between 2 or 3 years, while some may have shorter lifespans, if you are consistently losing Betta fish after just a couple of months you are doing something (most likely many things incorrectly).
2. Bettas require a minimum of a 2 gallon enclosure to thrive.
3. Betta fish can live in community tanks (tanks with other life) but consideration needs to be taken as to what life you are putting with them.

What You Need: \
1. A bowl,tank,aquarium, whatever you wanna use. Make sure it is a minimum of 2.5 gallons, I will link a few choice ones below.

The above is great if you like the classic bowl design.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Aqueon-5-Gallon-MiniBow-LED-Desktop-Fish-Aquarium-Kit-Black/133399311297?hash=item1f0f37f3c1:m:mwCm9pjpZ_OeENAYBO_Ao-Q (

This is my absolutely favorite nano-tank and is great for beginners

https://www.petco.com/shop/en/petcostore/product/aqueon-10-gal-led-aquarium-kit

Your classic 10 gal setup, I would not recommend a beginner go any bigger than this.

For smaller tanks, a desktop like surface will work fine but for the 10 gal, I recommend getting a stand, there should be plenty of them available at any local fish/pet store.

2. A filter: Now some people will tell you, that in smaller tanks you do not need a filter, and should just do regular water changes, I strongly recommend against this. After a bit you will become tired of daily water changes and you will forget, as a result of the quality of your water and your fishes life will decline.

3. A heater: This is another thing, some will tell you is optional. It is not Betta fish need to be in water that is at least 72 degrees, while many people keep their homes this warm it is not steady and not worth the risk, especially as quality heaters can be purchased for less than twenty dollars and can lost well over a year. During particularly hot days during the summer it may be wise to turn it off to prevent the aquarium from becoming too hot.

4. Ornaments/Plans/Hides: Fill your tank with appropriate decor,

DO: Keep aqutics plants like duckweed, amazons swords, Java Moss, Marmo Balls, etc these are all great for the tank and can even help with filtration, in addition to providing supplementary nutrition for your fish.

Do: buy ornaments with openings that provide safe places for your fish to hide in.

Do not: buy ornaments that are basically just figurines, that do nothing but take up space in your tank. These do not benefit your fish.

5. A good quality food: Don’t buy anything called goldfish flakes, or any cheap all purpose store brand new, that tends to be low in nutritional value, and can even cause harm to your fish. There are tons of good food that are afforable, any blood worms, daphnia, or brine shrimp based foods I can recommend whole heartedly.

Setup:

When it comes to setting up, you wanna fill your aquarium with water, and run the filter for 3 days before putting any life in there, this is called cycling. Once your tank is cycled you can add fish, in the case of a Betta you wanna add them first and give them about a week before adding any fish with them. You wanna do 25% water changes (as in removing and replacing 25% of the water in the tank), and feed 6 days a week.

Now that you have your fish, I want you to keep somethings in mind. This is a life, it’s not an accessory, it is not a toy. when you make decisions about this fish, your only consideration should be, is it best for them? For men interested in the hobby you may have an urge to get the biggest most aggressive looking fish you can, while there are many beautiful and rewarding fish that are large it is best to start small.

The Betta (pronounced bet-a not bay-ta) also sometimes called siamese fighting fish, are a beautiful and often misunderstood fish that are popular in the aquarium hobby. They are popular for a few reasons, they are colorful, have interesting fins, are cheap (on average you can get a common betta fish for under $5) , and are perceived to be easy to take care, all of the above are true to an extent. When you enter a pet shop you will often come across small bowls or even cups intended for housing a betta fish, you will even see some literature that says if you put a plant in with them, they do not need to be fed and can just feed off the plant. Needless to say this is not correct.

I’ve been in the fish hobby all my life, I started with guppies and tetras as a child and my father taught me to care form. During my teenage years, I fell out of the hobby but a few years ago when I moved into my current apartment I got back into. Started with a 10 gallon tank and two betta females (which debateably can be kept together unlike male bettas). I lost one of them within the first 24 hours due to poor water quality (clearly I had a lot to learn), so changed the water, got a better filter, and found out that sorrorities (the term for tanks with multiple betta females) do better with 3-5 bettas rather than two, so i bought 3 more. This ended up being way more succesful and I had some of those fish up until just a few months ago. Eventually one of them did get fin rot but I was able to treat her and she made a full recovery. But I won’t keep babbling about my fish history, the point is I’ve been in this hobby for a while and been constantly learning while in it.

I think that a form of activism I can engage in is to make a care guide for betta fish. The parts of my social media that are not related to politics, or video games, are usually related to fish and come into contact with a lot of newcomers to the hobby, many of whom start with betta fish. By having a concise but detailed page with information on how to properly care for betta fish I can both aid consumers in making educated purchases but also improve of the quality of life of Betta fish. I don’t know how effective my guide will be as I’m not what is called an influencer and do not have massive reach in my social media platforms but if I help one or two consumers and thus help save a few fish it will have been well worth the 10-12 hours that would be put into the guide. Plus if I reach people with this information it doesn’t just save one fish, it is information that can stick with them beyond that first betta, and through word of mouth they can spread it to others, which can help improve the community in general. It also comes down to if you give a man a fish, teach him how to take care of it.

I think there is a lot in the aquarium hobby that could benefit from ecofeminist though and I also hope to express that in my blog. The hobby is extremely masculine, and while of course there are many women that keep fish, I often come across men more so, and the men (especially those in their 30s and 40s) can be very aggressive about their knowledge. While I don’t doubt the kindness of many fishkeepers I do find that there is an overly possessive quality to their fishkeeping habits, they make scapes that can involve sharp rocks, and ornanments that don’t benefit the aquatic life they are keeping and many of them prefer to have fish die (because they can just be replace) than change the habitat they have created for that life. I think this relates heavily to mens view of nature as something to be controlled moreso than cared for,

In the learning module this week, the first link, the VICE article “The Brazilian Slum Children Who Are Literally Swimming In Garbage” shows us how environmental impact the poor and the young in the global south. Recife is one of the largest cities in Brazil and is a popular tourist destination, it is famous for its bridges, architecture, and metropolitan area. But like a lot of tourist traps once you leave the ritzy white people areas, you are confronted with mass litter and poverty, to the point where children submerse themselves in garbage for amusement.

The second link concerns the South Asian Chipko Movement which I found most fascinating. “In the 1970s, an organized resistance to the destruction of forests spread throughout India and came to be known as the Chipko movement,” I did not know where tree hugger came from and am saddened at how the term has become an insult and is usually used to belittle the actions of environmentalist all over the world. The Chipko movement shows us both how women are particularly impacted by deforestation, and how they are on the front lines of activism fighting it. The movement began “in the hills where the forests are the main source of livelihood” the women of the hill tribes prevented a lot of forests being cut down by physically blocking the trees.

In “Speak Truth to Power” we see that African women face unique challenges that environmental damage makes harder. It is women that “hold primary responsibility for tilling the fields, deciding what to plant, nurturing the crops, and harvesting the food.” While of course everybody needs food and if their is a lack of agricultural growth African men and boys suffer to, but the work that goes into it is primarily handled by women, and again women were at the forefront of African enviornmental activism. In Kenya Wangari Maathai founded “The Green Belt Movement” in the late 70s which helped farmers plant trees which encouraged better growth.

Us Americans also need not go beyond our borders to see women lead environmental activism, the standing rock protests were lead by Native American women, who did not wish the Dakota Access Pipeline to be built on Native land. This was a two prong issue as it related both to Native American land rights, and protecting the environment from the damage these oil pipelines can do.

When it comes to the idea that behind the material deprivations and cultural losses of the marginalized and the poor lie the deeper issues of disempowerment and/or environmental degradation, I;m inclined to agree for the most part. But I also don’t believe it is particularly insightful or shocking. I think the reality is greed is the root cause of most forms of oppression (I am also aware that this is not a particularly profound statement either. I think poor people are going to naturally be disempowered, they have access to less resources,they often work long hours, and thus are not as able to participate as wealthy people who have more time and resources.

Overall I’m still not 100% convinced that it is women who suffer the most from climate change and environmental damage. I think definitely women seem to suffer uniquely but so do men it seems. The VICE article shows us that in Brazil boys are the ones playing in pools of garbage. I did try to find more info on the jobs that men are holding in Africa but couldn’t quite find ones that I knew for certain were linked to the jobs that womens are described as holding. To put it another way I wanted to find out what jobs men were doing while women were gathering women and planting, I failed to do so. But the reality is men were certainly doing something and that was impacted by the environment. I also take particular issue with a passage in “Speak Truth to Power” that says “As mothers, they notice when the food they feed their family is tainted with pollutants or impurities: they can see it in the tears of their children and hear it in their babies’ cries.” Now I am of course not denying this but I don’t like the way reads. I think arguments of mothers having this divine connection with children is superstitious. While of course good mothers have emotional connections to their children, so do good fathers. I’m still very critical of the whole argument that women are these magical creatures that have this deep connection to nature. It seems anti-science and based in patriarchal stereotypes.

I apologize if I went a little off topic on this.

Works Cited

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kwpwja/the-brazilian-slum-children-who-are-literally-swimming-in-garbage-0000197-v21n1

http://edugreen.teri.res.in/explore/forestry/chipko.htm

http://www.greenbeltmovement.org/wangari-maathai/key-speeches-and-articles/speak-truth-to-power

Intersectionality was one of the few terms I was aware of before beginning this class. I always understood it as trying to include everybody, and an understanding that each person faces unique discrimination that is a result of them as a whole being not as just 1 demographic. Around the same time that I came across the term intersectionality, I also came across the term privilege (usually in the context of either male or white privilege). At first privilege was a frustrating concept for me as it felt like I was being accused of living life on easy mode and all the privileges I was accused of having were nowhere to be seen. However part of what got me to come around was when I started understanding intersectionality, which allowed me to identify that a lot of the areas I was suffering in were due to belonging to other marginalized demographics like LGBT people, autistic people, lower class people, etc.

This course (and other WGS courses) has allowed me to expand my understanding of intersectionality. The learning module defined intersectionality as “a way of thinking about how our social identities intersect” This fits in well with my own worldview I try to view everybody as an individual that faces a unique struggle. There are 3 main aspects of intersectionality. The first is intersectionality views at the individual level (which I described a little bit above) which helps us to think about ways in which a person can be marginalized in 1 category and privileged in another for example white women who are privileged by their ethnicity but oppressed as a gender. The second aspect is intersectionality as a framework for analysis which is when you look at a subject through the lens of a marginalized demographic such as looking at the medias hypersexualization of women. Lastly there is intersectionality as a social justice movement, which is when you view equality as meaning not just equality of gender but equality of races, classes, abilities, etc.

In the project muse link (Ethic and The Environment: Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism by AE King) we look at the ways in which intersectionality has combined with Ecofeminism and influenced it. To quote Kings “ecofeminism has always concerned itself with understanding the unique experiences of those who face discrimination”. Despite my many criticisms of Ecofeminism it definitely is extremely inclusive as I’ve heard more mention of women in the global south and Asia than in any other feminist ideologies I have come across.

Works Cited

https://muse-jhu-edu.libproxy.umassd.edu/article/660551

In their work “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism” Kari Norgaard and Richard York look at the connection between gender and the environment. Norgaard, York, and a “generation of feminist theorists, argue that the state (or at least the governments of most countries) is both capitalist and patriarchal. Which means that the means of production are controlled by the individual and that the government and social landscapes favors men, or at least favors a certain kind of man. What Norgaard and York have found is basically that countries that treat women better are generally more likely to treat their environment better.

For starters they that women “tend to be more environmentally progressive”, which means that when women are included as equal members of society, when they are able to vote, when they are able to become policy makers, etc, the environment becomes a higher priority. Norgaard and York found that there are constant “gender differences…in the related areas of values and attitudes toward the environment, perception of environmental risks and social movement participation.” In all cases they found the men were less likely to care about the environment and that mens threshold for what they considered a risk to the environment were higher than womens. Women were also more likely to participate in pro-environmental groups. This isn’t limited to the United States either, as they found that “German and Russian girls had higher levels of environmental awareness than boys”.

Outside of gender Norgaard and York also found a link between “foreign direct investment” and a lack of state environmentalism. Meaning that smaller countries are less likely to care about the environmental (at least on a state level) if they are being given money from other countries. The implication here is that countries like The United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom which give a lot of foreign aid to smaller countries do not want these countries to be greener. This leads into Norgaard and Yorks arguments that capitalism is a root cause of the environmental issues Earth is currently experiencing.

In 2019 a study was done by Lena Ramstetter and Fabian Habersack called “Do women make a difference? Analyzing environmental attitudes and actions of members of the European Parliament”. The results of the study found that “female representatives are more likely to hold pro-environmental attitudes than their male colleagues and adjust their legislative behavior accordingly”. This study is noteworthy for several reasons. 1. It is fairly recent (less than 1 year old), 2. European parliament has a large amount of female representatives in a powerful capacity. 3. European Parliament is one the most pro-state environemtalist entities on the planet.

One of the main reasons it seems that women in government are more pro-state environmentalism appears to be that women are generally more pro-spending than men. In a 2017 VOX article titled “The Research is clear: electing more woman changes how government works” The author presents data that concludes “that women in Congress tend to shift the conversation to focus more on bills and policies that relate to women specifically — such as increasing paid leave or prosecuting violence against women.” It also mentions that “Districts represented by women received an additional $49 million annually on average compared to their male-represented counterparts.”. State environmentalism can’t happen without money, and it definitely seems as though female politicians are more inclined to raise and spend.

Works Cited

https://pages.uoregon.edu/norgaard/pdf/Gender-Equality-Norgaard-York-2005.pdf

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2019.1609156

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12266378/electing-women-congress-hillary-clinton

Abortion has pretty much always been a touchy subject, I have my own strong opinions on it, and considered myself familiar with most of the main views on the subject. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy lays out what it considers the 3 main views on abortion to be (I agree with it, and this was generally my understanding of the discourse). The first main view is called the extreme conservative view and is generally that abortion under any circumstances is bad, the second is the extreme liberal view which is that abortion is always acceptable, and the 3rd is moderate views in between. What I liked about what Hawkins describes in “Reproductive Choice: The Ecological Dimension” is that it doesn’t really fit into any of the above (though of course I am sure most people would consider it an extreme liberal view). All of the above views, argue either in defense of the fetus or in defense of the mother, Hawkins is the only argument I have come across that is in defense of the environment.

I was particularly attracted to the segment labelled “Environmental Consideration in the Abortion Debate: Population, Poverty, and Environmental Degradation”. As I have mentioned in past blogs entries I am a libertarian, many of my friends are communists (I don’t mean this in the “I’m a red blooded American that loves bacon and guns and hates triggered commies”, I mean that they are actually Marxists-Lenninists) so we often argue about population growth. They argue that there really isn’t a population crisis, and that it is simply late capitalism and billionaires sucking up all of the resources (I think there is some truth to this argument personally, but I think it is too general and a one size fits all answer). I have been aware of our growing population and the threat that is causes, but Hawkins said it in a way that I hadn’t considered before. She said “from a size of less than one billion throughout all of our previous history, over the last two centuries the human population has shot up to somewhere between 5 and 6 billion people”. When it comes to my concerns about overpopulation, I have never believe that government programs for population control (such as forced sterilization, or limiting the number of children people can have) but I do believe that we should make sure that people (especially women) have control over their bodies, and have access to contraceptives.

I also think we as a society need to change. I think throughout the planet humans view women as baby incubators. Throughout their lives women (and even men to an extent) are constantly being pressured to procreate. As children girls are given baby dolls (some event that mimic child rearing by having the doll eat fake food, cry, and even soil itself. Adolescent girls are often encouraged to babysit or even take on some of the roles of caregiver in their own family. Then as soon as they graduate high school the questions begin “when are you gonna have kids?”, “you two would have such beautiful babies”, “when are you gonna settle down?”, etc.

Works Cited

Abortion

https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/854209

In her landmark work “The Sexual Politics of Meat” Carol Adams describes the link between the oppression of women and the oppression of non-human animals. She points to the connection between meat eating and masculinity, and the way in which both dead animals and women are seen as things to be consumed. I didn’t 100% agree with her analysis (I am sure to the shock of nobody) but I do definitely find this true when it comes to advertising and often in political discourse. I have choosen some pictures to look at through this lens, and give some of my own thoughts on.

The first is a Brexit cartoon that presents Theresa May (who was prime minister of the UK at the time) as a pig. The way she can be identified is that her hair and pearls are presented. But also her trademark scowl. May is an unlikeable women (which makes her slightly more likeable to me). She is often presented in pictures with a less than pleasant look on her face. The fact alone that these are her three most noteworthy characteristics could be indicative as sexism in and of itself. Pig May is the largest pig in the cartoon, the next largest is a pig labelled BREXIT which appears to be aggressively suckiling Pig Mays teat. Around them are smaller pigs labelled Housing, NHS, Social Mobility, etc. The idea here is that because of all the focus BREXIT is getting, there are little resources left for these other programs. I personally favor BREXIT myself and don’t quite agree with the argument here. But that’s not important, what is, is that for some reason a seemingly left leaning cartoonist choose to present one of the most powerful women on the planet (and the only the second women to serve as UK prime minister) as a pig. Now you could easily make the argument that BREXIT is taking up too many resources but why present her as pig? It is hardly the only animal that suckles, in fact human babies do. I believe she was presented as a pig in order to present her as unattractive and unlikeable as possible, which makes it easier to hate her and her policies. Now that I don’t necessarily believe that the cartoonist did this purposely, but rather unconsciously choose a pig (especially since while trying to find a source for this cartoon, I came across countless identical ones). All that being said, it is worth noting that both May and pigs are associated with capitalism.

The next picture is a little cartoon mascot created for Skinnycow (which makes lowfat dairy products like cheese and cream). We always think of cows as big fat animals that give us milk and other such products, they are generally seen as a particularly cute animal, and in addition to making what many would consider gross noises, they also smell bad. So for this little cartoon the cow is presented in an anthropomorphic style and is at the very least borderline sexualized. It has a full face of makeup, breasts (I admit I didn’t notice the breasts at first, and it was my girlfriend who pointed them out to me), and is in a pin up pose. It is possible this is just done for humorous purposes, however I would say that this mascot is supposed to represent the transformative abilities of the product line. Fat women are called cows, and this cow is thin and sexy (I assure you that pained me to type).

Next I am looking at a billboard ad for the Dodge Durango. Which of course shows a picture of a red Dodge Durango, but that is not what is notable here, what I am paying attention to is the text which says “A big fat juicy cheeseburger in a land of Tofu”. There is a lot to unbox here. For starters who is the target audience here? I would say it is men, and particularly men that view themselves as masculine. Men that feel threatened by a world around them, in which it feels like American traditions like burgers and big trucks, are being replaced by plant based foods, and energy efficient cars. The argument here is that Dodge is doing something different by doing something traditional. The appeal here is similar to Donald Trump who promises to return to what made great great, the Dodge Durango isn’t going to make America great again, but it might just offer a slice of what was great about, much like a big fat cheeseburger does.

The last picture we will be looking at comes from a CNN article about the popular KETO. It’s a weird pick I know but I’m surrounded by people on KETO and its often on my mind. For those that are not aware KETO is a diet similar to atkins back in the day but more intense, it’s very low carb and for some people (like my girlfriends mother) means her buying literal Lard and adding it to basically every meal she eats. For some its a bit of a meat based diet. But because it is a fad diet, the main demographic is women so we see, typically male meat shown in a fem coded way. Yes we see meat and cheese, but it’s not grilled, melted, juicy, or any of the ways we see it with men, it’s classy and clean, which is how we expect women to be.

I can’t say with certainty why our professor choose this image. At first I must admit I thought there was little actual thought put into it and our professor just searched google images for something like “cartoon cutting meat” or “meat cutting” but after doing that myself I could not find the exact image our professor used. So clearly there was thought put into. I’ve looked at the image several times and still haven’t really been struck by it at all, to me it is very unremarkable. It clearly relates to this weeks topic of meat eating being a masculine trait, or at least being associated with masculinity, but other than that no strong feelings. After looking at some of my classmates posts, some of them did have a strong reaction to it. This is probably in part due to being a man that regularly eats meat

.

When it comes to gendered foods, for better or worse one that immediately pops into my head is Soy. While soy is in so many of the foods we eat, over the last few years it has become somewhat politicized (it would be so wild telling me 5 years ago, that I would eventually write this sentence). When we think of soy lattes and soy milk, we often associate them with trendy white girls (this is of course a misogynistic thought but I can’t deny that the stereotype exists, just because I don’t like it.) Whereas real men drink black coffee or something more traditional. Soy has also become associated with the “beta male” which basically means a feminized/subordinate male. Often those in the alt-right, or just people who like to start arguments online will substitute beta male with the term soyboy, or something to that effect.

The other food that I see as particularly feminine is fruits and vegetables. I think masculine food are typically seen as less unhealthy, and feminine foods are more healthy. I think this is due to societies beauty standards for women involve them being skinny. Corporations than use this in advertising and plant based meals are targeted more towards women than men. This means that meat based products have to be advertised more to men as plant based products are being pushed on women.

Gaards writings on humans relationship with pets was interesting to me. When she wrote about the bird in the video rental store I had a lot of mixed feelings. I am an aquarium enthusiast. I have over 100 fish and snails in my home and I think I take great care of them. I am particularly fond of the Betta fish, which is often mistreated. Betta fish are often kept in small cups without filtration and enrichment, I keep my Bettas in a minimum 2.5 gallon tank with plant-life and often snails for both companionship, enrichment, and to help keep their habitat clean. Right now none of my bettas are in less than a 5 gallon tank. I often see Betta fish (and fish in general) being given as gifts to to people that do not understand their needs, and a lot of people that just flat out don’t care. I often argue with my mother about this issue as she has a betta in a cup at her job. I was able to encourage her to do more water changes, and gave her a higher quality food to give him, but he is still not being cared for properly.

Pets do live lives similar to slavery, however with the way cats and dogs have been domesticated, it is impossible for many of them to live in the wild, and in the case of freshwater aquatic life. Many of them are captive bred and do not have a wild to return to. In the case of one fish (off the top of my head) the Bala Shark, it only exists in large numbers in captivity. So now we are at a difficult point, due to domestication, and other human activity many animals are trapped as pets. I think it is our duty as the species that primarily put them in this position to care for them and provide them with good lives.

I have chosen an unconventional landscape to represent me. It’s from the movie Blade Runner, directed by Ridley Scott. It shows Los Angeles in an alternate 2019. It would be considered cyber-punk. In this universe, planet Earth is overcome by pollution and environmental destruction. The wealthy and privileged have all moved to either Earths moon or Mars, where it is cleaner and safer. I choose this landscape for two reasons, 1. Blade Runner represents a big part of teenage and early college years, it has been my favorite film for almost 10 years (discovered it my senior year of high school) and 2. I think that the Earth it represents is very relevant to ecofeminism.

the Los Angeles of Blade Runner carries my history in a lot of ways, the film exposed me to new artistic concepts that I had not encountered before, it was the first movie I really analyzed. The score for the film was done by a Greek electronic composer called Vangelis, since first seeing the movie, there have been only a few times when a track from it does not appear on a playlist of mine. My room was covered with posters of Blade Runner and other cyber-punk anime and films, I rarely kept the lights on. Whether I realized it or not, I had effectively created a cyber-punk world in my bedroom. I think I was attracted to cyberpunk because it made the whole world as lonely as I had felt, in cyberpunk settings there is typically more technology than people, for a while this was representative of my life, I spent a lot more time starting at a computer or television screen, rather than engaging with people in the real world.

In the film the politics of Blade Runner are not well explained beyond, corporate control and apathy. But the book that it is based on “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” by Phillip K Dick, does. In this Los Angeles, there are only two types of people left on Earth, which are represented by the books 2 protagonists Rick, and Sebastian. Rick is a working class police officer, and Dave is a chickenhead (a derogatory way of referring to the people who have suffered cognitive damage as a result of radiation). All of the people in LA are part of a fake religion called Mercerism, which many don’t believe is actually true but believe in it because it makes them feel better. This does not build up a good base for a bedrock of Democracy.

The basis for Willaims Bedrock of Democracy is that both sides of a political spectrum are informed and aware of the facts. While there is a political divide in this fictional LA (mostly over the issue of rights for androids) it doesn’t go too deep into politics. What I do know is that a society made up of only the poor and cognitively impaired is going to be easy to manipulate politically (not that wealth equal intelligence, just that when you are concerned about food and shelter, politics becomes more difficult to pay attention to). I personally can easily see the people from the Blade Runner universe electing a person like Donald Trump or Michael Bloomberg to be president. It is easy for an oligarch or a populist to appeal to people that feel disenfranchised.

Barbara Kingslover is an American novelist whose work often focuses on connections between humans and nature. Kingslover believes that humans need wilderness. The Oxford dictionary defines Wilderness as “an uncultivated, uninhabited, and inhospitable region”, taken this way I don’t think anybody would consider wilderness a requirement. But perhaps humans do need an unknown, we have always been an exploratory species. But it is easy for humans to take that exploration gene and turn it into a destructive element. The LA in Blade Runner is filled with wilderness but it is an unnatureal wilderness, a desolate mostly uninhabitable planet in which few humans are left and they live in cities with little nature and little to warm them besides the hum of neon lights advertising a corporate product. Maybe we don’t need wilderness, but we do need nature, we need other people, we need life. Blade Runner represent a warmth to me, I feel nostalgia for it and it has always been a comfort to me but it is not a world I wish to live in.

Women the global south (which includes central and south America, Africa, and Southeast Asia) face unique environmental issues. On the United Nations website there is a whole page dedicated to the connection between water and women in these countries. Put simply water is life, if water is unclean, or inaccessible, life becomes very difficult if not impossible. Patriarchy across the globe has put the women in charge of household duties which includes gathering water, according to the WHO and UNICEF “Women and girls are responsible for water collection in 8 out of 10 households with water off premises” (https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/gender/) . But of course every living thing (at least that I can think of) requires water, so if there is no water doesn’t the whole family suffer? Yes, but with women being the primary gatherers of water, it eats up a lot of their time. UNICEF found in a ” study of time and water poverty in 25 Sub-Saharan African countries estimated that women spend at least 16 million hours a day collecting drinking water, while men spend 6 million hours, and children 4 million hours on the task.” All that time spent on gathering water means less time spent in a classroom, and less time in the classroom means less education, less education means less opportunities. In Tanzania when the time it takes to obtain water was reduced by 50% UNICEF found that female attendance in school increased by over 10%.

Time is not the only factor though, sanitation or lack there-of is also a major hurdle women face. Over one million deaths a year are associated with unclean births, and about 44 million pregnant women have “sanitation-related hookworm infections”. This again takes not only life but opportunity away from countless women and girls. Having to deal with a death in the family or poor health means again less time in schools, less time for work, and more barriers to progress overall.

Looking at the relationship between water and women in the global south, we can determine that while the environment affects everybody, and we all have a connection to it, it affects everybody around the world differently, especially people in different geographical areas. It is/will be the women in the global south who are/will see the effects of climate change first. Women in Africa are already facing severe droughts, flooding, and high temperatures (this is laid out well in this article from New Internationalist (https://newint.org/features/2019/05/03/how-will-global-south-pay-climate-change-damage). As a result of all this when many western ecofeminists talk about the environment and climate change they are talking about it from a greater distance than women in the east and global south.

Ecofeminism developed in the west but has spread to the east. In particular it has made a lot of noise in India. Indian ecofeminists view capitalism and industrialization as a oppressor of women, especially in east Asia and the global south. As western countries consume goods that harm the Earth, the countries that produce these goods suffer the consequences. Western countries have also commercialized eastern and African cultures into a tourist industry with terms like ethnic food, and world music. Western ecofeminism focuses less on critiques of capitalism (though it is of course still critical) and more on the relationship between women and nature.

To me personally neither form of ecofeminism interests me as much, as I personally agree with and like what has been called capitalism. I think the main oppressor of women and people in general has been government. While I am sure most ecofeminists would argue that governments around the world have been largely patriarchal and have oppressed women. I do not feel as though they focus enough on it as a root cause of the marginalization of women. That being said I personally am more interested in Eastern ecofeminism, as I am more ignorant of it and could probably benefit more from it.