Month: March 2020

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.