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
Women’s ability to see the big picture might be why they’re more inclined to spend toward environmentalism. For myself, when my kids were young, I would look down the road to their futures and prepare both them and myself for what it might hold in store for them. Relationships, education, personal growth were all things I took into consideration, watching the subjects they liked, the books they read, the friends they had. All of these informed me in terms of who and what they might become. I think women have an uncanny ability to do this, if they’re open to it and are willing to learn. I’ve always been interested in new things, new ideas, new pathways to discovery. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only woman who sees the world with open eyes.
My older daughter would make an amazingly productive politician. She knows how to work with a variety of personalities, has great and innovative ideas and can see a project from it’s inception to end. These are the women we need in political offices around the globe, not just in the US. Wherever she works, she’s put in the position of dealing with the most difficult personalities. And she works so well with them that they often become easier to deal with all the way around. What a gift.
These are the gifts needed to work in an antiquated, old, stodgy bureaucracy like Congress. Someone who can come in and clean house. With disinfectant. And elbow grease. And a sense of working toward the great good.
Hi Nick,
I think found the study that you mentioned to be very interesting. I am not surprised by the results, but that is just one more piece of evidence to show that women will be more likely to work toward helping the environment. However, this is not the only benefit to having women in politics. They are going to try and give women more rights than they deserve. This does not mean that no man will but women in the political system know what they want for themselves as well as other women and are more likely going to fight for that. Another thing that you mentioned that I agree with is that large countries are going to aid smaller countries and it will force them to be less environmentally stable. Small countries need as much help as they can get and if they are given the help then they do not care about much more than that. Some people see the decline in the environment to be a big issue but others believe there are more important things. In my blog I talked about Greta Thunberg. She has done so much and she is so young. She is a very good example of this idea that women are more likely to be concerned but they are also doing a lot to make changes for the future. On Fridays Greta Thunberg has rallies called Fridays for the Future. She has been on school strikes for years now so that our future and our children’s future can be better than predicted.
Nick,
I think you accurately portray the difference between how men and women look at environmental issues differently. Being a man, you bring up the point that environmental issues cost money, something I haven’t seen any of the women in this class do. But there is a bigger picture when it comes to the environment. It is about more than making money and making a profit. The government has no problem spending 1.5 trillion dollars bailing out large corporations whose CEO’s already make millions of dollars. They only seem to have a problem spending that money when it comes to “women’s” issues, such as the environment that is being destroyed or education or social justice issues. Rather than pump all that money into Wall Street for it to be gone almost immediately, why not invest it in people or the environment? Those CEOs can afford to live on nothing for a little bit, they are probably sitting on more money than most human beings make in a lifetime. So why do male politicians care so much about their businesses rather than the world that we all have to live in?
Thank you for the response, you make a pretty good point in that both my response and my gender are unique in this class. My question would be do you think it is wrong for me to point out the economic cost of state environmentalism? I think you’re right that men seemingly care more about cost (at least when it comes to things besides war which politicians love) but does that mean caring about the cost is incorrect (apologies for the redundancy here)? Also I’ve been careful to mention state environmentalism as opposed to environmentalism in general as I believe a lot of pro-environmental measures can be taken without state environmentalism.