Kelsey's PHL 307 Blog

When originally looking at this assignment weeks before I had very high hopes for what I would do. I work in a public high school that serves over 2000 students in my city and was excited to do something that would help my community as well. My ideas included making menstruation products more accessible since they’re only available in the nurses office rather then the bathrooms, or working with the health and/or environmental classes and doing some sort of presentation with them. Unfortunately I did not plan in advance the way a project like that would’ve required and ultimately decided to just go the trying to be vegan route for a week. I’m still interested in making the menstruation products more accessible to students and am hoping to still work with the administrators on making that happen. I also mid semester took on Health and Society as a double major so I’m definitely interested in working with the health classes on some level to, hopefully in a way that incorporates ecology/environmental sustainability.

Adopting a vegan diet is something I’ve always been interested in but just never quite had to motivation to do. I had hoped to do it in a more gradual way, but clearly I’ve been saying it for years and haven’t so this is a new reason to do it. Unlike some people, I can afford to do it both financially and health wise without any extraordinary strain, so I think it is something that myself, and people like me should be striving for. My mom doesn’t eat bread or things like that so we already have plenty of veggies and substitutes for bread (everything is cauliflower) in the house. I already don’t drink milk and while I do love enjoy eating meat I’m pretty confident I can be fine without it. I know the most difficult thing for me will be giving up cheese because I pretty much put that on everything. Luckily, I have a few friends who also recently went vegan and they gave me their recipes and even what cheeses they thought tasted the best (CHAO). So my plan is to head down to the grocery store (with a budget) pick up some other things I might need and then get to it! I lot of my quick go to meals are definitely not vegan and I think would require a lot of prep to make them so, so what I’m most worried about is not having the time to fully commit to it, or that I’ll cave for some cheese! I am hopeful that at the end of the week I will want to continue the experiment longer, or perhaps at least incorporate more of these items into my regular diet to substitute non-vegan items.

Update 4/18: Results & Analysis

I was ultimately successful in eliminating meat products from my diet for the week with only one slip up (GOT is treated like the Super Bowl at my house and I could not resist). While I encountered a lot of temptations I was able to resist for the most part and was surprised at the amount of tasty substitutes available, though they do cost a considerable amount of money, at least on my wallet. It definitely does take a fair amount of trial and error in finding substitutes that are tasty to you, and in preparing the food in advance, or at least knowing what you’re going to eat, so you don’t end up eating the same things every day every time you get hungry.

With my mom doing on Keto, which involves A LOT of meat, dairy, and eggs, it was interesting to see how the different diets played out at the same time. With two other people in my house with no dietary restrictions or interest in trying either diet, this meant the same style meal done in three different ways. While I did cheat with some buffalo chicken dip during the GOT premiere, when I went to my friends’s house later in the week, who has been vegan for a while, she had made a vegan buffalo *chicken* dip that was actually really good and tasted decently similar, along with other vegan snacks like pizza. This showed me that it was possible to make tasty dishes if I put the time aside to test around with different ingredients and the money.

A lot of unhealthy things that we wouldn’t normally think of as being vegan, like a lot of very popular processed junk foods, but I tried to avoid that and focus more on eating healthier too, since I was looking forward to the benefits of a cleaner diet as well. I usually live off of tums and gas-x because my tummy is very sensitive and perhaps it was a sort of placebo effect but I definitely felt way less bloated and reliant on those things throughout the week.

As I’d mentioned in a post earlier in the semester, its virtually impossible for any diet to be entirely cruelty free in our current economic system where the food industry is dependent on the exploitation of resources and labor.

While it felt good to know that I personally got to play a role in not consuming things that animals had to die for, I feel a little jaded towards the idea that any independent changes like this produce any real change – so I think it comes down to a willingness, if you have the ability to make this decision, to support a cruel industry or to not support it. For the mean time I will be returning to my usual diet but will definitely be more conscious of what I’m consuming, as well as working towards slowly integrating it so that its a lifestyle rather than a *diet* or at least so that my animal product intake is significantly lower.

Intersectionality is the idea that we have multifaceted identities that impact our experiences within the world, particularly regarding oppression. Intersectionality holds that all the different forms of oppression are connected and therefore must all be acknowledged and addressed simultaneously. Applying this concept to feminism means recognizing that not all women experience oppression at the same degree, with different parts of their identity privileging or further oppressing them. Feminism that lacks intersectionality, which we are exposed to often in western media, is known as “white feminism.”

When considering how feminism and ecology interact, intersectionality is pertinent. Domestically and globally, women are impacted by environmental issues to different degrees based on their identities. Factors like class, race, ability, sexuality, etc. impact a person’s position in society and the power they have within it, with those who are members of multiple disenfranchised groups having the least power and therefore most likely to be impacted by environmental degradation. For example, in Flint, MI, the water crisis would undoubtedly not still be ongoing if it had occurred in an area that was not predominantly populated by Black people with a high poverty rate.

As detailed in the the article “Women and the Climate,” from Feminist Campus, “Water scarcity and contamination disproportionately impact low-income women and girls.” With poverty disproportionately impacting non-white people, as well as disabled people, transgender people, and other marginalized groups, as a result of deeply ingrained systems that uphold domination over them, this means that more specifically, these groups are more more likely to be impacted by water scarcity and contamination.

Feminism that lacks intersectionality typically focuses only on placing woman, specifically white upper/middle class cis women, in the same positions as their white upper/middle class cis male counterparts. This form of “equality” does little for the majority of women who are marginalized by other parts of their identity. Opening space for women within oppressive systems – like in office, in law enforcement, etc., does little to nothing in the quest for liberation, since these systems are strongly invested in upholding other forms of oppression and exploiting people through this oppression. Norgaard and York touch on this in the article “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism,” where they discuss that while they found that greater gender equality in state power leads to the passage of more eco-friendly policy, this does not translate in a state’s actual actions towards the environment, and consequentially towards the marginalized groups impacted by these actions.

Applying intersectionalism to ecofeminism would include acknowledgement of the different relationships women have to nature based on these intersecting identities, i.e. how their impacted by environmental degradation, how the women-nature connection manifests differently (for example the historical animalization of Black women), or how shaming the use of certain products, or calling that they be fully banned (like plastic straws or prepackaged fruit) dismisses the very real benefits these provide for disabled people. In “Intersectionality and the Changing face of Ecofeminism,” Kings puts some of the readings we’ve already looked at in conversation with each other, and other sources, and within the intersectionality framework. Kings very succinctly states that:

“Attempts to romanticise the relationship between women and nature by first universalising the experience of ‘one kind of woman’ and then appealing to some essential ‘essence’ or necessary connection, leads those into a trap whereby one becomes blinded to the multitude of ways in which the concept of ‘womanhood’ is implicated in the continued constraints and exploitations experienced by women and the natural environment” (77).

Prevailing narrow perceptions of womanhood and femininity that are exclusive counterproductively further enforce the ideas used to oppress women and more importantly further emphasize these other forms of oppression for women marginalized by factors other than their gender.

In the article “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism” Kari Norgaard and Richard York examine the connection between environmental policy and gender equality. One critical aspect of ecofeminism is the idea that because women are most impacted by environmental issues, they are also likely to be more concerned about the environment than their male counterparts. For states, this manifests as them being more likely to pass policies aimed at conserving the environment and addressing these concerns when their are more women in office or positions of power making these decisions, and more women involved in voting, holding equal roles throughout society. Norgaard and York make the important distinction that the passage of environmental policy is not necessarily equivalent to genuine environmental responsibility. Countries that pass the most environmental policies often still engage in destructive behaviors, sometimes most aggressively, primarily abroad in countries where policies are less comprehensive. The authors state that “attracting foreign capital …. [or] the logic of domination (as represented by foreign capital intrusion) runs counter to environmental protection” (513). They find that while modernization typically leads to greater support for environmentalism, it also simultaneously leads to these states having more significant negative environmental impacts. Norgaard and York conclude that women in positions of power within government leads the state to pursue environmentalism through treaties and policies more aggressively, but often this is just in theory and on paper, rather than reflective of the state’s actual environmental impact.

This picture below is of an Israeli fighter jet posted on their official twitter account in October for Breast Cancer Awareness month. While posting these materials in apparent support of women, Israel has effectively limited access to cancer treatments for Palestinians. This demonstrates how presentations of support from states often do not translate in their actions.

Post from the Onion – https://politics.theonion.com/nancy-pelosi-signals-support-for-environmental-causes-b-1832437461

The military of settler-colonial states, such as our own, are vehicles for violence & imperialism, and therefore incompatible with ideas of equality or sustainability. The U.S.A. uses similar propaganda related to gender equality, sensationalizing women in politics and in the military – but placing women in the positions to inflict violence on others is not progress.

In one of the first posts, I discussed how the majority of the top defense firms contracted by the USA are led by women. With the US military as one of leading environmental polluters, contaminating air and water supplies globally, these women (notably all white) are equally to blame. Historically, white women have always placed race and class over gender in terms of their interests and alliances, and in cases like this, and for many in office, obviously share the same capital interests of their male counterparts. This article looks a little closer at the distinctions in perceptions of environmental issues across demographics in America, and how these distinctions also impact perceptions on topics like immigration and conditions/protections for workers.

With 49% of white women voting Republican in the 2018 midterms, following similar trends in the 2016 presidential elections, it is clear that we overwhelmingly continue to align with conservatives pushing white supremacist and anti-environmental views in spite of their patriarchal values. Alternatively, women of color, especially Black women, have higher voter turnouts and vote at astoundingly high rates for progressive candidates.

For the correlation between gender equality and greater environmentalism to translate effectively, this *equality* must be intersectional, including all races, classes, abilities, sexualities, genders, etc. But even then, it is impossible to simultaneously serve in the best interests of a capitalist state and not participate in the exploitation of marginalized people and the environment, both domestically and internationally, that it is directly invested in. I recall those signs at the Women’s Marches that said things like “If Hillary Won I’d Be at Brunch,” while Clinton would’ve still participated in mass deportations and devastating airstrikes abroad had she been elected, as the Obama administration did.

In Ronnie Zoe Hawkins essay “Reproductive Choice: The Ecological Dimension” Hawkins explores the environmental implications of reproductive autonomy. Upon reading the introductory paragraph I was looking forward to reading about this, but was quite disappointed in Hawkins approach to the topic and the argument she provides. Hawkins argument seems to essentially blame people in the global south for their own exploitation at the hands of western imperialism and capitalism, inaccurately assessing the problem, and through this assessment concluding that a potential solution to environmental problems would be reducing the size of poor families – its very *white feminism* meets blatant eugenics.

"A growing number of poor people are forced to make a living on 
increasingly marginal land, with resultant deforestation, 
overgrazing, soil erosion, or an assortment of other environmental
problems further exacerbating their poverty and often leading them
to move on and repeat the process elsewhere." (Hawkins 690)

This is a BOLD statement when just 100 companies account for over 70% of the worlds emissions, through their violent exploitation of resources and destruction of land and whole ecosystems, for profit. Hawkins acknowledges that this is forced, yet somehow comes to the conclusion that the burden should be placed on these people to make changes. Poor people in the global south, while being the least responsible for environmental destruction, feel its consequences the greatest. More importantly, Hawkins herself acknowledges for a brief moment that “consumption of world resources and stress to the global environment generated per capita for citizens of the industrialized nations relative to those of poor countries ranges from fifteen to more than one hundred times as great.” ONE HUNDRED TIMES MORE, yet despite this acknowledgement, Hawkins continues to explain that “for us living in industrialized nations” a more appropriate solution than further reducing family sizes through abortion is to just reduce our consumption. Poor people in the global south are forced to make a living on what limited land is left because the rest has already been claimed and destroyed by Western capitalists and imperialists who directly benefit from and ensure the continuation of the poverty these people experience and the exploitation of them and their resources. Through her own subtle counterarguments, Hawkins makes it clear that the issue here isn’t a lack of resources, but a pervasive system, upheld by rich (white) western people that refuses to equally distribute them and utilizes them at a deadly rate.

Making abortions accessible, safe and FREE for all people, everywhere, is an important goal, however, when its motivated by the hope that it will be used as population control it becomes a dangerous tool added to the arsenal of weapons historically used to further oppress and attempt to eliminate groups of people. Throughout history and presently we’ve seen many instances where doctors utilize coercion or simply perform procedures without patient consent regarding sterilization and contraceptive devices on groups of people considered “less desirable” to society – poor people, POC, incarcerated people, people with disabilities and physical or mental health conditions, etc. (and the intersections of these populations is of course no coincidence). In the United States, incarcerated people are coerced into agreeing to sterilization in exchange for reduced sentences. You can read more about that here. In Mexico and Canada, during routine exams and other procedures doctors serving primarily indigenous populations have inserted intrauterine devices and sterilized patients without their consent – a practice thats believed to be occurring beyond these countries and is quite simply a genocidal act.

These indigenous Mexican women had IUDs inserted in them without their knowledge. And they're not the only ones. pic.twitter.com/d5LhxS4EhV

— AJ+ (@ajplus) January 16, 2019

Greater universal reproductive autonomy and access to corresponding services, particularly abortion, could indeed benefit the environment, but framing it as a tool to serve this purpose, to control population size, and to reduce the resource usage of poor families in the global south it becomes a slippery and dehumanizing slope that opens these populations up to even greater exploitation. Fewer poor people will not have any even mildly significant affect on the environment while violent imperialist capitalist nations like our own, with a military thats the greatest perpetrator of environmental pollution and destruction, and corporations driven by global exploitation, still exist. Based on Hawkin’s philosophy, a more effective solution might be giving abortions to these people who are most invested in this destructive system, so that they and their families can hoard less disgusting amounts of wealth and resources, and if we’re lucky – die off before future generations can continue to wreak havoc on the world, both people and the environment.

She touches upon the cultural and economic motivations for having children, and the lack of autonomy some women have regarding this choice, leading to a higher risk of experiencing poverty. This is a valuable conversation to have, but not in the context proposed by Hawkins.

The pictures included in the slide show are mostly advertisements – whether in print media, store front signs, billboards, or bus sides – emphasizing how common this imagery is and how we’ve been exposed to it regularly throughout our lives. Its prevalence speaks to how deeply engrained these portrayals of women and animals are, so much so that we are desensitized to it. I personally don’t think much of these images when I see them individually in a regular day, but seeing multiple together at once makes it quite disturbing and obvious that there is a more perverse ideology at play. I think these images also demonstrate the deep correlation between sexualization, objectification, and commodification, and how these all work to reinforce each other.

Three images that really stood out to me in the slide show were:

Pigs and cows were the animals you see the most personified as a seductress type woman figure. The Pig concept is particularly interesting because when I think of the connotations of referring to someone as a pig, its usually in the context of being messy or gross, especially in regards to men (i.e. men are pigs ), these images don’t seem to convey that. Or alternatively, perhaps they do in terms of sexual deviancy – by drawing a correlation between being *filthy* with perceived female sexuality. Perceived because most of the images add the same features to these animals to convey this “seductive” look – big eyes and lashes, big red lips, curvy figure, skimpy clothing. I consider this to be the standard or cliche “sexy woman” look, so by perceived I mean that this is the overarching social perception of what is sexy or maybe more accurately of a woman who is “sexually appealing” or promiscuous. As Adams states, “a domestic animal, posed in a sexually inviting way so that the body wanting to be consumed is explicitly represented” – promoting the violent consumption of both women and animals. With women animalized, and animals womanized, both are sexualized and objectified – a concept which Adams coins as anthropornography and elaborates on extensively in her interview.

I think that the animation of animals that personifies them is quite interesting also, especially when its being used in advertisements to sell meat. You would figure that people would want to increase the distance between them and the animals they eat, rather than decrease by giving them human features that emphasize their existence as living beings. However, Adams details the imagery of raw meat denotes a recent loss of life and highlights the fact that we’re consuming a dead being, which would for many be unappealing. The idea of rawness though also is related to female nakedness and the idea of being “raw” and “fresh” – as in unaltered. Overwhelmingly, the ideas used to uphold the exploitation of women and animals repeatedly contradict each other and are inconsistent, demonstrating the irrationality of it.

“She’ll tell you size doesn’t matter, she’s lying.” This advertisement demonstrates how ideas of masculinity also convey ideas that are harmful to men. This advertisement is obviously referring to penis size & Carl’s Jr. is especially known for its highly sexualized advertisements, which typically objectify women. This is the other side of the coin, depicting the correlation between masculinity and the consumption of meat – the more meaty, the more manly. This illustrates Adams statement that “male identification [is gained] by their choice of food.” The gross obsession we have with genitalia, and with making absurd connections to behavior and things like eating habits, limits access to masculinity and promotes toxic ideas about how men should act and look.

This image also captures the idea of rawness and nakedness I mentioned above. The turkey is depicted more closely to how we consume it, but with tan lines to emphasize a feminine form and portray the meat as cooked (ready to be consumed). “It makes animals degradation and suffering fun by making animals’ degradation sexy,” which in this image is done with the most basic and cheap effort – by throwing some tan lines on it. By simply presenting it as a naked women and adding not so discrete innuendos throughout the ad, the suffering of the turkey becomes feminized & sexualized, a comparison that is quite universally used in comical contexts. Thereby making the suffering of women and animals topics that are widely not taken seriously. There are strong racial implications in this advertisement as well, especially emphasized by the quote on the bottom. This is significant because historically and presently, WOC, particularly Black women, are sexualized and animalized far more often. It’s worth noting that this poll was likely posted in a college newspaper, evident by the “campus talk” – demonstrating how these ideas are present even in academic settings.

On image I found that depicts many of Adam’s claims is this:

For context, watch the accompanying commercial also: https://abancommercials.com/skinny-cow/ice-creams-manly-stealer-ad-commercial/4685/

The campaign is obviously meant to be a parody, mimicking other ridiculous “For Him” products. I found this to be especially ironic and indicative of a lack of self awareness considering the Skinny Cow brand itself participates in this gendered marketing as well. The Skinny Cow logo is even included in Adams slideshow, depicting a cow with the signature look I described above – big lashy eyes, big red lips, and curvy figure – further emphasized by a measuring tape around its waist. Skinny Cow sell low fat ice creams and other dairy snacks and seems to be a play on the whole idea of calling someone who is fat, particularly a women, a cow. The “For Him” cow is muscular and not made up, his stature is confident with hooves (hands) on his sides, contrary to the original skinny cow who is laying down in a seductive way showing off her curves. I believe this parody campaign that came out in 2016 was probably pretty limited in its circulation because there isn’t very much about it online and it seems that more people would’ve called out the brand for its hypocrisy in attempting to criticize a system that actively it participates in.

The chosen image conveys several ideas that are present in the readings and throughout ecofeminism. The image depicts a figure cutting into meat, with another knife already in it. The cartoon figure in the image would probably be perceived by the viewer as male even though there’s no actual evidence of this, just that we typically see that style of figure on men’s bathrooms and facilities. Also because of the correlation between masculinity and meat consumption, explored in the Eisenburg article. Eisenburg explores recent studies that suggest, as she puts simply, “eat a steak, feel more like a man.” A similar argument is explored in the Curtin’s article and the imagery of the figure cutting up the meat could be related to “representations of woman as ‘meat’ ready to be carved up,” such as expressions referring to women as a “piece of meat” which actually contradicts the more positive associations and connotations given to meat related terms, which are also extensively listed in the Curtin article.

The relationship between gender and food consumption is especially interesting. Foods considered masculine include meat and beer. Generally, manliness seems to correlate with more unhealthy foods, while healthy food is considered more feminine, with a diet being considered more effeminate the more plant based it is. The correlation between men and meat seems to derive hunting, and in recent years has developed many sexual connotations, with meat of course being used sometimes as a euphemism for penis. These sexual connotations are further perpetuated by the food industry, seen in commercials such as the Carl’s Jr one below that aired during the 2015 Superbowl.

Imagery in advertisement of scantily clad women eating burgers is pretty common, particularly for that chain. It is interesting to see how the ad is attempting to convey a decrease in the processing of the meat, but this information is almost entirely lost in content of ad. As though the only way to sell naturalness to men is through the sexualization of women. The commercial of course targets a male audience, which doesn’t seem uncommon, though perhaps in more subtle ways, for food products that would be considered unhealthy. Salad is especially gendered, and demonstrates how healthier, plant foods are feminized. This also speaks to the greater societal pressure faced by women to be thin and conform to beauty standards. “Women in patriarchal cultures … more than men, experience the effects of culturally sanctioned oppressive attitudes towards the appropriate body shape,” Curtain explains, further arguing that these attitudes serve to further disembody humans and distinguish them from animals.

Another food I think of as oddly being gendered is yogurt. Besides that John Stamos campaign, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a yogurt commercial starring a man. Similar to the burger commercial, these ads took a sexual and comedic approach though, so I think that possibly when commercials for gendered foods feature the *opposite* gender, it usually is in this way. This trend would be interesting to study more closely.

Saved from a dog meat farm in South Korea, we meet the two puppies who almost ended up on the dinner table, and owe their lives to their new owners pic.twitter.com/CypYYGi1pc

— This Morning (@thismorning) December 7, 2018

Gaard’s discussion of our keeping of animals as pets and our consumption of them as food reminded me of this interview that was circulating in December (tweet above). The conversation holds obvious racial and cultural biases, especially evident in her orientalist language like “them out there.” While generally thinking of the farming of dogs as horrific and monstrous, nearly identical facilities exist in our own country for breeding and slaughtering animals with similar, and in some cases greater, intellectual capacities to dogs at astounding rates. The kill clock makes this clear.

Alternatively, I’m reluctant agree with Gaard’s comment that our relationship to animals is akin to the slavery millions of humans were and continue to be subjected to. I understand she is trying to convey the ecofeminist theory that our exploitation of nature mirrors our exploitation of other humans, but the way its articulated – “…if the situation were offered to humans, we’d call it slavery” – just doesn’t sit well with me.

This portion of the reading reminded me of a National Geographic article I recently read about a theory that cats domesticated themselves. While Gaard suggests that cat behaviors are socially constructed by humans, but the article proposes that these activities had began evolving prior to them being seen as companions to humans, and that cats themselves “approached human populations” and “settled themselves into a mutually beneficial relationship,” citing that unlike dogs and other domestic animals there’s been little genetic change in cats.

Overall regarding vegetarianism and veganism, its important to remember that even these practices are never entirely “cruelty” free. Many of the people who are picking our fruits and vegetables work under pretty horrid conditions, like minimal breaks and long hours, exposure to pesticides, other chemicals, and extreme weather conditions, along with being significantly underpaid, with employees exploiting their immigration status for cheap and unsafe labor. In the global south, entire communities feel the consequences of this exposure to toxic chemicals from companies like Monsanto. Near soy bean farms in Argentina people are experiencing higher rates of cancer and other related illnesses, miscarriages, and birth defects. While eliminating meat from your diet of course decreases the amount of harm caused by the things on your plate and the process that got it there, very few people, if anybody, can claim their diet is truly “cruelty free.”

Works Cited:

Curtin, Deane. “Contextual Moral Vegetarianism.” Hypothia, no. 6, 1991, pp. 68-71. Retrieved from http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/curtin01.htm.

Eisenberg, Zoe. “Meat Heads: New Study Focuses on How Meat Consumption Alters Men’s Self-Perceived Levels of Masculinity.” Huffington Post, 13 January 2016. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoe-eisenberg/meat-heads-new-study-focuses_b_8964048.html.

Gaard, Greta. “Ecofeminism on the Wing: Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations.” Women and Environments Magazine, 2001, pp. 19-22.

Sartore, Joel. “Cats Domesticated Themselves, Ancient DNA Shows.” National Geographic, 19 June 2017. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/domesticated-cats-dna-genetics-pets-science/.

No place quite informs who I am like my own bedroom. An undeniable mess at all times, but my mess. The weird stain on the rug, the pile of clothes that didn’t make the outfit, and the shoes thrown into the corner after an especially rough day.

I’ll save everyone’s eyes from the clutter though. Here’s another significant place, more so to my city than to myself:

Heritage State Park Board Walk overlooking Battleship Cove. Fall River, MA.

This is the waterfront in my city. Its a boardwalk that overlooks a river, and one of the main tourist attractions, a large collection of World War II vessel. The boardwalk holds a museum, tennis courts, picnic areas, monuments and leads to a variety of restaurants and bars. I’ve gone on many walks & runs here during *short-lived* “going to get healthy” kicks, or to avoid having to valet at the night-spots we go to there. On a sunny day, you can be certain you’ll see tons of people here – families out for a stroll, people walking their dogs, the determined jogger that is there rain or shine. And on summer nights its still usually pretty busy – people stumbling to and from the bars, lone thinkers on benches, teens in smoky parked cars. Williams equation that PLACE + PEOPLE = POLITICS rings true here, with varying opinions about what other businesses should go around there and how the land should be further developed. It is one of the few places in the city where you can truly see all races and classes of people and provides many recreational opportunities for youth.

Its especially interesting that all of this occurs in such a militarized environment. When considering William’s takes on how we attribute mythology and history to a place, this seems very accurate. There’s many monuments of *war heroes* throughout the city, which seems to cling to its history in hopes that one day it’ll be that glorious again.

While our city now has a pretty bad reputation, it was once the industrial capital of country, and has a pretty prominent, though often forgotten role in our nations early history, particularly our state forest. Formerly home to the Wampanoag, now a hiking/stoner spot, folklore has the forest as known for its pukwudgies that’ll push you to your death, a ledge that looks like a face, and cult activity dating back to the 70s. The mythology attributed to this place makes it pretty terrifying at night, and even quite eery during the day. (Can read more about the forest here if you’re interested)

Freetown State Forest. https://wizzley.com/hauntings-on-the-assonet-ledge-in-freetown-state-forest/

I do think that people who live in the city often have a lesser connection to nature than those who live in more rural areas. For people in rural areas, this connection seems more innate, but in a city it takes something extreme to ignite it. Like a natural disaster, or just extreme weather that reminds us no matter how far removed we seem to be from it, we’re still at nature’s mercy, or on the opposite end of the spectrum – a really beautiful view. I think for a lot of people accustomed to city life, when faced with landscapes that are extremely natural, they oddly become something supernatural (like maybe in the case of the forest). Perhaps this reflects a need to assert dominance and project ourselves, humans, onto it one way or another – so if no physical evidence exists that we were there, we attach spirit forms to it – unable to accept that humans could’ve lived there without leaving some trace of themselves on the land. I particularly liked Kingsolver’s line about the wilderness as a place with “no steel, pavement, or streetlights, no architecture lovely or otherwise, no works of public art or private enterprise — no hominid agenda.” I agree there is something especially beautiful about a place with a mind and meaning of its own, or perhaps with no meaning at all, distinctly untainted by humans.

The socioeconomic disparities between the global north and global south are especially evident when considering environmental degradation. People in the global south are the primary victims of environmental degradation, feeling the effects of it first and most devastatingly. These effects are felt in ways that are gendered and related to class and race, with poor women of color being the most heavily implicated.

In many communities in the global south, women are typically tasted with fulfilling duties regarding domestic tasks like cooking and cleaning, as well as those related to agriculture and health care within the home. Environmental degradation contributes to dwindling access to clean water, both through privatization and contamination of existing supplies. In our own country, the privatization of water supplies has had disgusting consequences, for example in Flint, Michigan, where while a nearby Nestle Plant bottles water for profit for only $200 a year, residents still have limited access to clean water. This demonstrates how environmental racism is not just an issue globally, but also domestically.

Another way women in the global south are impacted by environmental degradation is that as global warming worsens, this causes more frequent natural disasters and at higher intensities. This impacts those closest to the equator most. This demonstrates how those least responsible for environmental degradation face the greatest consequences. According to a 2017 CDP report,  “25 corporate and state producing entities account for 51% of global industrial GHG emissions. All 100 producers account for 71% of global industrial GHG emissions.”

While western countries have significantly larger ecological footprints, communities in the global south feel the consequences of this, as shown in the chart below. Its important to note that in certain countries with higher ecological footprints, it largely a result of globalization and the movement of American and International factories there to exploit lower manufacturing and labor costs. This means we must consider who is consuming the products produced there when evaluating the ecological consequences of production. Those working in these factories are grossly underpaid, often working under inhumane conditions that cause long term affects to their health, and dealing with the pollution caused by their workplace outside of it as well in their communities. 

Swider, Gabriela. “Which Countries Live Within Their (Ecological) Means.”Frankly, western perspectives on any topic are almost always rooted in colonialism and imperialism. In any case, especially on issues like the global south, I am inclined to believe the eastern perspective is less self-interested and more appropriately evaluates the issues. Both western and eastern perspectives acknowledge the link between womanhood and nature, though eastern perspectives more closely evaluate the implications of this link in the global south, along with considering the way western ideologies and systems further contribute to this and harm women and nature. Eastern perspectives analyze how for many women, the link to nature is not just symbolic as western perspectives suggest, but material as well – with women in the global south dependent on the environment as a resource as well as directly harmed by its destruction. Eastern perspectives also acknowledge the potential for “women as actors” in this oppression, acknowledging the privileges had, particularly but wealthy white western women, and how it is sometimes wielded against women in the global south (Agarwal 119). Overall, I find eastern perspectives to be more comprehensive, acknowledging colonialism, imperialism, white supremacy, and capitalism, as vehicles for enforcing and perpetuating the oppression of women and nature.

***Also side note, Ghandi was a pretty awful person. He sexually exploited girls and woman, and was also was very anti-black. You can read more about that here and here. I think any analysis of the work he did must also be critical of who was excluded in his vision of liberation and acknowledge that there’s a lot of evidence supporting that he was predator.

Works Cited

Agarwal, Bina. “The Gender and Environmental Debate: Lessons From India.” Feminist Studies, vol. 18, no. 1, 1992, pp. 119-58. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3178217.

Banerji, Rita. “Gandhi Used His Position To Sexually Exploit Young Women. The Way WE React To This Matters Even Today.” YKA, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2013/10/gandhi-used-power-position-exploit-young-women-way-react-matters-even-today/

Griffin, Paul. “Carbon Majors Database 2017 Report.” CDP, July 2017. Retrieved from https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240

Lakshmi, Rama. “What did Mahatma Gandhi think of black people?” The Washington Post, 3 Sept. 2015. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/03/what-did-mahatma-gandhi-think-of-black-people/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5f4f5961f865

Swider, Gabriela. “Which Countries Live Within Their (Ecological) Means.” Distinct Values, 27 April 2017. Retrieved from https://blog.data.world/which-countries-live-within-their-ecological-means-a0e81245069c

Ecofeminism examines issues and topics through a combination of environmental and feminist theories. This movement is intersectional, also considering structures like “classism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, naturism (a term coined by Warren) and speciesism” in its criticisms (Hobgood-Oster 2). This form of analysis holds that the oppression of nature and of women are distinctly connected, both perpetuated by patriarchal domination. Nature is historically and culturally associated with femininity, while women are historically and culturally associated with nature. Therefore, to liberate either, both must be addressed. 

I found Warren’s fourth connection, symbolic, the most interesting. As an English major, its interesting to reflect on how present this is in literature, particularly in texts most prominent in the literary canon. Additionally, its interesting to see the simple ways these ideas are apparent in our everyday language. On symbolic connection I became aware of quite recently was the way society largely views cats and dogs and how this correlates with gender. Cats are typically feminized while dogs are masculinized, with the exception of smaller dogs which are also usually feminized. Overwhelmingly, people prefer dogs to cats, as demonstrated in this 2010 poll. This preference is largely the result of preconceived ideas about the behaviors these animal exhibit. While dogs are usually associated with being loving and “man’s best friends,” cats are often seen as suspicious and arrogant. Smaller dogs are also more associated with being “yappy” and pampered, and when thinking of their owners an older woman or the vapid girl stereotype typically comes to mind (i.e. Paris Hilton). It is interesting to see the way animals more closely associated with women are also associated with negative characteristics and the way we gender animals in general.

My cats: thought of as spooky, unlucky, and mean but indeed very sweet, playful, and snuggly.

One issue that can be examined through this lens is the United States Military-Industrial Complex. Recently, several news outlets reported that the defense industry was now primarily run by women, with the majority of the leading contractors having female CEOs (ABC News, Fortune.com). For many, this was cause for celebration and a feat for *feminism.* As stated by Hobgood-Oyster, ecofeminism sees oppression as maintained by systems rather than individuals. Placing women in positions of power within these systems still allows them exist and the oppression people face as a result to continue. Estimates for civilian deaths are typically quite generous and only involve those who die as a direct result of operations like airstrikes, excluding those that are caused by the impact imperialism has on medical supplies and the availability of necessary services and medications abroad, food and water supplies, and the spread of disease. Rich white American women leading the defense industry or ascending ranks in the military does nothing for women being killed abroad.

Additionally, the U.S. military industrial complex is distinctly terrible for the environment. According to a 2017 EcoWatch report, the U.S. military is the greatest perpetrator of environmental pollution and destruction. Imperialism’s goal is domination – not only striving to assert power and control on people and entire cultures, but also over natural resources available in these places, extracted at a rate that is entirely unsustainable.

Ultimately, while many news outlets and people celebrated women now controlling the U.S. military industrial complex, these women are now just a part of this oppressive system and benefiting tremendously from the exploitation of women in the global south and of nature. Overall, “equality” cannot be in the form of woman gaining power in any system that directly contributes to the oppression of other women and nature, as it brings neither closer to liberation.

Works Cited:

Associated Press. In War of Dogs vs. Cats, The Winner is Clear. The Today Show. 17 March 2010. Retrieved from https://www.today.com/news/war-dogs-vs-cats-winner-clear-wbna34746139

Hobgood-Oster, Laura. Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution. 18 August 2002. 

McLaughlin, Elizabeth. 4 of the top 5 U.S. defense firms to be led by women. ABC News. 13 July 2018. Retrieved from  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-us-defense-firms-led-women/story?id=56564622

Warren, Karen J. Warren’s Introduction to Ecofeminism. Retrieved from http://thereitis.org/warrens-introduction-to-ecofeminism/. 

Webb, Whitney. U.S. Military Is World’s Biggest Polluter. EcoWatch. 15 May 2017. Retrieved from https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-2408760609.html

Wieczner, Jen. Commanders in Chief: The Women Building America’s Military Machine. Fortune. 24 September 2018. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/longform/lockheed-martin-boeing-women-defense-ceos-trump/

Hello everyone! My name is Kelsey. I’m an English Major in the Writing, Rhetoric, and Communications concentration. I was super excited to see that this course was available and am looking forward to diving deep into this topic this semester. In any career field, and in daily life in general, being aware of issues within our society and being able to think critically about them is of course extremely important.

One feminist blog that especially stood out to me was ADIOS BARBIE due to their clear commitment to intersectionality. In my own blog posts throughout this course I think it is important to constantly ensure I am being inclusive and considering the implications of my analyses and responses on individuals with identities and experiences different from my own. One way this blog will differ from mine is that it is a collaborative blog, so multiple people with potentially differing perspectives are posted on various issues. In this case, as with everyone else in the class, we are the singular authors of all of our blogs posts.

The philosophy blog I looked at was A PHILOSOPHER’S TAKE. I liked that the titles for the posts were captivating but concise, alluding to the topic being discussed while generating greater interest from the reader. I think this would be a good strategy to employ in my own blog.  Alternatively, there was an overwhelming amount of words on the home page with previews of each the posts and many, many categories to go through. I would like mine to have a cleaner appearance.

A local environmental issue is waste disposal. The PAYT program meant to reduce municipal solid waste and increase recycling has been incredibly controversial and met with massive push back from residents since its inception in 2014. A clear reason for this is the high cost of the required trash bags and that they can only be purchased at a few select locations, making them far less accessible than regular trash bags. Many people do not follow the regulations and little is done by the city to encourage or ensure adherence.