VII. State & Government

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.