ecofeminism

Gender socialization is the process by which society's norms and values based on one's sex are learned. People are only free to express themselves in gender specific contexts to a certain extent when they are behaving within the social norms and guidelines for their biological sex. When people deviate from behaving within the norms designated by their gender, there are social consequences from simple reprimands to the extremes of being socially chastised and excluded from the group. This process of gender socialization does affect our understanding of environmental ethics. If a male wants to be a vegetarian or care for the environment, he is perceived as a weak or feminine-identified male. This labeling affects his social standing. It demonstrates that to care for the environment is a feminine issue, and since men are in power, caring for the environment will not be important. To do so would negatively affect the male quest for power and industry.

cultural feminist standpoint.

Cultural feminists and radical feminists both focus on the causes of environmental problems instead of solutions. Cultural feminists believe there is a "woman's perspective" based on typical women's experiences, and that the voice of women's culture needs to be heard. Because of women's role in society, it is in their nature to care more about the environment. Women are the ones to give primary care for children and pets, so cultural feminists theorize that this care gets extended to the planet as a whole. The health of the planet affects the well-being of their children so women also have a prime interest in protecting the planet. Cultural Feminists celebrate this caring role which is to heal the planet. They theorize that it can compensate the destruction from men and that it is solely women's nature to take on this role. Since women give birth and have firsthand involvement in continuing the cycle of nature, they have much at stake in the quest to preserve nature. It cannot be determined whether or not this role is because of nature or nurture, but regardless of being a biological male or female, everyone needs to think maternally. To think this way means that every action one does has an effect on others and the environment. It is not about personal gain, but what one is doing to others and the planet around them.

radical feminist standpoint.

Radical feminists believe it is the system of patriarchy that is why we have environmental problems. Women and femininity celebrate life, and this is evidenced in the fact that they can give birth and take on the caretaker role for the sick and weak. Women sustain life. Men and masculinity, on the other hand, celebrate death. Evidenced through the history of war, men fearlessly kill. Women and nature have a shared kinship because both have been dominated under patriarchy and both are cast in the role of "other." They share empathy because the stereotypes of women are the same as the stereotypes of nature. Nature and women have both been viewed as the Wild Beast. This mythological beast is something wicked and crazy to be tamed and is not capable of a relationship. Both women and nature are also viewed as irrational and mindless so it doesn't matter what it done to either. Finally, women and nature share being viewed as a machine or object whose purpose is to service and produce for men. Men are parasitic upon both women and nature and use them for their own needs and fulfillment without consequence. During early gender socialization, girls are given toys that reflect the importance of respecting the earth's bounty such as play food. Not only do plastic carrots and grapes teach girls that it is their job to gather these items for their family, but also that it is their responsibility to make sure the earth continues to provide this nourishment. If they do not, they will be punished for not nourishing their loved ones. Girls are also given dolls to remind them of the importance of giving birth to continue nature's cycle. It is their duty to care for things.

Boys, on the other hand, are given toys that reflect man's importance of ruling the earth such as war toys and construction dump trucks. On the grander scale, men are socialized as the hunters of the world. They are aggressive and capture animals for food. Women are socialized as the gatherers. They passively collect vegetable, fruit, nuts, and grains to eat. Since patriarchy is in place and men "rule," we as collective humans are primarily meat-eaters. If women were in charge the way humans eat and farm would be quite different. During grammar school years, girls are steered away from math and science and are consequently guided away from future careers that may harm the environment such as engineering, construction and architecture. Women are encouraged into careers that nurture such as teaching, nursing, and motherhood.

my standpoint.

My stand on ecofeminism, the feminist approach to ecology and environmental issues, stands as such: It is sexist to protect mother earth. I accept the argument that nature has been subjugated to the same lowly status as women. We are both objects at the disposal of men. Yet, if we as women find it sexist to imply that to be female is to need constant protection, then why do we place these beliefs onto the designated female mother earth? The earth is a strong entity that has healing capabilities beyond human understanding. It is not a fragile object that is physically devastated and forever tarnished not unlike the cultural image of the tainted woman after being raped. One example of the earth's strength that has been ignored by the male-dominated media is the myth of global warming. The temperature has always been in great fluctuation, and the earth has survived great heat that killed animal life (e.g. the dinosaurs) and most definitely any human life if it had been spawned at that time. There have also been ice ages that would have wiped out human life as well, yet the planet used them to regulate temperature and create new life within added global water systems.

The idea that this powerful planet, with a molten rock core, can be destroyed by the accumulation of plastic bags in landfills is an arrogant concept. Humans do rationalize that computers and other outlets of electricity we have grown dependent on for our limited functioning are defenseless against hurricanes and earthquakes. Why do humans see the immediacy of weather's power over them (knowing that weather cannot be "tamed") but not the strength of the earth or the presence of climatological trends? In the modern world, weather is not seen as the crazy "Wild Beast" that must be controlled. Meteorologists continully state that we as humans are at the mercy of the weather. I find it confusing that radical feminists can be infuriated that women are placed in the inferior position of needing care and attention and thought to not be able to take care of themselves, yet place nature in the same position. If women and nature are kin in the battle against patriarchy, then both should be respected and be given the freedom to take care of themselves. Like women, nature deserves protection from outright attack, but our normal day-to-day use of the planet should not be cause for alarm. Nature is not just another "damsel in distress" to be rescued by man.

While boys are socialized to view the earth and its animals as a resource at their disposal, girls are also given this socialization. Girls may not be given war toys and dump trucks to play with, but the fur coats they dress their dolls in surely announce that animals are there for them to beautify themselves. The fact that the female earth needs to be sheltered from mankind (defined as both girls and boys succumbing to the patriarchal grouping as man) is nothing but another arena for man to use the fabled need to protect as an excuse for the retention of self-declared superior status above both women and nature.