Month: March 2025

The echo feminist, interconnected perspective. It’s a concept with an ecofeminism that focuses on the complex and interrelated systems of oppression, explosion, and domination of both women in nature. This is often symbolized as an image of a web to show the interconnectedness of all things, human and non-human social and ecological. This can mean many things, but it can show environmental depression and inequality.

 

The web itself is a perspective image to show the complex relationships that coincide with ecofeminism. This incorporates the interconnective perspective which shows the environment is intertwined in rooted as well as being complex. It also can emphasize the benefits of ecofeminism from an intersectional approach. 

 

From the reading , Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism,  “Mari J. Matsuda described the potentially simple methodology of recognising the interconnection of all discrimination, as one which required an openness to ‘asking the other question.’” Mary J Matsuda goes into depth regarding all discrimination and the relationship and connectivity they have with one another. 

Not only is this approach necessary, but Ecofeminism emphasizes the importance of addressing social inequalities as a necessary step towards achieving environmental sustainability. All of this together integrate with each other. 

 

A.E. Kings. “Intersectionality and the changing face of Ecofeminism.” Ethics and the Environment, vol. 22, no. 1, 2017, p. 63, https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.22.1.04. 

Thomas, Leah. “The Difference between Ecofeminism & Intersectional Environmentalism.” The Good Trade, 29 Nov. 2023, www.thegoodtrade.com/features/ecofeminism-intersectional-environmentalism-difference/. 

Jmattey. “Intersectional Ecofeminism – an Interconnected Web of Experience.” Ecofeminism, 26 Mar. 2023, jasminemattey.sites.umassd.edu/2023/03/26/intersectional-ecofeminism-an-interconnected-web-of-experience/.

The piece by Kari Norgaard and Richard York simply states that all individuals, regardless of gender, should have equal rights, opportunities, and access to resources.The way that women and men, or other gender groups, engage with and are impacted by environmental issues can differ, which makes gender an important consideration when analyzing state environmentalism. A piece of the article states “  Greater gender equality may have a simple numerical impact: If women tend to be more environmentally progressive, the inclusion of women as equal members of society—as voters, citizens, policy makers, and social movement participants—should positively influence state behavior. Furthermore, from the interlocking systems perspective, nation-states with greater gender equality on the whole are expected to take environmentally progressive stands due to the influence of gender on all state processes.” This is saying that the more women are involved, the better the impact of state  behavior we will receive. 

 

The inclusion of gendered perspectives is often overlooked. This can lead to policies that fail to address the needs of women, particularly in rural or marginalized communities. To achieve true environmental sustainability, Norgaard and York  argue that both gender equality and state environmentalism must work hand in hand. They also make a point to ​​ show both ecological and social justice, emphasizing that gender equality must be a key component of effective and fair environmental governance.

 

“ The pattern of gender differences in environmental values and beliefs appears to hold cross-nationally, at least in those nations where studies have been conducted.” There was an experiment conducted to see the gender differences in environmental values and beliefs that hold cross-nationality. This is not just an issue in the US, this is an issue world wide and this experiment was the showcase of it. Girls are more likely to join environmental cause clubs and debates and are willing to do more work in the long run. Not to say that men aren’t willing to do such, but it is more prevalent in females. 

 

Citations- 

Norgaard, Kari, and Richard York. “Gender equality and state environmentalism.” Gender & Society, vol. 19, no. 4, Aug. 2005, pp. 506–522, https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204273612.

 

 

 Let’s talk about What the heck is happening in this photo. This picture was found from Carol J. Adams blog about the sexual politics of food and women. This photo screams one thing to me and that is Indulgence.  by promoting this ice cream brand with this photo it is expressing an indulgence in the products while using an attractive yet curvy model that is a cow. It’s always women that are used in advertisements like this to learn in clientele. You almost never see a man as the face of a brand. They simply do not market well.  to mention that this is also just kind of gross to look at. I don’t want to go get an ice cream with a cow’s butt in my face as the promotion. There is a logical sense to these images and it’s just disturbing and gross. This does not make me want to go get ice cream from this establishment.

 I genuinely don’t know where to begin with this photo. This is another great example of how companies use female bodies in female sexuality to market their product. This is obviously a small chicken that has been cooked. The legs are tether together and this shows a sexualized image of a woman laying down with her legs tied together. Some people genuinely think that this is funny and not a big deal but nobody wants to look at this. It’s just kind of gross and unsettling. This is a great example of something Carol J Adams wrote about in her novel “The Pornography of Meat”. Adams argues that the exploitation of women and animals is rooted in similar cultural narratives. Women are often objectified, commodified, and reduced to their bodies, just as animals are treated as commodities for human consumption.In this context, meat is often sexualized in a way that mirrors the objectification of women in pornography.

Another photo from Carol J. Adams shows a cow that is obviously a female who is super thin and has a measuring tape around her waist to indicate that she is dieting or thin. This is a complete message to women and their bodies and body images. In essence, the “pornography of meat” is about how the culture surrounding meat consumption is often deeply intertwined with the objectification of women, reinforcing patriarchal structures that commodify and control both women and animals.

This photo is one that I found on my own. This to me, describes everything that Carol Adams said in a nutshell. It shows the different names of a piece of meat that they also describe as a woman. This is such an old and disturbing image, it shows that women’s suffrage has always been an issue if not worse before today. So before you go buy  ice cream from that skinny sexy looking cow or stop in at the meat market, remember these photos and how this is reality. 

 

Citations- 

Sayers, Daniel O. “The Most Wretched of Beings in the Cage of Capitalism – International Journal of Historical Archaeology.” SpringerLink, Springer US, 15 June 2014, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10761-014-0268-z. 

“Examples of the Sexual Politics of Meat.” Carol J. Adams, caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025. 

The Politics of Meat, static1.squarespace.com/static/54792ff7e4b0674c74cb719d/t/55dc8dace4b0ad76d7277cb7/1440517548517/ANTENNAE+ISSUE+14.pdf. Accessed 6 Mar. 2025.