Question One
Karen Warren has established a connection between the environmental domination by humans and the subordination of women by stating that domination is in fact connected historically, symbolically and theoretically. According to ecofeminism culture propagated in the study carried out by Warren, man has over the century’s exerted undue dominance over the female species in many cultures in the same manner that they have dominated over nature in all its forms. The notion of ecological feminism which seeks to show that the domination, suppression and relative exploitation of women and the environment all stem out of the same need for complete dominance exhibited by the male species.
After going over the whole article on the relationship between feminism and ecology; in an ideology called ecofeminism, which is “the oppressions of women parallels of nature, not by coincidence, but because both are the result of the same attitudes or patterns of activity”, at the onset, I didn’t find any actual connection between feminism and ecology, but then I came to appreciate the point that both Daniel Silvermint and Guest Editor wanted to explain. Both feminists and ecology are seeking equal rights. Males are dominant to both female and ecology which mean that both are oppressed by men. Also, the attitudes toward both women and the natural world are similar. However, females can fight for their rights through feminist movement. In ecofeminism women can be rulers to fight not only for their rights, but also for environmental justice issues.
Karen has set a connection between these two forms of oppression and general dominance of men is not by mistake or flaw, but by the implementation of the same pattern of attitudes, assumptions and activities. The idea behind ecological feminism is not to fight for equality of women and men as is the classic case of feminism, but to liberate women as women and in this manner also seek the liberalization and protection of the environment. In this philosophy of ecofeminism, women are seen to be closer to nature regarding the fact that they give life and that their cycles are in line with the lunar cycle among many others. This interconnection between women and nature has seen the society widely deem women as being inferior to men and nature being inferior to culture, all of which is perceived as being inferior to the male species (Warren, 2008).
After a careful study of the arguments made by Warren in her study of the relationship between feminism and ecology, I have come to agree with her reasoning. History has in fact shown that men tend to dominate both women and nature for their personal gains. It can be viewed in this light; nature has had man’s need for its primary concern by providing man with natural resources such as food, water, and air to ensure the survival of the human species yet we have continuously sought to destroy nature through pollution, deforestation and poaching. Women have for centuries also been seen as inferior to men in many aspects. Even in the modern world, there are several areas where women are still suppressed and denied basic rights simply because they are female. Some cultures practice wife-inheritance, child marriage and denying females access to education. In this light, it can be said that both women and nature are victims of suppression and the need for man to demonstrate dominance over both.
. A good example of male domination over both women and nature can be observed in rural India. In the countryside where the most common economic practice is farming, the women are the ones who work on the farms and till the land while the men are the ones who own the land. The women in these communities work for the sole benefit of the man who gets food by exploiting nature. One of the more interesting topics raised is “Women Farmers of India’s Deccan Plateau”. Indian women are working as farmers when men are the farmers’ owners. Men control the farms and let women work as farmers. Deccan Development Society helped out poor communities by helping a group of men in 1983, but they didn’t success in reaching the goal. DDS recognized the movement of a group of women who labored for years to reach their goals that got the support from DDS and paid their dept. These women still work on developing employment opportunities in summer by letting women do environmental works that help to reduce the effects of man’s actions on nature. Women should cooperate to fight for the future of women’s rights and a better environment.
Question Two
Kristen provides an account of how environmental injustice mostly affects the poor and racially marginalized groups in the society. Environmental injustices include the pollution brought about by big industries such as the car makers and the power companies. In her book, Kristen is very vocal on the need for everyone to take a stand against the tyranny that leads to the destruction of the environment (Shrader-Frechette & Oxford University Press, 2002). We must all agents of social reform or the notion in itself would lose meaning. This powerful quote is the message that Kristen leaves her readers when this book comes to a conclusion. The book seeks to push the readers out of their comfort zone by giving a vivid picture of the horror that is brought about by environmental degradation and how it adversely affects the marginalized and the poor in society.
When a fast car is being built, there is an adverse and often negative effect that is induced into the environment by the car making process. In most engineering plants for the parts of cars and other machinery that is deemed by society as being vital to its functioning, there is toxic waste and harmful waste that not only affects the atmosphere but may cause direct harm to people living near the factories and manufacturing plants. More often than not, the people who live and work near these factories are those of the lower income bracket who cannot afford to move further away from the toxic environment. The people who benefit from these fast cars, which will pollute the environment with its gaseous emissions, are the powerful and rich in society. There is unequal distribution of benefits and costs since the poor will bear the greatest cost of being directly harmed by the manufacturing process and the rich and powerful will get the benefit of driving off in a brand new fast car.
Another example that was used to illustrate the environmental injustice that is brought about by the pollution of the environment was the production of electricity. Power is the main driving force of the economic machinery in most major countries including the US. Power can be generated through many processes, some of them being harmful to both the environment and the workers in power plants. Coal miners, Nuclear power station personnel, and oil grid workers are exposed to some of the most dangerous working conditions on the planet, yet it is the big companies and their rich owners who enjoy the maximum benefits from this venture. A secondary effect is an impact that these companies have on the global climatic conditions. A rising global temperature has led to adverse droughts, famines, flash floods and mud-slides in most often poorest countries where disaster management skills are almost never successful.
The housing prices of the property around these manufacturing firms with their toxic wastes goes down with time. This presents an even bigger problem for the poor residents in these areas since they are unable to sell their houses and move to areas with cleaner water and air. Environmental injustice ensures that the impoverished keep bearing the brunt of the burden of environmental mismanagement while the perpetrators enjoy the reaping of the whole thing.
I agree with the author’s assessment of environmental injustice being a way to suppress the weak, poor and racially marginalized. The biggest victims of global warming are the impoverished countries in Asia and Africa who experience constant cases of long droughts, famine and irregular weather patterns. This is the paradox of the modern environmental landscape because it is the countries with the least global carbon footprint who suffer because of irregular weather patterns while the rich countries are able to sustain and develop under these conditions. It has reached a point where the number of famines in Africa is so great yet the level of industrialization cannot be compared to those in US, China, and European nations. The people who enjoy the benefits that come with harming the environmental landscape are not the same people who bear the cost of the same.
According to the author of this book, it is time that we all accepted the responsibility of being a tool for social reforms otherwise there would be no reforms at all. This powerful statement sets up the tempo to challenge us to be the difference in the world that we would like to see.
Question Three
Elizabeth Willot and the co-authors propose that human beings tend to restore land and the environment in a manner that suits them first and nature second. Both concepts overlap in the fact that the restored land is not necessarily for the benefit of the ecosystem as a whole but to tailored to meet the specific needs and full advantage to the human population. Human beings have had such a huge impact on the natural functioning of the ecosystem to such an extent that we are not aware of the great harm caused by our actions. Humans by nature are both selfish and self-serving so most of the actions carried out to restore natural landscapes are actually a way to alter the environment to suit us. For example, in the US even though mosquitoes cause more harm than good to humans, we don’t have the right to kill them off because it is has a niche in that ecosystem to fill (Willot, 2004).
The differences in the concepts of restoration occur when it is ascertained if the restoration was done for the benefit of the ecosystem or the benefit of the people around the area. A good example would be the restoration of wetlands in the US. These wetlands were once the natural habitat of many types of mosquitoes, some of which caused diseases to human beings. Man drained these wetlands to control the population of these mosquitoes to such an extent that they could not survive any longer in that environment. In the process of restoration of wetlands, mosquitoes are being controlled in such a manner that they cease to exist despite their important role in the ecosystem. Mosquitoes are naturally meant to exist in wetlands in order to act as a natural control of animal population, and providing a balance in the ecosystem. Man however wants to restore the wetlands without mosquitoes because they cause diseases among human beings yet they were naturally meant to exist in that particular environment. As humans, we do not have the right to dictate which animals, plants and insects exist in a natural environment just to suit our particular preferences.
Wetlands and mosquitoes are naturally related. Wetlands have the advantage of providing good agricultural lands, good water reservoir and also serves as home to many species. Mosquitos benefited humans in the past by keeping the human population in control, however now the spread of Malaria have made mosquitoes a rare sight in human populated areas. Humans do not care about the advantages that they get from mosquitoes and focus on the diseases they spread. This focus has influenced the destruction of these mosquitoes’ environments. Humans are therefore taking on the role of nature of balancing species’ populations. God has created the ecosystem without any help from humans but we continually cause harm to the ecosystem to suit our needs. Humans should protect these environments by using eco-friendly solutions in reducing different types of pollution. This will allow the natural system to work on restoring the damages on the environment independently.
References
Shrader-Frechette, K., & Oxford University Press. (2002). Environmental Justice: Creating Equity, Reclaiming Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Warren, K. (2008). The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism - Karen J. Warren - Environmental Ethics (Philosophy Documentation Center). Retrieved from https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=enviroethics&id=enviroethics_1990_0012_0002_0125_0146
Willot, E. (2004, May 20). Restoring Nature, Without Mosquitoes? - Willott - 2004 - Restoration Ecology - Wiley Online Library. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1061-2971.2004.00392.x/abstract
