Norgaard and York explain the relationship between gender and environmentalism. Like we have heard in previous readings women are more likely to be connected to nature then men. Women are more likely care about the environment and be aware of environmental issues. This leads us to consider the impact women can make when they are government officials. Norguaard and York explain gender inequality and how this effect the relationship women have with the environment. Woemn and men also have different beliefs and views on the world that make their relationships with nature and the environment different. Norgaard and York state that “women have been estimated to make up 60 to 80 percent of membership in mainstream environmental organizations and even higher percentages in grassroot movements” (Norgaard and York). Why is this the case? This all has to do with that relationship going way back to the beginning or time. Throughout history women have been seen to have a relationship with nature and it has led to those statistics. Women in the government are more concerned about the environment and making changes related to environmental issues. However, sometimes gender inequality can negatively affect what women in government positions can do. The more we fight for gender equality the closer we will get to make greater environmental decisions that can change for the better.
When you search the web, it becomes clear that there are so many women out there fighting to make changes in the world to help the environment. The first female activist I want to mention is very well known and she has already been mentioned a lot in this class. Greta Thunberg is a seventeen-year-old climate and environmental activist. She has traveled all over the world to spread the word and share her activism. At such a young age she has become a very important part of the global environmental activism. Christiana Figueres is another example. She was the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change from 2010 to 2016. She saw how bad this climate change crisis was becoming and wanted to jump in and help. She has also been known for many other achievements as a government official aiming to make the environment safer and healthier.
I found an interesting statistic that could support the ideas that Norgaard and York were explaining. This website states that “Statistics indicate that 80% of household shopping is performed by women “(Berk 1988). This supports the ideas of Norgaard and York because they explained how women throughout history and over time have been shaped and as a result it makes them more connected to the environment. If women are the ones who are buying items for their families, they can decide it they want to make good environmental decisions. This can have an impact on the environment and they are more likely to buy ecofriendly items then a male would because of their connection to nature and their awareness of the environment. https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/7417/volumes/v20/NA-20
An article by Amy Caiazza and Allison Barrett explain the importance of women in environmental activism. There is a lot of importance to this and from an ecofeminist stand point giving women the opportunity to be heard and stand up for what they believe in. Caiazza and Barrett make a lot of similar points that Norgaard and York made as to why women feel so obligated to help the environment and are more likely to then men. This has given women leadership and voices to share their beliefs.
Caiazza, Amy, and Alison Barrett. “Engaging Women in Environmental Activism: Recommendations for Rachel’s Network.” CSU, Sept. 2003.
Susan. “Women and the Environment: Applying Ecofeminism to Environmentally-Related Consumption.” ACR North American Advances, 1 Jan. 1993
Hi Lindsey,
I know that in my family, I did most all of the shopping. So, on that point I agree that women probably do the majority of the shopping for their families. Having said that, choosing environmental products are often times more expensive. I can’t help but question how those families who are on a budget can afford to buy bio or environmental products. The bio / organic industry is far more pricey than regular products. Most times buying sustainable products and being on a budget are opposite concepts. For example, I buy fresh organic eggs from a local egg farmer in town. I spend €2.00 more for 10 eggs than I would at our local market. For a family that cost could add up quickly. So the idea that women can choose to shop environmentally is a valid one, but can they all afford to do so? I found some information to support this, an article on Grist, states “ A recent study by researchers at the University of California-Davis reported that U.S. shoppers who consistently choose healthy foods spend nearly 20 percent more on groceries. The study also said the higher price of these healthier choices can consume 35 to 40 percent of a low-income family’s grocery budget”(Harrison, C.). You can read more about that here. https://grist.org/article/harrison-organics/ . This is what many families globally face when making decisions at the market. Too many families can barely afford to buy groceries without food stamps and that prevents many women from selecting organic, or sustainable foods to feed their families. So what’s the resolve here? How do we make these products that are better for our bodies and better for the environment affordable for everyone? This is where capitalism comes into focus and corporate greed creates a situation where a Walmart can sell unhealthy GMO or pesticide laden vegetables because they are cheaper than those grown without. This is a very difficult situation for sure. Since bio and organic stores are are marketing their products to those who fall in higher income brackets, that means they aren’t mass producing the items, they are producing it for a selective market. With the population being what it is, it’s not really practical for people to be able to continue to produce bio products for a population that continues to grow so rapidly. This bring us back to last week and the idea of population control. It’s really an intricate topic because there are so many factors to consider. On one hand to feed the population, factory farms have come about in order to keep costs down for low income families. So over time the environment suffers as does the health of the consumer. Meanwhile, the wealthier family who can afford to buy organic remains healthier and supports the organic farmers. So until we even the playing field the need for the unethical factory farmers will not cease.
Hi Lindsey,
The statistic you mentioned on “household shopping performed by women” is an interesting one because of the connection women have to the use and consumption of so many products.
Another part of the paper you found highlighted “The Ecofeminist Agenda”, which pointed out the responsibility that women have to protecting the environment. “The female consumer has been given full responsibility for a crisis created primarily by the structure she is so oppressed by” (Dobcha, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). The paper further underlined how these structures in a male dominated society would need to change allowing women’s environmental guidelines. So I do agree that to do this we would need to “raise consciousness” to which the “ecofeminist framework” laid out. And in brining such societal changes would take the burden exclusively on women, thereby including the cooperation of men.
I found this to be an important part of this week’s discussion of Norgaard and York because their paper also explained unequal aspects to a system where women’s efforts are somewhat sabotaged by a male dominated society. They drew on the fact that “gender is implicated in many facets of the state including a gendered division of labor within state apparatus, gendered structures of power, and the inter- play between social movements and state policies (Norgaard, York: 507-508). Therefore, women who are interested in having a say in policies that would protect the environment, would need to figure out the other issues that intersect with this gap.
Greetings Lindsey.
“We need collective power to attain a just future.” WEDO.
We believe that women are more likely to care more about the environment; but the numbers for female parliamentarians and environmental legislation seems to be lagging. The US ranks #41 for parliamentarians and #11 for the environment; South Africa #8, but #32 for the environment. Singapore has 23% representation, the highest in Asia, no record on the environment, while china ranks #15, but #43 for the environment. One Singapore MP Chew, “I don’t always talk about women issues, because I represent every body” But the Singapore MPs recognize women constitute the “second sex.” It is heartening to see young women like Thunberg and Alexandria Villasenor-13years old, who skips school on Fridays to sit on a bench in front of the UN striking in the name of climate change. One hopes more aggressive change continues with effective results.
bridget.
Hello Lindsey,
I found your article to be very informative and easy to read through. I think that the use of images or video would help break up everything that you were saying. Visuals help with seeing your points. I did find your evidence of women doing 80% of household shopping. I do not necessarily see how that fully correlates to Nogaard and York . I do get that it can be impacted on whether the person of family is capable of making environmentally safer choices. As another peer commented getting organic or healthier foods is not always a cheap option and when we have areas that are not as well off or do not have the accessibility.
Hi Lindsey,
I think that your point referencing the article/statistic you found about women doing 80% of household shopping is interesting. From an eco-feminist standpoint, this can be taken in a few different ways. Women are said to be the caretakers of the family and even have specific roles / duties like cooking, cleaning, looking after children, etc.. This is due to gender roles, however. I don’t think this is a good thing because as we know, gender roles are detrimental to society and the improvement / advancement of the way we see gender and what a man, woman, or person of any gender “should” or “should not” do in a domestic (or professional) setting. We should be encouraging men, and people of ALL genders to take on any duties because they’re all equally important. That being said, the data still remains. And that means we must look at the standing issue, the one you addressed in your post: the ongoing political oppression of women leads to a lacking in environmental protection, all around the world. However, I’m not entirely sure I’m sold on the idea that buying household items equals a natural inclination for environmental activism. I can see where this plays into the caretaker role, but I feel like it’s still too vague to be directly connected.