Thoughts on Ecofeminism

For my blog post, I’ll write this as though I was addressing it to Ms. Fabijanska. Her presentation was quite enjoyable, and its discussion format really helped engage me with the conversation. I’d like to pretend as though we were still discussing the topic (even if it’s not real!)

Many thanks to Monika Fabijanska, who took the time to visit our classroom and lead a discussion regarding ecofeminism. Over the course of my academic career, I’ve read a bit of critical theory, but none regarding feminism. Overall, I found the lesson to be quite enlightening and would like to share a couple of key points and thoughts I’ve had on the topic:

1. I’m totally with it. Ecofeminism examines how society frames nature as a woman, and then uses tactics to dominate and exploit nature. Your presentation included a mention that “Mother Nature” is a term used in almost every culture in the world. By extension of that, it’s quite fascinating that most cultures also adopt a patriarchal structure. Perhaps the root of the discussion can be better understood by examining why societies tended to follow patriarchal styles.

2. Mankind is not yet ready to become ecofeminist-friendly. We urbanize land because it’s more efficient. Having apartments and large skyscrapers can house more people than a single treehouse or wooden hut. Using GMOs, deforestation and fracking are the only ways we can continue to fuel society’s consumption. The population of mankind continues to skyrocket, and at some point, basic resources like water and food will become scarce. The argument against human growth (i.e. population control) is quite unpopular. Don’t get me wrong, I totally agree with both conservation and feminist activists, but without the means to live sustainably (current renewable energy sources are quite expensive and inefficient), mankind cannot yet transition to environmentally friendly alternatives. Perhaps in another century, advancements in science and engineering will enable us to live sustainably.

3. Ownership of nature is kind of questionable. Water should be a human right. Nobody should own water because everyone needs water to live. One doesn’t make water, so one doesn’t have the right to own it. Following that logic, land, and minerals shouldn’t be owned by people. Native Americans didn’t own land, but rather shared land within their communities. We didn’t make the land, nor do we put minerals into it. I wish the world was a nice place, but everyone wants a cut of their own land.