What is Ecofeminism? Is Ecofeminism Still Relevant?

 Melting glaciers, extinction of insect populations, wildfire, floods. Climate change is upon us whether we accept it or not, and the environmental, economic and social damage in its leaving in its wake is catastrophic. Many regions in the world drown under storm waters while the Earth continues to heat up. Globally, we are well on our way to beat a tipping point that will change our climate for good. It’s easy to lose hope when you see this glance of what's to come. But often that doom and gloom make us start searching for a better way to navigate our connection with the environment and ourselves. Ecofeminism is a possible thought through which to view our current environmental crisis, and it’s important to see what it has to offer as a theoretical framework. So today, we are going to know two questions: What is Ecofeminism?  And is it a useful thought for understanding our current social and environmental circumstances? So first, what is Ecofeminism? Ecofeminism is a term formulate by Francoise d’Eaubonne in 1974. Ecofeminism is much more than just a title, however, it’s a framework that seeks to combine, re-examine, and amplify the environmental and feminist movements. Like other frameworks, especially in the feminist journey, ecofeminism has grown and evolved in the last 40 years since it was formulated. But at its core, ecofeminism seeks to tell the connection between the injustice of women and the demolition of the environment. In essence, a primary challenge within ecofeminism is that women’s liberation is connected with the liberation of the environment from human demolition. And there are two key ways that this crossroad is explored in ecofeminist value hierarchical thinking and oppositional duality. These sound pretty complex so let’s immediately break them down. Value hierarchical thinking is simply the idea that cultures establish certain troops as inherently more valuable than another troop. Oppositional duality is a way of understanding certain cultural and social binaries. For example, in many civilizations, men and women are seen as fundamentally different from each other and actually being opposites. We talk about “opposite genders” all the time. But that idea is itself composed, instead of being a dual, gender exists on a spectrum. In U.S. culture, humans and nature are another conflicting dualism. And in most cases, civilization attitudes place more value on one side of the binary than the other side. Often, this value duality expresses itself in language. For example, nature is defined as feminine in the phrases fertile ground or mother earth, both to be liberated, sown and extracted. While slang phrases for women tend to be animals, like chick and vixen. Ecofeminists seek to look for that this oppositional and hierarchical thinking helps justify the opposition of both women and nature. But ecofeminism has experienced an acute resistance since it rose to conspicuousness in the 1990s, and indeed, it seems to have lost its following as a consequence of this pushback and its lack of use by activists. One of the main critiques of ecofeminism is that it lacks analysis about race, disability, class and more movements like environmental justice. Many ecofeminist critics point out that ecofeminism does not have an interchangeable framework; because ecofeminists tend to focus only on nature and women, they miss the differences that exist between women. As a result, much of ecofeminist analysis tends to neglect most women. A scholar-activist Gwyn Kirk justifies this claim in her explanation of a weekend workshop in 1987 in New York. She writes that the first of the workshop was led by a group of influencers of color talking about environmental racism and community organizing in their neighborhoods, and it was a very lively debate, but Kirk notes that on the second day she was involved in a workshop on ecofeminism. She describes it as “a small, white group that focused on feminists devoutly.” So, when compared to a framework like that of environmental justice, ecofeminism seems inappropriate for many activists and thinkers. Although environmental justice drives are admittedly often less focused on gender, they seem to build stronger affiliation in frontline and marginalized societies because they focus on issues like toxic waste, pollutants, and food issues affecting people in their immediate circumforaneous. 

Ecofeminism, as critics say has lost its relevance in part because it only functions at this high theoretical level that groups women of all identities into one class. In short, critics of Ecofeminism write that it's not a useful thought because it only allows us to look at how nature and gander are connected, and in doing so it, leaves out an analysis of how racism, ableism, classism and other ways of domination are associate with environmental demolition. Ultimately, ecofeminism is a way through which to view and connect the invasion of the environment and women. It can definitely be a useful lens to understand how discrimination and the destruction of the natural world are connected, but it often leaves out another crucial pathway of subjugation, including class and race. But ecofeminism can be more than just a structure, there is a very real case where gender and environment strike in the world. So, for more on a real-world look at the relationship between gender and climate change.