It is easy to take the environment for granted when you are not forced to suffer the consequences. Women in Third World countries are forced to endure unsanitary water, sanitation facilities and improper hygienic resources. Since women do not have proper bathrooms, they are forced to use outdoor toilets. It is found that “…women and girls are more vulnerable to abuse and attack while walking to and using a toilet or open defecation site (Unwater 3).” A certain quality of life should be upheld for residents no matter what country they live in. The women in these locations are usually the one’s given the responsibility of scavenging for supplies. It is a lot of work but “…women and girls usually bear the responsibility for collecting water, which is often time-consuming and arduous (3). Since the people in these locations have close connections to the land, it is clear why the degradation of the environment around them is affecting them on such a great level. There are certain hygienic needs which women have that are not being met because of the lack of concern for the female mass. Women are in charge of certain aspects of life such as water, health and hygiene, and not giving the option of getting a job and/or education. There are feminists like Vandana Shiva who are fighting for the rights of women, as well as, environmental rights for the people. She brings up the issue that “…the biological wealth of poorer countries was too often appropriated by global corporations that neither sought their hosts’ consent nor shared the profits. These innocent people are being used by corporations for their land, as well as, for their profit from their resources. The lack of concern for the people and their land is why ecofeminist are fighting for these rights today.
Ecofeminist may have the same general cause, but these feminist do not always share the same perspective. Bina Agarwal argues some of the issues she has with some ecofeminist views when comparing Western perspectives to Non-Western perspectives. She discusses the way in which ecofeminist don’t use intersectionality when they are discussing the oppressive nature towards women. Agarwal argues how “…it posits woman as a unitary category and fails to differentiate among women by class, race, ethnicity, and so on (Agarwal 122).” You can’t expect equality for all if the different oppressive intersections aren’t being discussed as well. Agarwal also had an issue with the way is which some ecofeminist viewed the relationship between women and nature. She states, “…it locates the domination of women and of nature almost solely in ideology, neglecting the (interrelated) material sources of this dominance (based on economic advantage and political power (122).” She argues this perspective because she believes that the relationship between women and nature should be viewed on a more materialistic way. A similarity which she found between the two feminist types is their form of environmental fight. She brings up how “women in the west, for instance, have responded in specific ways to the threat of environmental destruction, sch as by organizing the Greenham Common resistance to nuclear missiles in England and by participating in the Green movement…A variety of action have similarly been taken by women in the Third World (123).” Although their views may not line up perfectly, their fight doesn’t seem to be very different. Each side is willing to take the necessary steps to gain equality. Although this is true, I find Bina Agarwal’s perspective more appealing because of her concern for the different categories such as race and class. I agree with her idea that you can’t just focus on gender when trying to obtain true equality, you must also acknowledge the other intersections which are also enduring oppression.
Some many people take our environment for granted without even realizing the damage they are doing. For example littering is a huge problem but most people do it without thinking of the consequences, without feeling sympathy that what you are doing is causing damage to our environment. I believe that this is a huge problem that needs to be addressed, we need to think more about the consequences of our actions. I believe many people in the western world like America we often take for granted our water supply to keep us hydrated as well as to wash ourselves. This is something that women living in third world countries do not have, they take better care of their environment because they rely so heavily on resources that come from nature. Since they rely so much on the environment to provide for themselves and their families the condition of the environment is a huge burden on women in third world countries. It is hard to come to terms that some damage from us in the western world is making it harder for others to live a healthy life. It is also very unfortunate that the time it is taking for these women to get the supplies they need for their families is eating up at the time they have to work and make money. There definitely seems to be as you say a lack of concern for women living in these third world countries. You make a really valid point when you bring up intersectionality. If we want equality for both women and nature it is important that we confront all forms of oppression. It seems that some perspectives of ecofeminism are leaving out certain things such as race and class. The women in the western and non western perspectives may have different ways to fight for equality but they both have the same goals. They want women and nature to be treated equally as men and to no longer be dominated by patriarchy.
I agree with your conclusion statement that the focus needs to be on equality in not just gender, but in race and class as well. I feel as this class states of course also nature needs to be recognized and respected too. I feel truly that though the inequalities are divided into races, genders, and other divisions, that the true issue lies in class. there will always be somebody richer than you, and that is ok. the poorest peoples however should never be so poor that they cannot live. America and many “developed” nations have come to be very reliant on simply doing a single job and being able to obtain their needs with currency. While in developing nations they are still more tied to the land and although the people may not be “rich” they are usually more self sufficient and able to live off the land. Whereas just merely losing electricity in america cause a lot of uproar, other nations do not even have electricity to start. Essentially, I feel you are right in that we need to think for all peoples, but I feel the way to do it, is by investing in our children. If children are given the tools needed to be successful, some will still fail and some will still exceed expectations. Though the ones in the middle are the ones that will gain the most. And even the ones that still fail can still contribute and com out knowing that respect and responsibility is what is most important in this world.