Month: March 2020

INTERSECTIONALITY

Intersectionality broken down is basically that we do not belong to simply just one social identity, we belong to multiple social identities therefore the term intersectionality. While going over the readings explaining intersectionality I instantly was brought back to the readings about women and nature. While learning about women and nature I was surprised to know how there is a large amount of relations and reference between women and nature. How food is sexualized as a woman’s body or how the Earth is fertile and that there is such a thing as “mother” nature. However, like intersectionality not all women agree or associate themselves with these particular terms or social relations between women and nature. However, I do believe that like women and nature and intersectionality there is a connect and disconnect with both of those. 

 

Even if we choose to not identify ourselves or associate ourselves with anything, or any social identity you still somehow end up in a group that “does not identify”. My point here is, you’re always pushed into one section or another. Although you might not be related to the identity or section that is associated with the one you are “in” you end up being related to it just by being there. I do believe this happens due to social stigmas and the small and tight “mold” generations way before us have created and passed down to some who still believe in them today. 

 

Going into ecology there are so many ways to be considered something, but not exactly belong, which can happen with anything in this world, there really isn’t just something as you are or you aren’t. For example cats, a tiger, jaguar, lion are all considered to be a part of the cat family. However, they are not addressed as cats, they are addressed for what they are specifically. Even domesticated (house pets/cats) are all classified as cats, but they are all different and somehow related, intersectionality.

 

More people should be aware of intersectionality, I believe it is important to know that just because we belong to a mix of social identities does not mean we are more one or the other. Personally, being a multiracial person for many years and even still today depending on who I am speaking to I am either too “white” to be considered “black” or too “black” to be considered “white”. Of course my nationality is much more specific than just black and white, but for some reason people find it difficult allowing someone who is to be a part of both sides, just based off of their own social stigmas and molds. I do believe that intersectionality results in the “whole” of something or someone, even if they have the slightest bit or a relation to that social identity, you still have rights to be a part of all that makes you, you.

Annotations

Intersectionality inroduction

Intersectionality readings 1&2

Ecofeminist principles

Reading the Gender Equality and state environmentalism article, the discussion of women being more willing and likely to express their support for environmental concerns really perked up my ear. Overall women tend to be more open to discussion about things that matter to them than men are, especially when emotional expression is involved. However, this would make sense as to why most men I have encountered don’t really portray a care or concern for the environment and have a tendency to look down on those who do. “This second category of explanation ties both gender discrimination and environmental degradation to a common hierarchical social structure that simultaneously devalues both women and nature.” The more that I learn, the more I realize how closely women and nature are intertwined into something that seems to be as one. Just like coming across a man who values and cares for the environment, and who is vocal about it. It is just as rare to find a man who values and cares for a woman and/or women and is vocal about it. Society has a tendency to hold men very accountable for their emotions and words rather than their actions. I believe this mold to fit that society has plays a large role in the reason men have been taught or have observed to behave in this manner, the idea that they would not be accepted other wise.

 

Where I am from, Fall River, Massachusetts I don’t ever really hear anyone (mostly if not all) males held in a political position bring up the concern for environmental wellness. It mostly is all about capitalization, and the overall value (financial wise) of the city. Although I do not keep up with politics much, I do notice the standpoint of my environment around me and the mass amounts of liter and garbage spread throughout the streets and greenery of the city. Because of the status and cleanliness of the city I know that there is not a person nor man in a political position that is concerned about the environment. We do not have street cleaners or anyone who is responsible for cleaning up the streets. However, I do believe that their would be a higher chance of having clean, liter/garbage free streets if a woman were in a political position.

I came across and article of a female lawyer in Indonesia proposing abolition of single use plastics, something that is easy to come by various times a day almost anywhere. This is something that would have a huge impact in any region that would consider this change, but these changes take time and a lot of effort. Unlike the quick and easy, lets throw up a building and profit off of it in a months time. I believe that there needs to be patience in politics and a greater focus on what is going to last a lifetime, not something that will make a difference for the time being or while that person is in office.

I discovered another article on Women Deliver on the participation of women in politics and the percentages of how many there are currently and also the benefits of having women in politics. One of the benefits are “more attention to social issues” I do feel like the well being of the environment is a social issue! I am sure we all would enjoy and benefit from having someone in a political position to be able to listen to and create a solution for issues that affect the community and everyone in it! I do wish, for lack of a better word that women were more trusted in political positions and given the chance to see the difference that would make. I am not saying that all men in politics are non-environmentalists, perhaps they are, it just isn’t priority.

I believe these websites and articles that I have chose link to the gender equality and environmentalism reading, because in a short and easy way to understand the impact of women in politics and the broad range of possibilities can easily be considered.

 

Annotations

https://pages.uoregon.edu/norgaard/pdf/Gender-Equality-Norgaard-York-2005.pdf

Women, Politics and the Environment

An example of how women in power can make a small change, that will last a lifetime.

Strengthen Women’s Political Participation and Decision-Making Power

The benefits and concerns likely to be addressed by women in  a political position.

 

In Hawkings reading on reproductive choice “The Ecological Dimension” Ronnie Zoe Hwkins she discusses the matter of population and its affects on the environment and the concumption of nature due to over population and how abortion is an aspect of that in some places around the globe. I do believe that we eventually will be overpopulated if we aren’t already, I have heard of instances in some countries where they limit the amount of children to be born per family/household, and if you have twins to make you exceed that amount then you must give one of them up for adoption.

 

As far as population and nature consumptions is concerned Hawkins mentioned the reduction of nature consumption by decreasing the number of us that consume. I support that statement, but not under the circumstances of abortion. I do believe as humans many of us have a tendency to overuse and waste just about anything. In terms of being mindful of the overuse and over consumption of nature people need to care before they are taught how to reduce their waste and consumption. Otherwise, we would be teaching and giving information to those who do not have the urge to make that difference so all of us can have the free will and freedom to birth as many children as we please. I do not believe in abortion as a way to control population or to regulate population. 

 

I support Hawkin’s “idea” of reducing nature consumption, but not in that manner. As far as the pro-life act is concerned we as women have always been told what to do with our bodies for what seems like forever, to take into consideration “on set movement, conciousness, ability to feel pain, and viability (Internet Encyclopedia of philosphy)” is something I agree with. Abortion is a very touchy subject, I do believe a woman should be able to do as she pleases with their body, but I also strongly believe that as women and adults we should hold the responsibility to use contracetption and be mindful of decisions when putting ourselevs in situations susceptible to pregnancy. However, I do believe that there should be a limit on the number of abortions a woman can have under certain circumstances, many woman abuse this option and have unprotected intercourse with numerous men and get pregnant time and time again and constantly get into the office for an abortion. It is difficult to decide or agree upon one way or another, there are so many ifs involved, what is ethical and what is not. In turn, I support Hawkin’s idea to manage over consumption of nature, but I do not support abortion as an option in order to improve the consumption circumstances or overpopulaion.

 

Annotations

Reproductive choices: The ecological dimension Ronnie Zoe Hawkins, the idea of over population having an effect on nature consumption and the fear of nature not being able to compensate for the over production of lives, possibly using abortion to gain control

Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy:Abortion, definition and circumstances of abortion.

We learn that the objectification of women and animals is marketed largely in a way that is appealing to anyone who finds women or animals/food in relation to women entertaining. After the past few readings in this course and learning how much america, media, food and pretty much anything can be related or symbolize as a woman and vise versa, the more i start to notice it. The sexualization of women and animals is just a bit weird to me, we all have heard the phrase “I’m not a piece of meat” but I have seen many advertisements that had sexual suggestives, but for some reason I never really connected the two unless it was very obvious, I am more aware now.

 

In the bundle of photos I chose to analyze the following three, a picture of a pig wearing leg stockings with its rear exposed standing upright, wearing makeup, a skirt, heels, and holding a glass of wine… clearly resembling a woman. In this photo the pig is feminized, but I don’t know exactly what the ad is for, all I know is it may intrigue men more than women, I know that I for one do not want to be referred to or related to a pig.

 

The second photo was a baked chicken, with bikini tan lines.. Men usually don’t wear bikinis so again in reference to a woman. Chicken is interesting if you think about the parts being labeled “breast, thighs, legs” MOST other meats aren’t labeled this way. Why is it chicken breast, and not chest? Why do they have thighs, why can’t it just be legs? The more I read into things that we have come so accustomed to the more my brow is raised? How did this all start?

 

The third photo was a pork rib advertisement, with a man in the middle with a rack of ribs on the table in front of him and two large breasted women on each side of him, with the title “we’ve got the best racks”. An obvious play on words, but the simple image of a man with a rack of ribs in front of him wouldn’t have been enough. How easily to intrigue a man than a nice rack of ribs and two women with a “nice rack” I’ve always wondered why people refer to women’s breasts as “racks” and how it all began.

 

In the Antennae reading it wrote “Colonizers evaluated other humans according to their relationship with the other animals. Europeans assumed that those who controlled animals were more advanced than those who tilled the field” which I believe was a view transferred onto woman and their relationship with men. Men were and are still likely to be viewed as the one who is in control, the one who knows more (controlled animals) who also in most places control their wives. Women are likely to be viewed as those who tilled the field. They take care of the foundation in order for the man to do as they please with whatever is taken care of for them. How is it that men got to remain as humans and women fell with the animals? My best guess would be that when men were providing food and doing dangerous things they were sought out to be the caretakers, but they cannot survive without the food they bring home or their women who ensure the food is there to keep them alive. I believe this all boils down to sustainability, who and what are you sustained by.

 

Antennae 2010