Women in the Global South are affected by environmental issues that are very different than the issues affecting women in the Global North, especially in the ways these issues manifest. A large issue affecting women in the Global South is the issue of forest degradation and water depletion. Women are primarily the ones responsible for gathering firewood, water, and fodder for animals, so when forests are degraded and water sources are depleted or polluted, they must expend more time and energy traveling to areas with sufficient wood/water, collecting it, and traveling back home. Even then, they sometimes search for hours and are unable to collect what is needed, affecting their and their family’s ability to eat nutritious and safe cooked meals (Agarwal 138-140). The increased time and energy expended searching for firewood and water can also lead to nutritional deficiencies as the women are then unable to seat sufficient nutritious to make up the extra calories lost (Agarwal 140). Their ability to earn an income and attend school are also negatively impacted by the longer trips to collect water and firewood, as they now have to expend more time traveling for these resources (United Nations Women and Water). Water pollution due to pesticide or fertilizer also exposes women to harmful chemicals as they are often the ones getting water or using rivers and streams for cleaning purposes (Agarwal 140).
While there are some similarities between ecofeminism from a Western and non-Western perspective, there are also some key differences. Both perspectives see the oppression of women and the oppression of nature as linked, and both see themselves as opposing structures of government and society and not individual people. Both Western ecofeminist Laura Hobgood-Oster and non-Western ecofeminist Bina Agarwal recognize in their perspectives on ecofeminism that all forms of oppression are connected and must be examined together (Hobgood-Oster 1, Agarwal 123). One of the main differences I found in their perspectives, however, is Agarwal’s focus on actual, lived experience and intersectionality at a level other than ideological. She argues that it is necessary to not only look at the issue in terms of “ideology (such as through the work women and men do and the gender division of property and power),” but to also look at “the material realities in which women of different classes (/castes/races) are rooted” and how this may influence their “response to environmental degradation” (Agarwal 123). Basically, Agarwal is arguing that we need to look at the whole picture and what other factors are causing a division of labor or specific issues. She argues that women in Third World countries are not inherently more connected with nature than men, as some in the West argue, but rather that their economic status connects them with nature as they need to actually use the resources and gain knowledge of nature for survival (Agarwal 149). Hobgood-Oster points out that ecofeminism has been criticized as “essentialist” as the ideology of the women-nature link seems to suggest all women share the same traits across class, culture, etc (Hobgood-Oster 12-13). Agarwal argues that we need to recognize that women do not have the same lived realities, needs, and issues even within the same country or culture and that we cannot generalize and instead must focus on individual women and communities and their needs (Agarwal 150). For this reason, I find the non-Western perspective of Agarwal more interesting and appealing. It seems more solid and real. The women/nature link is not a theoretical thing, nor is it something that applies universally to all women for the sheer reason that they are a woman. It focuses more on lived experiences, intersectionality, and emphasizes the differences between different cultures, communities, and groups, focusing on their lived experience and the factors that influence why they are more connected with nature than their male counterparts. I like that this perspective recognizes differences.
Sources:
Agarwal, B. (1992). The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies, 18(1), 119–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178217
Hobgood-Oster, Laura. “Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution.” UMassD WGS 307 Blackboard: What Is Ecofeminism? Learning Module. https://umassd.umassonline.net/ultra/courses/_36339_1/cl/outline
Water and Gender. United Nations: UN Water. Retrieved February 11, 2025. Water and Gender | UN-Water
Hi Elizabeth,
Thank you for sharing.
I agree that Agarwal’s non-Western perspective appears better rooted in reality because it recognizes complexity. Highlighting Shiva’s beliefs, “in the reductionist worldview…properties of a resource system…that stabilize ecological processes, but are commercially non-exploitable, are ignored and eventually destroyed” (Agarwal 144). Applicable to both humanity and the natural environment, devaluing individuality brings a loss of (bio)diversity which harms everyone. According to Hobgood-Oster, “Ecofeminism’s constructive worldview…[is] modeled on both biodiversity and the feminist emphasis on the strength of difference” (3). With women/humanity/feminism, in particular, neglecting diverse perspectives prevents us from achieving equality and justice, as oppressions (and solutions) require listening to first-hand experiences and challenging various systems of inequality. Consider, Hobgood-Oster begins, “Classism, racism, sexism… are all intertwined” (2). Later, however, she writes “African-American ecofeminists…identify with racism as the first and most dominant oppression in their experience” rather than sexism (Hobgood-Oster 11). I do not deny that both statements hold some truth, however, systems of oppression are so hard to overcome because they develop in different ways. And they are not equal in how they harm individuals. As it pertains to environmental justice and respect, we must not assume (as Western perspectives do) nature only exists for our use, as the complex interactions between organisms in an ecosystem ensure stability which supports all life (Agarwal 148). Nor can we rely on a “one-size-fits-all” solution. If diversity and acceptance (in nature and humanity) improve happiness and harmony, we should value nature/people not for what they can provide the whole, but for being innately unique. Further, we should support all women/people facing oppression, and this starts by listening to their truths, acknowledging the changes we need to make.
Piper
Works Cited
Agarwal, Bina. “The Gender and Environment Debate.” Feminist Studies. Spring 1992. Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3178217. Accessed 13 February 2025.
Hobgood-Oster, Laura. “Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution.” The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature edited by Bron Taylor; Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas; University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). 2006, 2010. Web. systemicalternatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ecofeminism.pdf. Accessed 13 February 2025.
The article effectively addresses the unique challenges that women in the Global South encounter, particularly regarding environmental issues such as forest degradation and water depletion. It highlights how these challenges have practical implications on women’s everyday lives, impacting their time, energy, and socio-economic opportunities due to resource scarcity. The paper thoughtfully contrasts Western and non-Western ecofeminist perspectives by highlighting Bina Agarwal’s focus on lived experience and intersectionality. By focusing on the tangible realities faced by women within different socio-economic and cultural contexts, it deepens the discussion beyond theoretical ideas to tackle real-world consequences.
This is a great response to this week’s material! One question that came up for me during the readings: Do you think that we consider women closer to nature due to their biology? That was certainly the first thing I thought of when asked to connect women and nature last week, but to Agarwal’s point, there is so much more nuance than that. The simple example of women being the primary water-fetchers, and the danger that entails, is so powerful. When I need water I get it from a faucet. The idea of my family expecting *me*, a woman, to walk several miles to a water source every day is staggering. This really calls attention to the fact that “women” can’t be generalized as one unified entity because, globally, there are huge differences in employment, education, agency, and infrastructure. This week showed me that intersectional feminist perspective is of utmost importance.