Month: February 2023

The image above in my opinion is a good representation of the ambiguity and carelessness that surrounds the meat industry in the US. Both the facelessness of the person and the ambiguity of the meat to me represents the carelessness in how we ingest meat, without knowing or understanding the treatment of the animal. As well as noting how widespread this willful ignorance is in regards to the food that we eat in the US. I feel like the image could also be interpreted differently, noting how the human figure and the meat are an equal size denoting an equality that isn’t being respected. One image is not larger than the other symbolizing an equality that is not being upheld.

Gendering food is a large phenomenon in our culture. We commonly associate men with meat and women with salads directly correlating men with strength or vitality and women with the earth. Another gendered food is alcohol, men are socially allowed to drink casually or even to excess without a second thought. Women on the other hand, are judged and even blamed when they have alcohol in their system. We shake off the men who make rude comments or are disruptive while drinking but women are not afforded the same courtesy. How many times have you seen a drunk bachelorette party or sorority girls at the bar and complained about how annoying they were or how disruptive they were? Not even taking into account the amount of women who are victimized while drunk and then later blamed due to their intoxication or “bad choices”. Another gendered food is dessert or sweets. Women being classified as feminine and soft are more often associated with dessert products. Think about it a man can call his wife “sweetie pie” or “honey bun” but culturally that language of affection changes we see women reply and call their husbands names like “teddy bear” that still denote affection yet have a more masculine background. We see in the article “Meat Heads: New Study Focuses on How Meat Consumption Alters Men’s Self-Perceived Levels of Masculinity” by Zoe Eisenberg how this social construct is damaging to mental and self image as well as physically unhealthy for the body. Not only is the meat industry uncouth and unsettling in its practices but it is damaging the health of the general population to make the easy and cheap decisions. One thing not mentioned in this article is the easy accessibility to meat by most of the population through fast food chains and other businesses. We live in a culture where food is expensive and the foods needed to supplement vitamins like iron are typically more expensive than buying the meat itself. When money is tight it is hard to compare the convenience of a dollar menu burger with the alternatives.

When looking at the writings of Gaard and Curtin we see a call to action and an urge for balance in the way we treat animals. Curtin speaks to the oppression of animals and how some are tortured and then slaughtered for food while others like dogs and cats are held as pets. Curtin points out how in both scenarios we are depriving animals of their own freedoms and using them for our own needs whether they be for affection or food. Gaard breaks down the ethics of killing animals for food and brings up how contextually there are reasons to kill an animal. Gaard points out that if it is a matter of life or starvation to feed you and your family, it is understandable to use animals for necessary sustenance. The problem is that in this society there is little need to go out and butcher an animal when there are a plethora of options to choose from. The issue I find with this idea is again accessibility. I have personally gone through points in my life where I only had a few dollars to feed myself and I knew I was much better off at a dollar menu than in a market trying to find alternative meat options. Not only are the alternative meat options expensive but they really aren’t conducive to most of the budgets near or below the poverty line. Food deserts are a problem as well in this country that ought to be a part of this conversation. An article from Verywellhealth.com points out how widespread this issue is saying that “According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, food deserts are a serious environmental health issue. More than 13.5 million people in the United States live in one.” Where some residential areas have farmers markets and community gardens, other and more impoverished areas have corner stores and gas stations where they purchase food and other necessities. While the relationship between humans and animals is oppressive and there are huge changes that need to happen within these industries it is important to recognize how these industries were systematically put in place to take advantage of the lower income communities and have been left as many peoples only option.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-are-food-deserts-4165971

1. The use of natural resources is not always allocated in the way that communities need to allocate their resources. Agarwal speaks on the environmental degradation in India saying how “Degradation in India’s natural resource base is manifest in disappearing forests, deteriorating soil conditions, and depleting water resources” (Agarwal 130). Just taking the lack of water resources into account we understand from the reading Water and Gender how women in particular have physiological needs that have to be met and water is key in keeping women clean and healthy. According to UNwater.org,“A clean, functional, lockable, gender-segregated space is needed, with access to sanitary products and disposal systems, for women and girls to manage menstrual hygiene and pregnancy” (“Water and Gender”). Not only as a matter of physical safety but physical health is also a huge part of the issue when looking at depleting water sources. While men are also affected by the issue there are specifically feminine gendered issues that intensify the issue. 

 

2. The western perspective of ecofeminism is summed up nicely by Hobgood-Oster in last week’s reading noting how “Ecofeminism suggests that the antagonism sometimes existing between religious and scientific worldviews has been detrimental, used by both approaches to advance their own hierarchical structures. The reductionist models of both Western theologies and many Western scientific ideologies project a material world that is not sacred, but mechanistic”(Hobgood-Oster 7). Western ecofeminists focus on the degradation of the environment in relation to women and how gendered issues are affected.  The western world materializes or itemizes the resources that sustain their communities, making the natural resources quantifiable. Agarwal uses Shiva’s ideas of ecofeminism to depict an example of a non-western view of ecofeminism. “At the same time, Shiva notes that violence against women and against nature are linked not just ideologically but also materially” going on to explain how “Third World women are dependent on nature ‘for drawing sustenance for themselves, their families, their societies.’ The destruction of nature thus becomes the destruction of women’s sources for ‘staying’” (Agarwal 124). A commonality between western and non western ecofeminism is the critique of not noting intersectionality and grouping all women together as having the same experience. A universal feature of our world is class and Agarwal points out how “Although [Shiva] distinguishes Third World women from the rest, like the ecofeminists she does not differentiate between women of different classes, castes, races, ecological zones, and so on” (Agarwal 125).

 

3. I find the perspectives discussed by Shiva and Agarwal to be the most interesting. Looking at the cause and effect of colonialism and western homogenization on the ecosystems and how in turn that affects culture and women in particular. The part that really caught my interest and got my thinking cap on was: “Shiva attributes existing forms of destruction of nature and the oppression of women (in both symbolic and real terms) principally to the Third World’s history of colonialism and to the imposition of Western science and a Western model of development” (Agarwal 125).

 

Works Cited

-Agarwal. “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India.” Feminist Studies, vol. 18, no. 1, 1992, pp. 119-158. JSTOR.

-Hobgood-Oster. “Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution.” 2002, pp. 1-18.

-“Water and Gender.” UN-Water, https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/water-and-gender. Accessed 12 February 2023.

 

According to the Hopgood-Oster reading “Ecofeminism asserts that all forms of oppression are connected and that structures of oppression must be addressed in their totality” (Hopgood-Oster 2). Meaning that Ecofeminism is a critique on the structures and paradigms of our culture not a commentary on individual actions. Women and nature have been intertwined in art and literature since the beginning. We generally picture our earth in a feminine respect as “mother earth” and this has to do with nurturing. Women as child bearers are inherently considered to be caregivers. This is paralleled in how our earth provides the tools we need to survive. Just as a mother feeds and nurtures her child the earth nurtures humanity. The paleolithic period is noted for the abundance of fertility statues with female renderings comparing women with creation and this is paralleled in our current society and culture in movies like Moana with the character Te Fiti. One interesting article I found looking further at the connections between females and divinity in ancient art is going to be linked here: https://www.thecollector.com/divine-feminine-ancient-art/. 

I felt it would be interesting to look at this association between women and the role of caretaker and the imagery that goes along with that. Women are seen as caretakers due to the fact that they deliver and feed their children as the earth does, making the connection between femininity and caretaking almost synonymous. But how does this apply in a non binary and gender non conforming culture? More and more these days we see families making the decisions that make the best sense for their families over conforming to the typical gender roles. For example, if a woman happened to have a career that makes more money than her male counterpart it could potentially make more sense for that family to have the father stay home with the kids instead, taking up that role that is traditionally reserved for women. In this society, there is flexibility and resources that allow us to have children and still maintain our individuality. Same sex parents as well do not fit with the traditional methodology when it comes to child rearing and caretaking responsibilities. I think as our society and culture becomes more homogenized and less binary we will have less of these binary comparisons, while different bodies have different physical abilities it does not mean that having the ability to create life  and the ability to care for life are inherent. We see women depicted in movies like Moana as the literal representation of the earth due to the creation and caretaking abilities associated with femininity. I hope that as our culture breaks down these binary ideas we can see more representation of men and non-binary genders in caretaking roles to represent a better and more whole image of caretaking.