Ecofeminism isn’t a theory that neatly fits into a single category. Instead, it is a theory that’s always in flux, dependent on timely connections that range from environmental to political to social. Hobgood-Oster masterfully wrangles this wide-ranging theory in her piece “Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution.” Hobgood-Oster writes,
“Ecofeminism asserts that all forms of oppression are connected and that structures of oppression must be addressed in their totality. Oppression of the natural world and of women my patriarchal power structures must be examined together or neither can be confronted fully.”
This isn’t only relegated to women and patriarchal oppression but also to all intersectional oppression, gender essentialism, forced hierarchies, and other forms of domination. At its most basic components, Ecofeminism conveys that the damaging Western view of instrumentalism (that the natural world and the earth itself are for human use) seeps into the very foundations of our society.
Once we justify that the planet we live on’s sole purpose is for our use, we can justify similar exploitation of the people and animals around us—especially those deemed “less than.” In our inherently patriarchal society, everyone and everything that isn’t a cisgender, heterosexual white male is seen as a pawn to be dominated by that institutionalized hierarchical binary system.
Women, men, people, animals, plants, Earth—we are all living and natural beings and, consequently, are all forced into this perpetuated hierarchical scheme. Basically, you’re either on the top of this food chain or you’re not.
. . .
I came across this editorial campaign by photographer and artist SH Sadler that captured women slathered in beauty products and packaged up like animal meat at the grocery store. The project is called Fresh Meat, and its message correlates with ecofeminist values.
Ecofeminism encapsulates animal rights activism within its message. Hobgood-Oster points to Carol. J. Adams’ ecofeminist study, The Sexual Politics of Meat, she paraphrases, “Adams has made explicit links between androcentric, patriarchal treatment of other-than-human animals, particularly focusing on the meat producing industries of the United States, and the exploitation of women.”
This is exactly what SH Sadler is conveying with her Fresh Meat series. Women are so often regarded as pieces of meat for men to feast on when they want, where they want, and however they want, regardless of consent. The same goes for animals’ bodies and how we cage them and use them for profit and consumption.
The women depicted in these images are labeled with a price tag. Their bodies are for sale.
There are undeniable correlations between patriarchal, or as Val Plumwood puts it in her writing, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, master-slave dynamics, and our global inclination toward domination and oppression. Just as slaves were dehumanized and sold to other humans at auction, the women in these images are painted to the highest standard of beauty and sold for consumption; whether that be consumption by the eye or mouth is up for you to decide. Animals are raised and slaughtered for that same consumption and profit. Pieces of land are bought and sold all across the globe for human monetary gain. How are we selling things that don’t belong to us?
. . .
This isn’t the only work from SH Sadler with an Ecofeminist theme. You can check out more of their work here.
. . .
Ecofeminism’s goal is to dismantle hierarchical thinking and eliminate relationships of domination across all environmental, ecological, natural, societal, political, and racial realms. Through transforming our relationships with each other, the world around us, and the other-than-human beings that inhabit the Earth alongside us, we can cease environmental degradation.
Ecofeminism “simultaneously [serves] as an environmental critique of feminism and a feminist critique of environmentalism” (Hobgood-Oster). So, just as a shifting of perspective and values surrounding our environment will affect the way that we treat not just women but all members of our society and the animals that we share the earth with, it goes both ways—vice versa.
What do you think about SH Sadler’s work? How does it make you feel? I’d love to hear your take in the comments below!
. . .
Works Cited
Hobgood-Oster, Laura. “Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution.” Systemic Alternatives, 18 Jan. 2016, systemicalternatives.org/2016/01/18/ecofeminism-historic-and-international-evolution/.
Plumwood, Val. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Routledge, 2015.
Looking forward to reading this first ecofeminism post!
Jasmine,
What a powerful message your blog post sends in correlation to the objective of ecofeminist theory. Your explanation of ecofeminism provided a great explanation in how environmentalism and feminism seek to connect in diminishing oppression in all systems of stratification. It struck me as important that Hobgood-Oster discusses how androcentric domination is not only a historical issue, but one that has followed us through decades and continues to plague modern society. Your inclusion of SH Sadler’s art made me think of the movement to make veganism more mainstream, especially as we can see in popular culture. Personally, I do not think there is a day where I open Instagram or an online magazine site and don’t see some version of the positives with plant-based foods; however, much of this is surrounded around the notion of diet culture rather than understanding the oppression of killing animals for food and the environmental and social harms that come from industrialized factory farming. After looking through all the artwork included in your post, I couldn’t help but feel disturbed seeing the faces of women, beautified, and packaged up for purchase as if the body is justified in being exploited and commodified. And then it made me think, what justifies humans to do the same to non-human animals? Opposition might say that humans have been hunting and gathering for years, it is built in our ancestral genome to eat animals, but this is where domination of nature has crossed paths with the subordination of women. This reminded me of a piece I read in my feminist research methods class by Maria Mies in which she calls for a subsistence perspective that “…fosters common responsibility for these gifts of nature and demands their preservations and regeneration” (1993). As you detailed how patriarchal practices dehumanized and commodified humans through slavery, while capitalism commodifies animals through farming and consumption, it drew a connection for me between Mies, Hobgood-Oster, and Sadler, in which both the oppression of women and nature must be acknowledged at the hands of androcentric society in that male domination controls not only the resources of the land but the experiences of women. It’s also important to note that there is no one ecofeminist theory as Hobgood-Oster states ecofeminism can take, “Cultural and radical forms tend to idealize the feminine (therefore being labeled as essentialist more often) whereas activist (and theoretical) ecofeminists usually see their position as an analysis of a particular historical and cultural phenomenon…there are also those who consider themselves spiritual ecofeminists…” (2005). Thus, including the art from Sadler in your blog allows the reader to analyze from a distinct ecofeminist perspective and I believe activism through art is a powerful way to create a message.
It was a pleasure reading your post!
The citation information for the piece referenced by Maria Mies is included if you were interested in reading more about her work:
Shiva, Vandana, and Maria Mies. “The Need for a New Vision: the Subsistence Perspective.” Ecofeminism, Zed Books, New York, NY, 2014, pp. 297–308.
Best,
Kylie C.
Hi Kylie!
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. I agree with your statement that we are inundated with the positive effects of a plant-based diet, yet they’re almost always diet-related.
I think this reflects our instrumentalist society and how the only way to catch the attention of our people is to show them what they stand to gain from something—what they will get out of it. We are encouraged to be very self-centered, and it reflects in this notion that there are more environmental and humane reasons than beauty/wellness/self-centered reasons to change our diet and farming procedures, but they’re often overlooked and under-reported.
This sentiment truly reaches the meat of Ecofeminist thought (no-pun-intended). I read a book called Tender is the Flesh by Agustina Bazterrica, and it centers on a dystopian future where animals can no longer be farmed for meat, so society turns toward human consumption. Bazterrica directly ties this theme into the oppression and commodity of women. I didn’t know it then, but it is absolutely an Ecofeminist piece and speaks to our shared point.
If you have the stomach for it, I highly recommend the read! It isn’t an easy one to get through, but it’s absolutely essential to put the trajectory of our anti-ecofeminist society into perspective.
Hi Jasmine!
WOW! You did a really great job at connecting the theory of Ecofeminism with all of the visuals attached and with Hobgood-Osters piece. I don’t think that I have ever seen art like this before. I can appreciate how the visuals equate to how a lot of men see women in today’s society. Especially with the loud makeup that they are wearing. It’s important that we keep in mind that women are still looked at, as being equal to animals and not on a shelf higher. This art is symbolic to that fact.
When I think more deeply about the bigger picture of what this art represents, I think about the fact that their are so many dating apps out there like Tinder where women and men are able to shape and sculpt themselves to present as a more porcelain version of who they actually desire to be, to get more attention. I also think that the level of expectation that we have put on women to look a certain way, act a certain way, or dress a certain way has gotten out of control. There are too many filters on our phones right now, and too many apps that allow for body and face enhancement, that it’s hard to tell what’s real and what’s fake! The women in the art are obviously photoshopped, so that there skin and makeup look flawless, and perfect! It’s this expectation that women have to do the work so that they will be more desired, and be respected by men. As a result, we are seeing less dating, more discontent, more men who are feeling secluded, and an overall up tick in unhappiness.
What I like about Ecofeminism and Hobgood-Osters piece, is that both women and animals are seen as elements that need to be paid attention to more closely and taken care of more deeply than society is giving. If we care about Ecofeminism, then we will find a way to dismantle the filters, and the cruelty on ourselves, and animals. We will find a way to eliminate the testing and abuse on the animals that help us sell the products that help us achieve the best version of ourself, so that we are filter ready. Ecofeminism needs to be about the backwards peddling of what we have created, and to start over with more acceptance for what we already have as our beauty!
I will leave this blog commentary with this You Tube Video that I find very relevant to this week and this class!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLGCGc7sAUw