Examining Interconnected and Mutually Reinforced Sexism & Environmental Degradation: The Women-State Connection

This week I read an argument from scholars Kari Norgaard and Richard York titled “Gender Quality and State Environmentalism.” Within the piece, the pair evidenced how “nations with higher proportions of women in Parliament are more prone to ratify environmental treaties” (506) with a cross-national data analysis that emphasized the correlation between “the percentage of Parliament composed of women and national support for a selection of key international environmental treaties” (506-507). Norgaard and York analyze gender roles through an ecofeminist lens that acknowledges the reciprocal reinforcement of sexism and environmental degradation. 

They clearly and accessibly lay out how “in an unequal society, the impacts of environmental degradation fall disproportionately on the least powerful. Gendered divisions of labor, land, and other resources have meant that women have been uniquely and disproportionately affected by ecological destruction” (507). Because of women’s isolated and unique perpetuated connection to nature and the environment, they are the ones who are most affected by its decay and most equipped to speak on and for it. 

Knorgaard and York draw from “a generation of feminist theorists [who have] argued that the state is both capitalist and patriarchal….[and how] gender is a category of social regulation in state policy” (507). Furthermore, “sexism and environmental degradation are interconnected processes…[in which] values, ideologies, institutions, and economic systems… shape human-environmental relationships [and] are themselves gendered…[it’s through] both gender discrimination and environmental degradation to a common hierarchical social structure…[that] both women and nature… [are] devalu[ed]” (508) in mutually reinforcing ways. 

 

We see this every day, with women’s bodies being the subject of legislature and beholden to the whim of (often male) policymakers. And the unfair treatment doesn’t end there; a gendered division of labor and gendered structure of power is more prevalent than ever (508). Payscale reports that the gender pay gap may be closing over time but at a glacial speed. Men are consistently paid more than women and given higher positions of power for fewer qualifications and work experience. 

Yet Knorgaard and York emphasize another gender gap—that of environmental concern, values, and perceptions of environmental risks. They write, “women are more likely than men to express support for environmental protection and that women consider a variety of environmental risks…to be more serious than do men” (508). And logically, it would follow that “if women tend to be more environmentally progressive, the inclusion of women as equal members of society—as voters, citizens, policy makers, and social movement participants—should positively influence state behavior” (508). Knorgaard and York evidence this argument by pointing to how women perceive hazards as riskier than men do, and they are less willing than men to impose risks on others (509), especially when examined in correlation to mens’ common underlying ideology—the “logic of domination” (509) which exemplifies how men justify domination and oppression of others through their entitled and privileged seats in the patriarchal hierarchy. 

Scholar Karen Bell confirms the gender gap correlation in her article “Bread and Roses: A Gender Perspective on Environmental Justice and Public Health.” She analyzes and evidences how “women tend to experience inequitable environmental burdens and are less likely than men to have control over environmental decisions…[She] argue[s] that these injustices occur because women generally have lower incomes than men and are perceived as having less social status than their male counterparts as a result of entwined and entrenched capitalist and patriarchal processes.” It’s the very same concept that Knorgaard and York wielded as substantiated evidence of their interconnected women and state thesis. It’s women’s unique, perpetuated connection to nature and their placement in a capitalistic patriarchal system that makes them uniquely receptive and wary of environmental degradation, enough so to make the necessary changes to prevent further oppression and domination. 

 

So if “women have more pro-environmental values, are more risk averse, and participate more frequently in environmental movements than do men” (Knorgaard 514), then it only makes sense that placing more women in positions of power will positively impact our relationships and effect on the environment. But first, it must be acknowledged that “sexism and environmental degradation are interconnected processes, stemming from common structural elements, and are mutually reinforcing” (Knorgaard 514). Lindsey Jean Shueman, a writer and producer for One Earth, agrees with Knorgaard and York’s assertion in her piece “Why Women Are Key To Solving The Climate Crisis.” She postulates that by also “acknowledging the benefits women bring to the table, we can start to close these gaps and acceleration action to solve the climate crisis.”

Schueman highlights 8 evidence-backed reasons why women as climate leaders would play a key role in alleviating the climate crisis and limiting global warming. 

1. Women are the most impacted by climate change. 
   • Just as Knorgaard, York, and Bell illustrate, the gendered roles under patriarchal hegemony are interconnected with the predominant logic of domination that oppresses both women and the environment in mutually reinforcing ways. As a result, women are at a unique disadvantage when it comes to the effects and stress of environmental degradation.
2. Women are better leaders in times of crisis.
   • Schueman evidences how “when empowered to actively participate in disaster planning and emergency response, women showcase a unique knowledge and skillset that allows communities to recover more quickly and more effectively.” She reports how “Research has also shown that women adopt innovative and preventative measures at a faster rate than men. In a review of 17 studies from around the world, the presence of women in conservation and natural resource management resulted in stricter and more sustainable extraction rules, greater compliance, more transparency and accountability, and better conflict resolution.”
3. Women are powerful organizers.
   • Schueman points to influential women like Rachel Carson, Jane Goodall, and Sylvia Earle to illustrate the transformative effects that women and women’s ecological ideas can have on preserving the environment. 
4. Women have the solutions.
   • “Studies show that worldwide, when women are uplifted, there are immense benefits to communities and societies overall. Sustainable and local economies grow, populations stabilize, and children’s health and education levels improve – all of which are foundations for a sustainable economy of the future” (Schueman).
5. Women turn knowledge into action.
   • Schueman highlights Vandana Shiva, Indian environmental activist who created one of the first community seed banks to preserve and further earth’s natural biodiversity and future. You can dive deeper into Shiva’s Eastern lens of ecofeminism in my earlier blog post, “Comparing Western & Eastern Ecofeminst Perspectives.”
6. Women are economic dynamos.
   • Schueman writes, “Increasing employment and leadership opportunities for women greatly benefit companies and the economy writ large. It is estimated that businesses with three or more women in senior management positions score higher on all dimensions of organizational performance. Female-founded companies in a major VC portfolio outperformed companies founded by men by 63%, delivering significantly higher revenue.” And then, she connects these statistics to the fact that “women in North America start 70% of new businesses and now control over half of the wealth. It is also estimated that women make 70-80% of all consumer purchases. This potential can be leveraged to transition more rapidly to a sustainable, clean energy economy.”
7. The world needs equality. 
8. The women are the visionaries.
   • For both of Schuemans points #7&8, it’s apparent from Knorgaard and York’s data that there is a direct correlation between women in Parliament and environmental treaties. Women need equal power and respect to be able to institute these positive environmental policies, and then we wouldn’t be in the dire straits we are now.

“Making up 51% of the Earth’s population, women and girls in every society are responding more effectively in times of crisis and actively working towards the creation of a more just and sustainable world” (Schueman).

Obviously, if we can eliminate the gender gap and afford equal opportunity to women. As a result, the sexist interconnectedness with environmental degradation will also alleviate. And with powerful, risk-averse, influential, intelligent, visionary, climate-conscious women at the helm, our ratification of environmental treaties will only increase, and thus our damaged relationship with the earth can begin to heal.

 

———————

 

Works Cited

Bell, Karen. “Bread and Roses: A Gender Perspective on Environmental Justice and Public Health.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 12 Oct. 2016, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5086744/.

Norgaard, Kari, and Richard York. “Gender equality and state environmentalism.” Gender & Society 19.4 (2005): 506-522.

Schueman, Lindsey Jean. “Why Women Are Key to Solving the Climate Crisis.” One Earth, One Earth, oneearth.org/why-women-are-key-to-solving-the-climate-crisis/.