Brazilian theologist Ivone Gebara makes a clear connection between the oppression of women and nature in her article titled Ecofeminism: A Latin American Perspective. “Our Latin Christian tradition stressed deeply not only the dependence of women on men but also the anthropological superiority of human beings.” (p. 93) Gebara declares without equivocation that the Christian faith in Brazil teaches women to rely on men (reinforcing patriarchy and it’s accompanying harms) and teaches humans to dominate nature (leading to the destruction of the environment for the benefit of humans).
In Speak Truth to Power, Wangari Maathai helps readers further understand the connection between the oppression of women and nature. The book’s editor Kerry Kennedy informs us that 70 percent of farmers in Kenya are women, and Maathai provides anecdotes from her activism. Maathai recalls forums at which women spoke about their needs: “The women feel their families are now very weak and cannot resist diseases, that their bodies are impoverished because of an environment that is degraded.”
In this example we can see the distinct impact of environmental degradation, which ecofeminists may call the oppression of nature, on the women of Kenya. In the Global South, women are the primary caregivers in terms of food and drinking water. It is not a hypothesis to declare that the oppression of nature reinforces the oppression of women in much of the world.
When we look past the distractions of lost material resources and cultural traditions, we discover that marginalized communities, and especially women in those communities, live with a sense of disempowerment. Whether present in the minds of these people while they scrape to survive is beside the point. The fact that they have to work all their waking hours to simply not starve is proof enough that they do not have the option to pursue more comfortable means of living. We don’t need for them to explain that they are stuck in order to recognize it in their circumstances.
Maathai reminds us, however, that when practical solutions are offered, women and other marginalized groups can take positive steps toward the control of certain outcomes. When her organization, The Green Belt Movement, provided seedlings and incentives to rural Kenyan women, the outcome was remarkable. “Tree-planting empowered these women because it was not a complicated thing. It was something that they could do and see the results of. They could, by their own actions, improve the quality of their lives.”
Kennedy informs readers that by 2000, The Green Belt Movement had assisted in the planting of fifteen million trees and the production of income for eighty thousand Kenyans, with efforts expanding around the world. While the Movement may have offered an opportunity for improvement, it was the people in need whose hands planted the trees and nurtured them to maturity. As we reflect on Gebara’s writing, we can see this as an example of how theory is important for long term change but ultimately it is concrete action that makes a difference in the lives of women in the Global South. Gebara shares her perspective on the “best” way to practice ecofeminism: “While these discussions are going on, lots of women and children are starving and dying with diseases produced by a capitalist system able to destroy lives and keep profit for only a few.” (Gebara, p. 94)
When seeking for solutions to both female disempowerment and ecological destruction, we must remember Gebara’s writing: “Female poverty depends on female and male wealth. Female poverty depends on the destruction of ecosystems.” ( p. 95)
In Recife, Brazil we can see the destruction of the local waterway and it’s impacts on marginalized families, especially women and children. A local social worker tells journalist Talita Correa that many people in the area “live in a pitiful situation… Like they are animals.” Recife mother Fabiana Silva explains “We spend two months collecting all kinds of aluminum material and then we sell it to a company that pays us 130 reals [around $55] for recycling. I raise my three kids like this.”
How do women and children feel empowered to do any more than survive when they have to swim in garbage filled canals collecting cans to sell? What opportunities would be possible for them if their environment was clean and healthy? How could these local people contribute to keeping their environment clean and healthy if their economic circumstances allowed them leisure time to reinvest in their community?
Lifting women and children out of poverty and restoring nature and two sides of the same coin. These goals are not only connected but dependent on each other. The central premise of ecofeminism is the connection between the oppression of women and nature, and the more I learn the more convinced I am of this connection. Whether feminists integrate ecological concerns into their practice or ecologists begin to practice feminist activism, Gebara reminds us, doesn’t matter. What matters is action taken to both uplift women and conserve and restore nature, if we want to improve the lives of all animals, including humans, on Earth.
Works Cited:
Gebara, Ivone. “Ecofeminism: A Latin American Perspective.” CrossCurrents, Spring 2003, pp. 93–103, umassd.umassonline.net/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/file?cmd=view&content_id=_2574990_1&course_id=_36339_1. Accessed 31 Mar. 2025.
http ://www.cstraight.com, Cstraight Media-. “Speak Truth to Power | the Green Belt Movement.” Www.greenbeltmovement.org, 4 May 2000, www.greenbeltmovement.org/wangari-maathai/key-speeches-and-articles/speak-truth-to-power. Accessed 31 Mar. 2025.
Talita Corrêa. “The Brazilian Slum Children Who Are Literally Swimming in Garbage.” VICE, 30 Jan. 2014, www.vice.com/en/article/the-brazilian-slum-children-who-are-literally-swimming-in-garbage-0000197-v21n1/. Accessed 31 Mar. 2025.
Your closing statements remind me of Mari J Matsuda’s “asking the other question.” Which when utilized, allows for us to see the full context of the situation and in this case the marginalized communities of Recife.
Even though I did not analyze Ivone Gebara’s “Ecofeminism: A Latin American Perspective,” as much as I did Corrêa article I’ve realized that both are just as valuable when trying to understand the intersections of environment and gender, particularly in Latin America. Gebara shows us how ecofeminism challenges the dualistic thinking that separates nature from humanity and emphasizes the importance of women’s roles in environmental protection. This is important when examining social issues related to poverty and environmental degradation, mainly in the context of Brazil that was Corrêa’s article. The struggles of these children are a part of a bigger issue that ecofeminism needs to address. When we understand the links between gender, environment, and socio-economic status, we can have more inclusive solutions that empower families and give environmental stewardship, mainly benefiting and helping the society as a whole. In the text Corrêa’s talks about a young girl that has 80% ringworms in her body. This is an example of environmental neglect that also shows consequences of poor living conditions and lack of appropriate care for vulnerable populations. This statement about the young girl shows how neglect and inadequate resources can lead to severe health issues mainly in children who are inherently more susceptible to environmental factors.This connects to Gerbera’s article because Chronic diseases like Larissa’s are frequently linked to poor living conditions and inadequate medical attention. This situation shows Gebara’s main point that the environment plays a crucial role in women’s and children’s health and well-being especially in marginalized communities.
Eric, as usual this post is very thoughtful and well spoken. I particularly resonate with what you were saying in paragraph 4, “When we look past the distractions of lost material resources and cultural traditions, we discover that marginalized communities, and especially women in those communities, live with a sense of disempowerment. Whether present in the minds of these people while they scrape to survive is beside the point. The fact that they have to work all their waking hours to simply not starve is proof enough that they do not have the option to pursue more comfortable means of living. We don’t need for them to explain that they are stuck in order to recognize it in their circumstances” The questions you raise in your blog about how can we help these people in under represented communities to free themselves of this vicious cycle makes me wonder what we can do to abandon the cause: capitalism and over consumption. I believe women, at least in the countries who are the top consumers of the world, consume as much as do their male counterparts, but as women we need to recognize that our consumption is hurting others in countries where our wants are produced, and we should band together to help reduce the impact we have on these communities as well as the environment.
Hi Eric, I enjoyed reading your post, especially the way you tied the oppression of women with environmental degradation. I completely agree with your point that the struggles of marginalized communities, particularly women, are deeply intertwined with the destruction of nature. As you mentioned, the women in Kenya, who are responsible for farming and food security, face the direct consequences of an unhealthy environment.