The Gender and Environment

By Minal Raj Shaktawat

I have attempted to discuss the women’s relationship with environment, impact of environment degradation on women and the concept of ecofeminism that has intensified over the years. Basically, ecofeminism is a branch of feminism that deals with the connections between women and nature and the ways both women and nature have been treated by patriarchal society since decades. The exploitation and degradation of nature as well as subordination and oppression of women by the male dominated society draws a connection between the relationship of nature and the women. It brings together the elements of the green movement (impact of human activities on non-human world) and feminist movements (view of humanity as gendered in the ways that exploit women). Apart from the exploitation, women have also been active participants in the environment movements for its protection and regeneration like Chipko Movement. The environment movement and movements for the dignity of the women stands for egalitarian and non-hierarchical systems. I agree with the point made by the Shiva that violence against women and nature are linked not just ideologically but also materially. She mentioned about an instance saying that 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 alive”. Women’s and men’s relationship with nature needs to be understood as rooted in their material reality, in their specific forms of interaction with the environment. In rural and tribal areas, women have been responsible for collecting fuel and fodder. Hence, they are more likely to be affected worsely because of the degradation of environment as well as natural calamities like famines and droughts. At the same time, because of their daily interaction with the nature, they acquire a special knowledge of species varieties and other processes of regeneration, so, they can be seen as both the victims of the degradation of nature and repositories of knowledge about environment, which is different from the men. Further, deforestation for construction and other purposes has led to the extra time needed for gathering fodder and firewood which reduces time available to women for crop production and can adversely affect crop incomes, especially in hill communities where women are the primary cultivators due to high male outmigration. This has negative impact on nutrition too. Women being the multifold actor who looks after the household and goes for farming and other economical activities requires to have proper nutritious food. The declining availability of fuelwood induces people to shift to less nutritious foods which need less fuel to cook or which can be eaten raw, or force them to eat partially cooked food which could be toxic, or eat leftovers that could rot in a tropical climate, or to miss meals altogether. Apart from nutritional inadequacies, poor rural women are more exposed to water borne diseases and pollution in rivers and streams than men because of the nature of tasks like washing clothes near to the ponds or in rivers and such. Also, women are seen as closer to the nature as a symbol of something that every culture devalues or being of lower order of existence. Some environmentalists have also accepted the view that women are identified more closer to the nature because of their biology- monthly fertility cycle, gestation period, all these being coterminous with nature. Women have also protected trees, stopped tree auctions and keeping a vigil against illegal felling. So, concluding on this note, women have always shared an affectionate bond towards the environment, they have been the victims of the degradation of the nature and atrocities being faced by the women and exploitation of nature by the male dominated society are very much similar.