Hopefully, everyone is settling into their online courses and continue to have the motivation to get through the semester. I know I am lacking a little bit of that.
In this week’s blog, I wanted to talk about a study analysis conducted by Norgaard and York on state environmentalism and the connection with gender politics and inequality. Norgaard and York based their study analysis on the following question: “Does the degree of gender equality in the political realm within a nation have an impact on state environmental policy? (Norgaard, York 507). When reading the study, it’s so hard not to think about Women in the global south and what we know from previous readings about how they face oppression due to environmental degradation. This comes from the idea mentioned in the study analysis about how nations with more equality for both men and women are to be more prone to protecting the environment. The support for this idea comes from two categories. The first being that women are more likely to look out for the environment when compared to men. The second category states that sexism and environmental degradation are “interconnected.” In different studies completed in different nations, girls were shown to “exhibit more environmental awareness and responsibility than boys” (Norgaard, York 509). If women are put into higher positions in politics, from these studies, it is said that more could be done to improve the environmental policies. Sexism and environmental degradation are two things tied together making it hard for states lacking gender equality to gather and promote better environmental policies. Once again, as shown in some of these studies mentioned by Norgaard and York, with gender equality and women in politics, states and nations would have more support for environmental protection policies.
An important statistic mentioned in the Data and Methods section of the study comes from the rankings of nations. The nations are ranked by level of gender equality and then by state environmentalism. What was found was those states showing the most equality towards women had the highest ranking for state environmentalism. An example mentioned in the results and discussion section of the study regarding Norway. “Norway both had one of the highest percentages of women in parliament in the world at 36.4% and ratified 13 of the 16 treaties” (Norgaard, York 515). Norway gives great life quality for its citizens and puts an end to the patriarchy and capitalism that we might see somewhere like Kuwait for example which is ranked -56.0 for state environmentalism and 0.0 for gender equality. In allowing born nurturers to have a stance in protecting our environment, improvement can and will be seen.
Before I sign off for this week, I wanted to include two examples that also support the stance of Norgaard and York with the connection between women in politics and state environmentalism.
The first example is another study called Bread and Roses: A Gender Perspective on Environmental Justice and Public Health. In this study, evidence is brought up showing that women are typically given the burden to carry when it comes to environmental degradation, but don’t have a say in what happens with environmental policies in nations lacking gender equality. From our section in this course on Women and the Environment, we know that women and environmental degradation are shown to be interconnected in nations lacking equality. Women face oppression and blame when it comes to not being able to gather clean water for their family for an example. This study falls hand in hand with that of Norgaard and York because it works to give evidence that when women are given a say in environmental policy, change can occur for the better state of the environment.
Example 1 Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5086744/
The last example I found is an entire article asking different questions about women and the environment and explains why women in politics work better for implementing environmental policies. It mentions a study on environmental awareness being a more feminine trait. In the study, it talks about who was more likely to use reusable bags as opposed to plastic.
Example 2 Link: https://www.ecowatch.com/why-we-need-more-women-involved-in-creating-environmental-policy-2593948717.html
I agree when reading this we can easily think of women living in the global south. Women who live in the global south as we have read before, heavily rely on natural resources in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle for not only themselves but for their families. Therefore women are clearly more affected by the damages done to nature such as environmental degradation. Women are known to be the main nurturers in the family which can make sense why they care so much for the environment. They also are more worried about the damage that is being done to the environment and how it can affect other human beings as well. If there were more gender equality in countries, women would have a better opportunity of making a very positive influence in the world- especially in the environment. This week’s reading showed this first hand when it gave the examples of the differences in the countries Norway and Singapore. We saw how much more equality there was in Norway as well as a very large amount of environmental treaties that were ratified compared to Singapore. Sexism and the fact men are almost always in the majority of authoritative positions is the reason it is much harder for women to gain the same power as men. If women were able to obtain more positions in Parliament I am sure we would see a very significant change in regards to environmental treaties and the care/concern for our Earth. Right now there are 127 women in congress out of a total of 535 members- that is about 23%. Hopefully one day those numbers will be more like 50-50. We need more women to be in positions of power so their caring voices can be heard and not ignored. Not only heard but so their ideas regarding positive changes to the environment can actually be implemented!
I would say the real issue is between the haves and the have nots. Humans often love to categorize everything and put them in their nice little boxes. When something does not fit into their boxes they get uncomfortable, because the boxes is how they define their life and when something does not fit it makes them question all their boxes. A big point is classifying species. A species is generally defined as a group of animals that can successfully reproduce a viable non-sterile offspring. Essentially if it mates and can make a baby that can in the future make a baby it is the same species. This works logically, but it in truth fails because a main factor that can classify one species into two is just the fact the two groups are too far away to mate. Meaning that a group of wild horses in north america would be classified as a different species from a group of wild horses in asia, even if they could mate and produce a viable offspring. Yet when it comes to people do not do this. We made “races” and decided that is how people will be put into their boxes. My overall point is that although we make these boxes and classifications, it is arbitrary where, why, and how we decide these differences. A tree is a tree, a bird is a bird, and a human is a human. There are differences in all individuals, with an underlying similarity that makes us just enough the same. Women and Men are clearly different, Men are good at living today/ providing for today. Men if looked at from an evolutionary standpoint back to our hunter gather age, provided. They solved problems that were immediate threats or needs, such as we need food and its currently a drought so we will fight the neighbors for theirs. Essentially men are generally better at meeting immediate needs no matter the longterm consequences. Women, also going off our hunter gather days, are more prone to nurturing and providing. Unlike a Man who wants immediate results women have learned patience. Which if you are the general child carers and waiting for the times when food is around and gathering can be conducted, patience is required. I would say Women based more on being care givers rather than gathers are more concerned with long term needs. They are not thinking we need food for our kids today, but we need to keep them alive for tomorrow. Women with their more inherent ability to care about not just themselves, should probably have been put in more powerful positions a long time ago. If you look at native american tribes, It is the elderly Women that made up councils and made decisions for the tribe, with the chief ensuring the day to day protection. Why would women be in charge? I would say it is because they will try to make decisions that will be best for everybody, not just for themselves. Overall I would argue Women more so than men want to help everybody, as long as they are willing to help if able. To conclude I would say a typical man in power gets greedier a lot faster than a typical woman, and do not fight for the bottom, but for who benefits them. While a typical woman would fight for the ones who can not fight for themselves which is the purpose of the government, to help those who need it and can not help themselves.