One of the most basic tenants of feminist environmentalism is that
people's relationships to their environments are differentiated by gender.
A review of the ecofeminist movement reveals a deep division between
essentialist and anti-essentialist positions that actually obscures the
fundamental flaw within the entire movement. Ultimately, the ecofeminist
assertion that men and women's relationships to their environments are
fundamentally different seems to be fundamentally erroneous, and fails to
take into consideration more important factors like race, economics, and
Ecofeminism is seen as "a feminist rebellion within male-dominated
radical environmentalism" (Sturgeon, 25). Ruether notes "Ecofeminism ...
explores how male domination of women and domination of nature are
interconnected, both in cultural ideology and in social structures" (2).
Essentially, ecofeminism at its most basic definition focuses on the ties
that exist between ideologies that result in the degradation and
destruction of the environment and ideologies that result in injustices
To the feminist environmentalist movement, the idea that humans are
somehow separate and hold dominion over nature is problematic. Ruether
argues that the humans desire to change the earth itself is symptomatic of
this larger issue, rooted in the idea that nature is somehow not divine and
subhuman. Instead, Ruether and other feminist environmentalists tent to
"assume that the earth forms a living system, of which humans are an
inextricable part" (Ruether, 5). Here, humans do not hold dominion over
the earth and other forms of life, part are instead an integrated part of
Ecofeminism, while it essentially argues that people's relationships
to their environments are differentiated by gender, has many different
forms. In Ecofeminist Natures: Race, Gender, Feminist Theory, and Political
Action, Noel Sturgeon notes tha...