Category: Ecofeminism

  • The Virgin Suicides as Ecofeminist Parable

    Cecilia was an embodiment of compassion, her quiet gaze falling on what others overlooked: the elm tree in the yard, the “othered” boy at a party, species facing extinction. In her presence, small details grew unbearably heavy, as if she carried the grief of the world before she had even lived much of it.

    To be a compassionate person living through the sixth mass extinction and the rise of fascism is to feel that same weight—a witness to a civilization numbed by capitalism and distraction, yet burdened with knowledge.

    Cecilia’s attention to suffering is not merely sensitivity: it is radical witness. She refuses to let the decline of the natural world or the pain of the vulnerable fade into the background hum of everyday life.

    Watching The Virgin Suicides now, what lingers is not its pastel suburban nostalgia but the undercurrent of warning woven into every frame. The film feels like a mirror, revealing the mundane ways our own world ignores cries for help until monumental tragedy erupts.

    “The Brazilian turbot frog was added to the endangered species list today. That’s the third animal this year.”

    As scientific consensus declares our world is in the midst of its sixth mass extinction, society insists we carry on as though nothing has changed. Capitalism numbs us with relentless demands, leaving little room for mourning. Extinction becomes something to scroll past, something someone else will fix. It hums behind commutes and the tired sigh at the end of a shift. The weight of it is carried silently by those who still feel it, those whose compassion refuses to shut down.

    In The Virgin Suicides, this dynamic is captured in miniature. Cecilia speaks with clarity, her words sharpened by her reserved demeanor, but her mother is distracted—hands busy performing unpaid domestic labor, mind splintered across endless obligations. It is not cruelty that keeps her from actively engaging, but exhaustion, the kind that dulls empathy. The Lisbon household becomes a metaphor for our society at large: a place where care exists but isn’t given the attention it deserves, where voices of warning are muffled by the ceaseless clatter of survival, societal expectations, and maintaining the status quo.

    Unlike the five mass extinctions that came before—driven by meteors or volcanic eruptions—this one is driven by humans. Greenhouse gases emitted in the process of manufacturing unnecessary goods raise global temperatures, land-use change devours habitats to grow crops for animals that were bred purely for the sale of their dead bodies, and synthetic chemicals permeate ecosystems. Species are vanishing at 1,000 to 10,000 times the natural rate with nearly 40% of amphibians and a third of all assessed species now standing on the brink of existence.

    To feel this devastation while living under the very system that creates it is infuriating. Capitalism steals our time and mental energy even as it drives pollution and ecological collapse. Simultaneously, our political and economic systems block climate solutions because they are not immediately profitable. Life on Earth is sacrificed for quarterly earnings reports.

    During the Trump administration, this unraveling only accelerated. The EPA pursued the largest deregulatory campaign in U.S. history, rolling back more than thirty protections on clean air, water, and climate. Efforts were made to revoke the endangerment finding—the scientific foundation for regulating greenhouse gases—effectively stripping federal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Department of Energy expanded oil and gas leasing and expedited approvals for liquefied natural gas. By allowing for increased, unregulated emissions as scientists warn of irreversible tipping points, the administration made its position clear: profit will be protected, even if it means sacrificing life itself.

    Meanwhile, the National Environmental Policy Act was hollowed out, cutting public input and oversight, giving corporations unprecedented access to public lands with minimal accountability. The Endangered Species Act was revised so that only direct killing of a species counted as “harm,” allowing habitat destruction from mining, logging, and development even in areas where species are facing extinction.

    The result: expanded drilling and logging in once-protected areas, collapsing protection of land and wildlife, and increasing threats to species from the lynx to the cutthroat trout.

    This is the disease that will kill the planet, the relentless prioritization of corporations and profit over living beings. Entire species were written off as collateral damage for short-term profit. It is the same logic that underpins patriarchy and fascism: that life—human or nonhuman—can be measured, exploited, and discarded when inconvenient.

    Under U.S. law, corporations are granted personhood, giving businesses more rights than entire species of  animals that are capable of feeling grief and pain as their food supply and habitats are destroyed.

    Just as entire species are erased for profit, so too are people devalued when their existence doesn’t serve the dominant order.

    “Everyone, look! His ears wiggle if you scratch his chin!”

    At Cecilia’s party, a boy with Down syndrome named Joe becomes the target of thoughtless amusement. The guests chant for Joe to “sing [his] song,” laugh as they scratch under his chin to make his ears wiggle, and reduce him to a spectacle. Cecilia’s expression grows doleful before she quietly excuses herself to her room, for the last time.

    The cruelty at this party echoes forward into our own time, where governments stage wars against those who deviate from the dominant mold. Fascist systems rely on this dehumanization—reducing entire populations to caricatures or burdens—to justify harm.

    I do not blame the boys mocking Joe; they are children shaped by a society that rewards cruelty and punishes difference. In this world, vulnerability is branded as weakness, and to stand out is to invite ridicule. Cecilia, by contrast, represents those who refuse to fall under the spell of apathy—the ones who can recognize injustice without needing it explained and feel it too heavily to ever partake in being part of  the status quo that upholds it.

    The Trump administration echoed this mockery with severe, targeted campaigns against marginalized groups, including disabled people. It slashed workplace protections, undermined housing rights, cut critical disability services like Medicaid, and weakened equity in education—each policy signaling that disabled people were obstacles to profit rather than humans deserving dignity.

    Executive orders called for forced institutionalization of people with mental health disabilities and the unhoused, while funding was cut from community-based, evidence-backed programs. Simultaneously, decades of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts were unraveled, rolling back protections for women, people of color, LGBTQ+ communities, and minority-owned businesses.

    Dehumanization, once embedded in law, normalizes violence against the most marginalized. This has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy since the founding of our nation,  enabling systemic oppression of marginalized groups for centuries.

    To stand with Cecilia is to know the ache of compassion. To witness systemic cruelty with an open heart is to carry grief, to refuse numbness, and to choose solidarity over convenience, even when it hurts. It binds us to one another, insisting that we recognize injustice rather than look away.

    “Elm trees. How many pages can you write about dying trees?”

    As the boys sift through Cecilia’s journal, they dismiss her many entries on the elm trees in their neighborhood as boring. Yet her attention to the ordinary is a radical act.

    Throughout the film, the dying elm trees stand as a symbol of decline—a slow disease spreading through the neighborhood, mirroring the suffocation inside the Lisbon home. The neighborhood’s impulse to cut them down reflects the desire to sanitize decay, to maintain a façade of suburban stability by erasing what feels uncomfortable.

    Cecilia’s devotion to protecting the elms is her refusal to turn away from truth and suffering. She embodies what it means to remain present with loss in a culture that prefers distraction, denial, forgetting, and toxic positivity. To mourn openly, to name tragedy, to refuse normalization is itself resistance.

    In our own time, being able to grieve climate and humanitarian crises is resistance: it breaks through the capitalist logic that tells us to keep working, keep consuming, keep scrolling. The girls’ ability to be present with the dying trees mirrors those who understand the magnitude of loss our planet is currently experiencing, yet continue trying to heal it.

    Climate optimism divorced from grief is blind ignorance. To pretend that the reversal of climate protections and the acceleration of planetary damage under Trump’s policies are anything less than devastating is dishonest. But grief need not paralyze us.

    When we allow ourselves to feel the weight of what has been lost, we clear the ground for informed action—organizing, advocating, voting, defending the vulnerable, and demanding policies that restore life and dignity.

    “Given Lux’s failure to make curfew, everyone expected a crackdown. But few expected it would be so drastic.”

    When Lux breaks curfew on the night of the homecoming dance, all the sisters are punished. Their brief taste of freedom collapses into total isolation. Lux is forced to destroy her rock records—ritualistically cutting off rebellion and self-expression.

    This scene reflects a broader political truth: freedoms granted to women under patriarchy are always conditional. When women step too far outside the lines, those freedoms are swiftly revoked.

    The Lisbon sisters’ confinement reflects the powerful backlash against feminist gains over recent decades. Throughout the 2010s, feminist activism surged globally: #MeToo exposed pervasive sexual harassment, more women entered parliaments and leadership positions, and advances in reproductive rights, education, and workplace protections expanded possibilities for women worldwide. Intersectional approaches linked gender justice to racial, economic, and environmental struggles, increasing visibility and solidarity.

    However, the early 2020s witnessed a wrenching rollback. The Trump administration catalyzed a rapid erosion of women’s rights: abortion access was severely restricted in multiple states, federal funding for women’s health and family planning was slashed by billions, and research on women’s health was defunded. These efforts often weaponized “gender ideology” rhetoric to justify aggressive anti-rights campaigns, fueling a broader resurgence of fascist and ultraconservative forces globally.

    The persistence of this backlash reveals a grim truth: women’s freedoms remain fragile, granted only on patriarchal terms. The Lisbon sisters’ punishment after their brief glimpse of freedom is a stark metaphor for our moment—reminding us that the struggle for bodily autonomy, justice, and liberation from patriarchal control is far from over.

    “If the boats didn’t bring the fungus from Europe, none of this would have happened.”

    As the landscapers prepare to tear down Cecilia’s beloved elm, the sisters cry out in protest. Bonnie reminds us that Dutch elm disease was not some inevitable act of nature but a byproduct of human trade and carelessness—fungus carried across oceans on ships, entwined with commerce. The landscapers’ solution, cutting the tree at its base, is cruelly ironic: it attacks the symptom while leaving the deeper systems of circulation and extraction that enabled the disease in the first place untouched.

    Likewise, mainstream visions of “green growth” treat ecological collapse as a technical glitch to be patched with electric cars and renewable technologies—solutions often accessible only to the privileged—while ignoring the extractive capitalist, colonial, and industrial systems that drive ongoing environmental devastation.

    The logic of infinite growth, heralded as progress, clashes fundamentally with the reality of a finite Earth. Humanity currently consumes natural resources at a rate equivalent to 1.7 Earths annually, outpacing the planet’s ability to regenerate.

    Efficiency gains boasted about by green growth advocates often provoke more consumption rather than less, and “decoupling” growth from extraction remains illusory at the scale our survival demands. Overreliance on technological solutions and market-driven approaches risks perpetuating exploitation and inequality rather than remedying them.

    True repair requires a reimagining of how we live with the land and with one another. A holistic response sees ecological, social, technological and economic systems as bound together, demanding solutions that honor planetary limits while centering justice and care. It means dismantling the conditions that created the climate crisis, and building systems rooted in reciprocity, not profit.

    “Our daughter showed us an article. It’s a less aggressive therapy.”

    While the sisters continue to protect Cecilia’s elm tree, their father recalls her suggestion of a less aggressive therapy than cutting them down and offers it to the landscapers.

    The treatment Cecilia proposed echoes the values of ecofeminism. Ecofeminism critiques patriarchal systems that dominate and exploit both women and the natural world, offering instead an ethic of holistic care, reciprocity, and regeneration. It emphasizes that nurturing and healing are not sentimental choices but ethical necessities.

    Cecilia’s quiet advocacy for regeneration over destruction mirrors this ethos. She resists the reflex toward violence and control, choosing repair and restoration instead.

    Yet the suggestion is brushed aside, dismissed as impractical. The landscaper embodies the worldview of patriarchal capitalism: one that trusts only in domination and quick fixes, unable or unwilling to acknowledge the need for deeper transformation. From this vantage, technological solutions are enough, while the roots of exploitation—patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism—remain invisible, untouched.

    This denial exposes the obstacle at the heart of our ecological crisis. The same system that isolates the girls and destroys the elms is the one that devours the earth’s resources and rescinds women’s rights when our presence threatens its control.

    Without confronting the systems that train us to treat life as disposable, attempts at “repair” will replicate the same harm. True healing demands more: a commitment to regenerative ways of living grounded in justice, care, and respect—the very principles ecofeminism offers, and the wisdom the Lisbon sisters carried in their refusal to turn destruction into inevitability.

    “It didn’t matter in the end how old they had been, or that they were girls, but only that we had loved them… and that they hadn’t heard us calling, still do not hear us calling them out of those rooms where they went to be alone for all time.”

    After the sisters’ deaths, the neighborhood boys turn them into myth, stitching together fragments and half-memories.

    This is how collapse is so often met: we romanticize what is gone rather than fight for what remains. We write elegies for species we failed to save. Memory becomes a poor substitute for justice.

    The Lisbon girls did not need elegy; they needed to be heard. The same is true of our burning forests, our poisoned rivers, our sisters who are having their rights revoked and our neighbors who are treated as disposable by systems of profit and control.

    The tragedy of The Virgin Suicides is not only the girls’ deaths but the silence that surrounded them—the refusal to recognize despair until it was too late. The greater tragedy would be to repeat that mistake now—to ignore grief, to dismiss the calls for change—until it is too late.

  • Lusted After, Never Loved: How Patriarchy Undervalues Women and Nature

    Photo by Guzmán Barquín on Unsplash

    In our highly modernized urban landscapes, the 21st-century man often yearns for the wild adventures of imperial explorers from centuries ago. On weekends, they flee the drudgery of their 9-to-5 routines, seeking solace in nature’s grandeur—long-distance running through fields, climbing to the highest peaks, and gliding down snow-capped slopes. These landscapes promise beauty and joy, and an escape from the monotonous reality of daily life.

    Yet, beneath this pursuit of beauty and excitement lies a troubling pattern. The earth becomes a playground for exploitation, a backdrop for thrill and profit, with its habitats rarely cared for and the boundaries of the planet ignored and disrespected. Too often, the well-being of nature is neglected, just as the well-being of women is disregarded and undervalued.

    This is not a relationship of reverence, but one of conquest—where nature is engaged with only through doing, proving, and performing. In this worldview, stillness is weakness, and appreciation without extraction is unthinkable.

    The male voyager who dreams of visiting the earth’s most scenic destinations simultaneously ignores the degraded ecosystems that lie in between. He prefers that the deforested habitats with eroded soil, reduced fertility, and inability to support plant life any longer remain out of view— like a woman who no longer serves his fantasy. Whether it’s the body of a woman or the body of the Earth, what is not useful to him is ignored.

    As men set off on expeditions to indulge in personal growth and discovery by exploring their “motherland,” we women are left to wonder why we have no fatherland. If a woman yearned for the same experience, she would first have to reckon with the threat of violence—from the very men who claim the right to roam without fear.

    Under patriarchy, many men relate to women the same way they relate to nature: they desire only select fragments of the experience, never the whole. Their gaze lingers on isolated parts of the female body, stripped of emotion, thought, or need. Likewise, their relationship with nature fixates on curated landscapes that offer escape and pleasure—spaces that ask nothing in return. In both cases, the full being is ignored, left uncared for, while he takes what he wants and offers no restoration or consideration in return.

    Just as patriarchal systems fragment and objectify women, the dominant scientific paradigm dissects nature into categories and data points, stripping it of spirit, wholeness, and complexity. Male-dominated science systems, especially under colonial and capitalist influence, have long sought to classify, control, and extract rather than to listen, witness, and honor. The desire to “know” nature is often driven not by reverence, but by a need to dominate—just as women are judged and placed into boxes instead of being embraced in the full spectrum of our experience. In both cases, mystery is feared, and complexity is flattened to serve power.

    While it’s important to recognize how Western science has historically been shaped by colonial and patriarchal systems, it’s equally vital to honor the truth in many of its findings—especially when they reveal the urgent need for ecological care.

    Scientists warn that ecosystems may begin collapsing as soon as the 2030s under high-warming scenarios. Yet nearly half of conservative men deny the validity of climate science and the integrity of these projections. Just as the needs of nature are overlooked and seen as exaggerated under patriarchal systems—the stories and rights of women are often dismissed as false and treated with the same disregard.

    I have been confidently reminded by countless men in my life that nature has a way of healing itself as justification for their lack of concern about environmental remediation or protection. But nature can only heal itself from the current level of degradation if there are actions to support the healing process. This may include afforestation and reforestation projects that improve soil health, water cycle regulation, and carbon sequestration.

    This logic, used to excuse inaction, mirrors how society treats women: assuming we will keep nurturing, healing, and caretaking, even as we’re denied support ourselves. Women provide free labor in domestic settings with little support in place to sustain these efforts. The conditioned emotional unavailability of men masked as masculinity leaves women carrying not just the burdens of the home, but the parts of ourselves that men refuse to hold.

    Just as women’s caregiving labor is invisible yet foundational, nature performs essential labor that goes largely unrecognized. Ecosystem services like filtering air, cycling water, regulating the climate, and enabling food production are treated as infinite and free, even though they are the very systems that make human life possible. These life-sustaining processes, much like the domestic and emotional work women perform, are rarely accurately valued, protected, or even acknowledged.

    This pattern of denial and devaluation is no accident— it’s embedded in a larger system that places profit above preservation, and domination above care. Patriarchal capitalism has grossly undervalued nature for much of its existence. Global natural capital has been estimated to be worth $125 trillion yet, nature markets today are valued at only $9.8 trillion.

    As millions of acres of virgin land are opened to oil drilling, creating a product that will only further degrade the land, man’s inability to see intrinsic value without exploitation mirrors how he treats the women in his life. The global economy is built upon a logic that profits from domination and renders care invisible, with billion dollar industries built on the exploitation of the natural world and the exploitation of women—making it fundamentally reliant on undervaluing both.

    Like nature, our beauty is appreciated by man, providing experiences of pleasure and joy. We become the memories that make life worth living. But, we are rarely truly listened to, cared for, or recognized for our full value. We are lusted after, never loved— celebrated for what we offer, but not honored for who we are.

    As a woman, I cherish my beauty. I know its light and magnetism. It has given me connection, expression, and even power. But beauty should not be a reason for exploitation, nor a barrier to being cared for. I want to be held in my wholeness—my strength, my abilities, my sorrow and joy, my stillness and storm. I deserve to be cared for, not conquered.

    Like a goodhearted, patient woman who puts up with the constant chaos of a fiery man, nature is expected to do the same. To tolerate constant growth and expansion that feeds the desire for economic gain and domination harbored by men in patriarchal capitalist systems.

    Our societal structures support relationships devoid of genuine care and connection, enabling further disregard for human and ecological needs on a larger scale. This dysfunction reveals the urgent need for systemic change that confronts the intertwined roots of gender-based oppression and environmental degradation.

    Despite how patriarchal systems have long exploited women’s caring and healing capacities—without recognition or support—these traits remain powerful forces for transformation.

    Compassion, empathy, and emotional depth—qualities often labelled as “feminine”—must be revalued and woven into the foundations of any system that seeks sustainability, justice, and collective healing. These traits are not weaknesses to be exploited, but strengths that offer a path forward—when shared, respected, and integrated across societal structures.

    Throughout history, women have played a critical role in preserving the earth’s health—not just metaphorically, but through direct action. Women in rural and indigenous communities often possess deep knowledge of local ecosystems and have led protective efforts to sustain them.

    For example, in 1973, in the forests of the Indian Himalayas, a group of rural women led by Gaura Devi launched the Chipko Movement, which involved physically hugging trees to prevent them from being demolished. Their act of resistance was not only a defense of the forest, but of their community’s water, soil, and food systems. This was an embodied form of care—one that shows how women’s ecological knowledge and care translates into radical protection.

    This movement, like many others led by women across the globe, reminds us that care is not passive—it is defensive, assertive, and necessary for survival. In contrast to the extractive logic of patriarchal capitalism, these actions reassert a model of relationship based on interdependence and protection, rather than conquest.

    As women under patriarchal capitalism, we must be unwavering in our knowing of our own self worth. We are the creators of life—yet we must still fight to have our contributions recognized, our rights respected, and our full humanity honored. Just as we rise to defend our own dignity, we must rise to defend the ecosystems that sustain all life on Earth.

  • How the White House’s Proposed Pronatalist Policies Threaten to Escalate Climate Change

    Girls’ education and rights-based family planning are critical climate solutions through their dual impact on slowing population growth and accelerating climate action.

    Photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash

    The Climate Impact of Population Growth

    Population dynamics directly affect emissions, for example slower population growth reduces demand for energy, transportation, housing, and food which are major contributors to global emissions.

    Project Drawdown’s modeling shows that achieving the UN’s medium population projection of 9.7 billion by 2050 (rather than higher-growth scenarios) through expanded family planning and education could reduce CO₂ equivalent emissions by 68.9 gigatons by 2050.

    Rights-based family planning strengthens climate resilience by preventing unintended pregnancies, reducing maternal mortality, and keeping girls in school. Scholarships tied to marriage/childbearing could reduce women’s educational attainment as these life events can often alter one’s ability to complete school.

    Policies regarding women’s education and reproductive activities must remain rights-based, emphasizing autonomy and access—not coercion. Allowing women equal access to education and expanding family planning services are not just social imperatives but high-leverage climate solutions that address both mitigation and adaptation.

    The Clash: Trump’s Pronatalist Agenda vs. Climate Progress

    The Trump administration’s proposed pronatalist agenda, which includes baby bonuses, marriage-based educational privileges, and a “National Medal of Motherhood,” signals a return to traditionalist policies that ignore climate realities.

    Trumps Core Pronatalist Policies

    1. Financial Incentives
      • $5,000 “Baby Bonus”: A one-time cash payment to mothers per child
      • Tax Credits: Expanded child tax credits, though specifics remain unclear
    2. Educational Privileges
    3. Symbolic Recognition

    Key Concerns:

    • Incentivizing education through the act of childbirth puts women students at a disadvantage as data shows that women contribute 20.4 hours per week to childcare while fathers spend only 3.9 hours
    • Period tracking programs can be weaponized by the government to criminalize women who have received reproductive care
    • Maternal and child mortality rates rise as a result of increased child birth paired with decreased access to reproductive care
    • Financial incentives such as a $5,000 baby bonus fail to cover the true cost of raising a child, especially in a climate-disrupted economy.
    • Regressive policies reduce women’s voices and participation in the workforce—particularly in emerging climate sectors like clean energy, where women already make up only 33% of jobs.
    • Fertility-focused education replaces comprehensive reproductive healthcare, reducing access to contraception and skewing public health priorities.
    • Cuts to family planning programs, including Title X and CDC maternal health research, further restrict reproductive autonomy.

    The proposed policies normalize financial incentive as coercion for sexual acts, stripping women of their humanity and ability to live their lives as they choose. Placing a $5,000 price tag on birth is offensive to the value life and the experience of motherhood, while attracting people who may only be incentivized by the “baby bonus” and are not equipped to raise a child.

    Contradiction With Climate Mitigation Strategies

    Energy and Emissions:

    • Emissions Scaling Issue: Even modest population increases have outsized climate impacts. The U.S. already has one of the highest per capita emissions rates (14.44 metric tons CO₂/person). Adding millions more high-consuming Americans (as targeted by “baby boom” policies) would directly counteract emission-reduction targets under the Paris Agreement.
    • Resource Demand Surge: More people = more:
      • Energy: U.S. households account for ~20% of national energy use
      • Transportation: 28% of U.S. emissions come from cars/planes
      • Food: Animal-based diets (common in U.S.) generate up to 20x more emissions than plant-based options

    Women’s Leadership Advances Climate Innovation and Governance

    Working Against Proven Climate Solutions

    Economic and Equity Concerns

    • Direct Costs: Climate-driven disasters cost the U.S. $165 billion annually (NOAA 2022) – a burden worsened by population growth in vulnerable areas.
    • Gender Equity Backslide: Cash incentives for mothers ($5k/baby) could pressure women into caregiving roles, reducing workforce participation and climate leadership opportunities

    Demographic Myths

    The Trump administration’s policies hinge on a misleading narrative: that declining birth rates threaten America’s future. In reality, U.S. population growth is slowing due to rising early adult mortality rates which experienced a sharp rise during the pandemic and remain elevated.

    Conclusion: A Crossroads for Climate and Human Rights

    As discussed above, educating and empowering women is a net-positive for people and the planet, however the Trump Administration’s framing of “Fertility Education” and incentives for Fulbright Scholarships weaponizes this positive connotation to increase traditionalist patriarchal power.

    Coercive and regressive pronatalist policies pose a dual threat—accelerating emissions while exploiting the very people driving climate innovation.

    Climate leadership demands a different focus—one rooted in lowering per capita emissions, not expanding the number of high-emitting households. Empowering women’s voices and rights-basedfamily planningnot only promotes gender equity but offers some of the most effective, evidence-based solutions to the climate crisis.

    As climate impacts worsen, our policies must elevate—not restrict—human potential. A truly resilient future is one where women are empowered, populations are sustainable, and climate action is just, inclusive, and science-driven.

  • Oppression to Action: Ecofeminism’s Critical Role in Solving the Climate Crisis

    As we witness both the decline of women’s rights and the weakening of environmental protections, the ecofeminist movement has become more crucial than ever.

    Shane Rounce, Unsplash.com

    Ecofeminism is a philosophical and political movement that emerged in the 1970s, connecting feminist and environmental concerns by recognizing the interconnected oppression of women and nature under patriarchal systems. The term was coined by French feminist Françoise d’Eaubonne in 1974, sparking a wave of academic and activist interest. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, ecofeminism gained traction as scholars and activists explored the links between gender inequality and environmental degradation. 

    Key figures in the movement include Vandana Shiva and Maria Mies, whose work has been instrumental in shaping ecofeminist theory and practice. Together, Shiva and Mies developed a comprehensive ecofeminist framework that emphasizes the interconnectedness of social and ecological issues, challenges the dominant paradigm of exploitation, and promotes a more sustainable and equitable world. 

    Patriarchal capitalism simultaneously exploits women and nature through interconnected systems of domination that view both women and nature as resources to be controlled and exploited for profit. As evidenced by Shiva and Mies, our capitalist-patriarchal framework has led to environmental degradation, the marginalization of women, and the erosion of sustainable economies.

    Shiva argues that women, especially in the Global South, often bear the brunt of this exploitation as they are the primary caretakers of natural resources and communities while being most vulnerable to climate impacts. Patriarchal capitalism not only perpetuates gender inequality but also threatens the very foundations of life by undermining ecological balance and sustainable practices. This system is built on a hierarchical worldview that prioritizes masculine traits like dominance and aggression while devaluing feminine qualities such as compassion and empathy.

    Traditionally feminine traits such as compassion and empathy are critical to include in the formation of systems that prioritize sustainability, longevity and equality over endless economic growth powered by exploitation. Research demonstrates a strong correlation between women’s political leadership and proactive climate change policies. Countries with higher percentages of women in parliament consistently show greater commitment to environmental protection, evidenced by their increased likelihood to ratify international climate treaties and implement more stringent environmental regulations. There is a statistically significant and positive correlation between the presence of women in climate negotiations and an increased mention of gender in climate policy discussions. This suggests that women’s participation leads to increased climate action in general as well as more comprehensive and effective climate responses by amplifying the focus on gendered impacts within environmental policy.

    A crucial aspect of ecofeminist thought is the recognition and valuation of women’s work and knowledge. This acknowledgment extends to women’s roles in grassroots organizing and community-based activism, which often drive sustainable practices and environmental justice initiatives. Ecofeminists also emphasize the importance of biodiversity and sustainable practices, viewing them as integral to creating a more equitable and environmentally sound future

    Furthermore, there is a profound connection between women and biodiversity as women play a critical role in preserving the earth’s health. Women in rural and indigenous communities often possess deep knowledge of local ecosystems and sustainable resource management practices. This traditional ecological knowledge is invaluable for developing effective conservation strategies and sustainable land use practices.

    Shiva states that “the marginalization of women and the destruction of biodiversity go hand in hand,” highlighting women’s position as both vulnerable to and crucial for conserving biodiversity.

    Ecofeminist alternatives seek to promote systems that support a sustainable world which radically reimagines our economic and social structures, recognizes the importance of all living things, and prioritizes regeneration and equality over exploitation and domination. This movement is more urgent than ever in the current state of climate emergency paired with increasing violence against women and diminishing women’s rights.

    The Trump Administration has amplified interrelated social and environmental challenges as the they have withdrawn the US from the Paris agreement, removed climate change mentions from USDA websites, reversed support and incentives for low-carbon technology, overturned women’s rights resulting in increased maternal mortality and significant threats to women’s health, while setting the precedent that violence  against women is acceptable.

    President Trump and many of his elected officials have been accused and convicted of sexual assault and abuse, perpetuating and further normalizing exploitation of women’s bodies. Upholding this kind of behavior supports a culture that takes women’s ownership of their bodies away from them and puts it in the hands of those who want to harm and control them. This sends the message that your body does not belong to you and you don’t get to control what happens to it which is exactly what anti-reproductive rights movements support.

    Similarly, patriarchal capitalists have normalized and rewarded practices that abuse the earth by polluting ecosystems, degrading soil quality, and exploiting natural resources in pursuit of personal and economic gain with no regard for the impact this has on ecosystems and the beings that live within them.

    The diminishing support for climate action under the Trump administration exacerbates danger to women on a global scale as women are disproportionately affected by climate change. With 6 of 9 planetary boundaries already crossed, climate inaction will lead to increased natural disasters and decreased access to critical natural resources such as food and water.

    Climate-related disasters often lead to increased gender-based violence with women being 14 times more likely to be harmed during a disaster, as women are more vulnerable during displacement and when competing for scarce resources. On a global scale, women are more likely to be impacted by floods, storms, and heatwaves due to their roles in the household, limited mobility, and limited economic freedom.

    In this context, ecofeminist principles have become more critical than ever, offering a framework for understanding and addressing the intertwined issues of environmental protection and women’s rights. By recognizing the intersection of social inequalities and climate change, we can develop more effective and equitable solutions that address the unjust systems which have supported the current level of environmental degradation and inequality.

    Elevating women’s voices in environmental policymaking and ensuring their active participation in climate action is crucial for creating comprehensive and impactful strategies to combat the climate crisis.

    Ecofeminist solutions often promote alternative economic models such as subsistence economies, recognizing their potential to reduce environmental impact and foster community resilience. A subsistence economy is one where economic activity is primarily directed towards needs rather than profit. This shifts economic focus onto necessities without overexploiting resources, thus these economies naturally tend to stay within planetary boundaries and sustainable ecological limits. By emphasizing local production and consumption, ecofeminism advocates for decentralized models that can lead to shorter lead times, lower transportation costs, and increased flexibility in meeting local demands. 

    Prioritizing ecofeminist values and strategies can inspire collective climate action by reframing narratives, addressing root causes, empowering diverse voices, fostering community-based solutions, promoting holistic approaches, and cultivating hope and resilience.