Masculine culture, feminine nature: the retreat from masculinity through ecofeminist philosophy
Opinion piece by Taleen El Gharib, Featured Writer
April 17th, 2021
Embedded within the many systems of oppression are the ideas which illustrate the inherently destructive and discriminatory fabric of society, woven by all that is man-made. Ideally, this refers to the patriarchy and its many subsections, man’s proudest creations. It primarily involves two “-isms”: capitalism and sexism. It is important to realize the interconnectedness of these two systems of oppression, as the aspects intertwining these two systems have brought forth a growing concern with the raging developments society is witnessing today – capitalism continues to lead the global economy, and, when looked at through a feminist lens, sexism trails closely behind.
In regard to Marx, the father of communism, his ideas on ecology suggested that man and nature were one entity. He believed that man is a part of nature as much as nature is a part of man, thus implying no victory of man over nature. However, when considering the current social hierarchy, man is situated at the capstone of the pyramid while all other beings lie below or at the base of the pyramid (women and the environment). This is a result of civilization and modern society, where the emergence of private property brought about concepts of patriarchy.
The ecofeminist philosophy was coined in order to illustrate who and what suffers from man’s creations, specifically women and nature. The relationship between women and nature is a commonly used symbol in literary works discussing ideas of modernism. This form of feminist literature does not only look at patriarchy as an extension of capitalism that contributes greatly to the oppression of women, but it also looks at nature as an equally oppressed party. Ecofeminist literature brings to life the relationship between patriarchy and capitalism as primary aggravators of oppression through utilizing literary devices that bring forth the similarities between women and nature.
One of the most prominent feminist writers was Virginia Woolf, who even throughout her life discussed the close relationship she herself had with nature. Having grown up in a problematic household and with a demanding scholar of a father, she spoke frequently of how she felt a deep connection with nature. She often preoccupied herself with caring for the garden at their house, as it brought her solace. This connection was reflected in her writing, where she often portrayed women as far more in touch with nature than men.
In her novel Mrs. Dalloway, the main character, Clarissa Dalloway, often spent time in public parks and enjoyed parts of the world that distanced her from the city. The city was a representation of disillusioned post-war England and the disruptive societal system. Woolf looks at the destruction of the environment after the war and how it was reconstructed based on British environmental culture. A society that aims to force women into conformity also aims to tame the environment into park landscapes. While society imposes certain beauty standards and societal expectations on women, environmental culture controls and transforms nature “to be a pleasurable place for others”. The same analysis applies to most societies today, as the assertion of authority on what is, relative to the white heterosexual man, a minority.
Undeniably, the intersectionality of these systems of oppression is at the forefront of interpersonal relations. Feminist and existentialist writer Simone de Beauvoir discussed in her book The Second Sex how women are the “relative being”, meaning they are defined only in relation to men. However, de Beauvoir poses a very interesting question: are men to blame for the exploitation of women, or are women to blame for accepting this exploitation?
De Beauvoir compares the gender struggle to the class struggle that Marx discussed in The Communist Manifesto, where he explained how the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoise united them and created a strong unit to fight their exploitation. While de Beauvoir believes that the proletariat were capable of achieving unity by common oppression, women cannot do so. The gender struggle is far more complex, as women are also separated by race and class, thus making each individual struggle different than the other. Women could not unite due to their differences. A white, bourgeoise woman did not experience the same struggle as the working woman of color.
Ecofeminist theory looks at the connectedness of women and the environment as minorities and their relative relationship to men. Although it does not disregard the race and class differences among women, it provides a more conjunct lens that blurs these differences and allows women to feel a sense of closeness to the environment and other women as well, seeking a connective force that aims to bring together victims of oppression. The ultimate purpose of ecofeminist philosophy is to dismember the hierarchal social system to transform society into a non-dualistic and non-hierarchal system.
Naturally, women and the environment are not the only victims of these systems of oppression. Men are also forced to conform to certain societal standards, which surely led to their gradual and absolute disconnect from nature. In Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway, forgotten war veteran Septimus Smith writes: “Men must not cut down trees. There is a God”. As a result of the masculine culture, men have a greater difficulty reconnecting to nature. This is due to the fact that women are viewed as part of nature, and green attitudes are now regarded as feminine. The feminization of nature (referring to it as “mother nature” or “mother earth”) has drawn men away from viewing themselves as a potential asset to the ecofeminist movement.
The most damaging perspective is the belief that men are part of culture and women are part of nature, as this has completely separated men from women and their origins. The first step begins is changing ideological values of masculinity that tie men to ideas of superiority. The capitalist system views nature as a commodity and an object, something that holds a monetary value or benefit, and since the patriarchy is an extension of capitalism, it has confined women to the role of being a source of production, just like the environment.
The retreat from masculinity is also a retreat from masculine culture, which denies global ecological destruction and the gender struggle. It is a step closer to eliminating the pejorative understanding of “femininity”, which will gradually permit the reconnection of man to nature. It begins with understanding that one cannot confine women and force them to conform to patriarchal values, just as one cannot confine a free-growing environment to satisfactory landscapes for one to enjoy. A man has no ownership over woman, just as he has no ownership over land. They are all but one entity that must live harmoniously instead of a hierarchal relationship.
*You can refer to my previous article Adopting Ecosocialism in the Age of Capitalism and Patriarchy: The Ecofeminist Approach.