Thoreau's Laundry

Today is Earth Day.  It is therefore a good time to think about the environmental movement, and its younger sibling, the green movement.  In particular, I wish to call attention to the ways that it intersects with the gendered structure of our society.  Odd as it may seem, gender influences how we frame our goals, the techniques we use to "save the planet," who speaks, and who bears the burdens of environmental action.

(Warning: this is long.  Also, note that gender and people are not the same thing.)

Environmentalism may not seem to be gendered, but gender has been embedded in it from the very beginning.  The outspoken advocates for Nature - Thoreau, Emerson, John Muir, Ed Abbey, David Brower - even the Lorax - are male.  They argue for the need to defend wild environments from human development, to protect "Mother Earth" from "rape" by greedy corporations.

The female voices - Rachel Carson, Erin Brockovich, Sandra Steingraber, Terry Tempest Williams - speak of environmental problems as well, but they are problems that are less about endangered Nature, wildness, or wilderness, than they are ones about the interference of chemicals with human bodies, particularly female bodies, manifesting as breast cancer, stillbirths, tainted milk, and birth defects.

Those who speak of Mother Earth as being the victim of rape tend not to put themselves in the position of fellow victims, but as those who would protect or defend this vulnerable feminine planet from its despoilers.  Even when articulated by women, the language of the defense of Nature is an essentially male one, and that defense is associated with stereotypically masculine action - blowing up bulldozers, aggressively challenging whalers, confronting loggers and seal pup hunters - actions that demonstrate commitment to a cause through physical, confrontational action.

The response to the issue of pollution, on the other hand, is articulated in stereotypically feminine ways - by pointing to personal experiences, emphasizing collaborative actions such as class action suits, invoking the sacred space of home and family as threatened by the predations of aggressive (masculine) corporations.  If masculine activism emphasizes the need to protect wild spaces, where men like Thoreau retreat to escape the stresses and corruption of modern society, feminine activism calls attention to the way that the home and one's body - the original safe space - have been invaded by toxins and greed.

In other words, masculine environmentalism is, when reduced to its most basic, about defending a vulnerable earth from "rapists" in order to ensure that (male) human beings continue to have access to it.  Feminine environmentalism, on the other hand, is about protecting one’s body, family, and home from outside attacks by (male) corporations. 

This gendering of the movement shapes the way that we think about environmental issues, and the way that we address environmental problems, in ways that are subtle, but significant.

We can see this when we shift our attention to the modern "green" movement, where similar dynamics are at work. 

Women are expected to go green by changing their shopping choices and altering their domestic behavior - buying "green" clothing made out of bamboo or organic cotton, using cloth diapers, using clotheslines instead of driers, replacing toxic household cleaners with green alternatives, shopping at farmers' markets (bringing their own bags, of course) rather than chain groceries, cooking using locally grown organic ingredients, filtering their water, and so on.  The representatives of this approach are predominantly female - Barbara Kingsolver, for example, or Alice Waters.

What does "green" look like for men?  Well, if you look at Al Gore as an example, or Bill McKibben, it either involves withdrawing from society a la Thoreau, or turning to technology and government.  Most of the people espousing "green" architecture are men, as are those who emphasize technological solutions such as hybrid cars, solar panels, bicycle commuting, green electronics, fluorescent lights, and so on.

Now, this division of labor would be one thing if it were only rhetorical, if it were people drawing on their gender's stereotypical strengths to argue for greener actions.

The problem is that it is not simply a rhetorical division of labor; it is an actual division of labor, and it falls more heavily on women.  The bulk of the suggestions concerning individual "green" behavior are directed towards tasks that are performed predominantly by women - shopping, cleaning, and childcare.  (Cooking, too, but there is a space now for men who cook as a skilled hobby - home chefs - that is not the same as the unglamorous daily feed-the-family cooking that is traditionally the lot of women.  Michael Pollan offers a good example of this.) 

In these areas going green entails sacrifice and increased workload - cloth diapers add to the laundry load (which is now supposed to be line-dried); making time to attend the farmers' market requires a schedule that is accommodating to the restricted hours most such markets have (not to mention the challenge of finding and getting to such markets, for many parts of the country) and creative cooking to make use of unfamiliar seasonal harvests; looking for food that is organic or local requires a much more careful and time-consuming form of shopping than just grabbing the regular Cheerios and Kraft Mac-N-Cheez off the shelf; cleaning the house using "green" products often involves a tradeoff between products that are toxic but time and labor consuming and those that are safer, but achieve their results through lots of elbow grease and/or time. 

The only feminine green activity that doesn't noticeably increase the labor of women, and which is pleasurable, is green fashion - and that is in fact more about greenwashing than an actual environmental act - the more "green" option is to not buy unnecessary new things in the first place.

Compare this to the "green" solutions directed at men.  Choosing to drive a hybrid car is perhaps a financial sacrifice, but that’s where the labor ends - it is no more challenging to drive a hybrid than a regular car.  The decision to switch to a bicycle based commute, on the other hand, does require sacrifice on the part of the doer - but it is a sacrifice that is perceived as a sacrifice, and as one that confirms the green cyclist's commitment.  We are supposed to buy organic - it doesn’t warrant special praise - but we get applause if we ride bicycles instead of cars (note too that more affordable options, such as walking, or ones which require governmental support, like public transit, are not as "cool" nor as "virtuous").  Riding a bike to work gives you public street cred in a way that line-drying at home does not. Similarly, technology-based solutions tend impose little personal cost on individuals beyond the financial (which, yes, can be considerable) - once you have installed your solar panels, you do not have to think about them on a daily basis unless you are a gadget geek.  Indeed, many of the technology solutions are in reality extensions of a fascination with "toys" - a sort of gee-whiz, who’s got the latest cool thing mentality that, again, favors men over women. 

(It is worth noting that many of these "toys" are no more "green" than green fashion, because, again, they tweak the problem of over-consumption rather than challenging it.  But while the idiocies of green fashion are frequently challenged or easy to see, technological "solutions" are more generally received positively.)

In other words, to go green in practice tends to entail additional work for women, while going green for men largely involves getting to play with cool toys.

The reason why this is important to note is that (a) it reminds us that in a society that is arranged into a gender-based hierarchy, nothing is gender-free, and (b) when we make decisions about environmental issues, or going green, it is important to ask who bears the burden of those decisions when put into practice, and who is at the decision-making table.  If these are not the same, even something as wonderful in theory as a green society may prove to be just a different shade of inequality.  Saving the planet is a worthy goal - but not if it replicates and reinforces the sorts of privilege and hierarchies that got us into this mess in the first place.

References and Comments

First, a disclaimer.  This is not intended to be the final say on this issue.  Further conversation is desirable.  So if you post on it, let me know so I can link to you!

Second, note that I am talking about both gender (social identities and roles) and about men and women.  They are NOT the same thing.  I have taken pains to distinguish between the two - so if you want to take issue with my interpretation, PLEASE read the section that's bothering you again before commenting, to make sure that I am in fact saying what you think I said.  I am also writing in broad terms here; I am aware that there are individual exceptions to the rule - but the rules do exist, and those individuals are still exceptional.

The title is a reference to the fact that Henry David Thoreau's retreat to Walden Pond was made possible by the labor of his neighbors, including the women who did his laundry. (There is also a book by this title, by Ann Harleman.  I have not read it.)

While I have focused on gender here, there are similar, equally important arguments that can be - and have been - made about the intersections of environmentalism with class and with race. 

I commented indirectly on this in an earlier post ("Dog-Paddling Upstream") that was a response to Janisse Ray's "Altar Call to True Believers" which appeared in Orion.  Chris Clarke's piece, looking at the human costs entailed in right-to-die advocacy, is also worth looking at.

If you are aware of any other pieces along these lines that would be of interest, please let me know.

Comments

[katecontinued]

Rana, this is the best thing I have read this year as far as interesting me in my primary themes as a liberal feminist wanting to live a high impact life while living lightly on the earth.

I meant to write you when I first read it this week. What you have said keeps coming into my thoughts as I planted and painted for the community this week. The green is re-enforcing the hierarchical roles as far as I can see.

There is one thing I hope to spend some time developing and that is the pleasure part of simpler living. Despite more domestic labor, the connections to nature and to people are gratifying. This makes it enviable (read: valued) in a way I never imagined in the early 70's equivilents.

Living to consume and working too many hours in unfulfilling work for not enough money is just vile. More people want out I think. This is too long. I will link and let you know if I formulate a more coherent thesis.

[Rana]

Great - I look forward to your further thoughts.

This is also cross-posted at Shakesville (I keep spazzing on adding the link) if you want to read the conversation there.

[Rana]

(Ignore the "0" comments note; there are in fact nearly 90 comments - it's a glitch in the system.)

[katecontinued]

I wrote something on Quantum">http://make-a-greenplan.blogspot.com/">Quantum Mechanicas (ahem) today that references your post. I have links to you here and at Shakesville. I haven't read those comments and I think I should now.

[Barbara Rubin]

Wonderful points - I would just like to add another to the mix. Your first examples cited the men who began the enviro movement by speaking to broader issues of the rape of the countryside. That is understandable, given the fact that few women had the opportunity to become educated, travel, enjoy solitude in the rough or gain prominence in the writing of naturalist subject matter. The works of these men also happened prior to the development of the most harmful synthetic poisons currently killing us. The understanding of these gentlemen spoke more to their attachment to beauty and the natural world with perhaps a basic understanding of more gross examples of poisoning (lead, mercury) known in those years.

The women you cite knew/foretold of the fact that modern chemicals tear at the foundations of human biochemistry. They realized that women were the primary victims in number and scope (autoimmune ailments are predominantly found among females) along with the risks to children.

To be very blunt, women are again the victims of male greed with the brunt of the damage done by poisons falling upon our heads.

I know as I became disabled from pesticide poisoning at the age of 45. Now brain damaged and chronically ill, I live in isolation with a poor prognosis.

It is personal. I know men whose lives have been terribly altered as well by these poisons but the majority of the affected are women and children (developmental disabilities now afflict one in six children).

Gender is significant in this battle with toxicity assessments based upon tolerances of healthy adult males. Gender is definitely one of the reasons this battle has yet been won.

Barbara Rubin
www.armchairactivist.us

[Barbara Rubin]

Oops, meant that last line to read, "...yet to be won." A function of my dysphasia...

[Rahul Saha]

Very insightful post.Thanks. Your comments on "rape" of "mother earth" reminds me of something Carolyn Merchant once said: "The image of the earth as a living organism and nurturing mother served as a cultural constraint restricting the actions of human beings. One does not readily slay a mother, dig into her entrails for gold, or mutilate her body...As long as the earth was considered to be alive and sensitive, it could be considered a breach of human ethical behaviour to carry out destructive acts against it."

[Rana]

Barbara - thank you for your comment - you make excellent points.

Rahul - Merchant is indeed the go-to person these days for these issues. I don't always agree with her theoretical constructs, but she has useful things to say in the big picture.

katecontinued - thanks - that's an interesting post!