In the reading “GENDER EQUALITY AND STATE ENVIRONMENTALISM” by Norgaard and York they explain the important research on gender equality and state environmentalism that shows the connections between societal structures of gender and environmental policies. They give us an important view into how gender dynamics have a part in environmental governance and policymaking, while also showing the need for a more open understanding to these issues that address climate change. One of the main arguments by Norgaard and York is that gender equality is important for developing and implementing successful environmental policies. In the text it says “ This research indicates that women are more likely than men to express support for environmental protection and that women consider a variety of environmental risks, from nuclear power to toxic substances, to be more serious than do men.” (Norgaard and York 508) For many years it has been shown that women often prioritize environmental issues more than men do. The quote is important because it shows gender equality in environmental policy while also giving us a view into women’s perspectives and experiences into environmental negotiations that can lead to more effective policies. As societies are becoming more aware of highly important environmental issues, like climate change, pollution, and resource depletion, acknowledging different viewpoints can be very useful in policy making.
Making the Connections: Women’s Health and Environmental Justice – ProQuest
Women in government, environment, and corruption – ScienceDirect
Silliman’s article gives us a better understanding of how environmental factors mainly impact women’s health. The article’s main point is to show how environmental degradation disproportionately affects women, mainly those in marginalized communities. In the text it says “Its promotion and usage and the subsequent damage it inflicted on women’s health and fertility demonstrated the lack of research, regulation and safety considerations given to women’s health.”(Silliman 1997 ) This is important because women often are exposed to toxic waste due to them also being caregivers and head of households. This connection shows how issues of environmental justice are also issues of gender equity.
DiRienzo and Das research shows that more female representation in government with lower levels of corruption can create a more effective environmental policy. By adding women’s perspectives in environmental governance, policymakers can create strategies that not only help marginalized groups but also can address broader environmental challenges. In the text it says “ that a greater percentage of women in positions of political power improves environmental outcomes through both the absolute, overarching effect and the indirect effect; however, the indirect effect is the stronger of the two effects.”(DiRienzo and Das 2019) This is important because it shows that having more women in political positions can lead to better environmental results. The direct effect can show that women in power prioritize environmental issues more than their male associates. Both articles connect to Norgaard and York’s main thesis because they all have common themes that have to do with the nature of injustice. They show the importance of addressing the root causes of environmental degradation by considering who is affected and who holds power.
I chose this image titled “why aren’t more women in top business positions?” because the questions asked to have to do with women not upholding the same qualities as men and vice versa. Statistically, women remain lower in leadership roles compared to their male figures. The statistics in the image show men being lower due to the gender specific question being asked. This statistic shows the connection between women in political power and state environmentalism, mainly pointing out that women do not have the same qualities as men when it comes to leadership.
DiRienzo, C. and Das, J. (2019) Women in government, environment, and corruption. Environmental Development. Volume 30. Pages 103-113. ISSN 2211-4645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.04.006.
Norgaard, K., & York, R. (2005). Gender equality and state environmentalism. Gender & Society, 19(4), 506–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204273612
Silliman, J. (1997). Making the connections: Women’s health and environmental justice. Race, Gender & Class, 5(1), 104. Retrieved from https://www.libproxy.umassd.edu/login?
Hi Jeanise,
Thank you for sharing.
You wrote, “acknowledging different viewpoints can be very useful in policy making,” and “issues of environmental justice are also issues of gender equity” (Personna). Putting these statements together, it becomes clear that respect for diverse knowledge is essential to understanding how environmental harm impacts those with less power. According to Norgaard and York, “powerful groups or individuals can force the less powerful to pay the costs of environmental degradation,” especially by reinforcing these ideas with perceptions of the “parallel social and historical constructions of women and nature,” (510). With women’s rights having been limited in the past, men have assigned them (and nature) the characteristic of passivity, reinforcing objectifying beliefs and devaluing their individuality or contributions (the ecofeminist link Norgaard and York mention in their subtopic, “Gender and the Environment”: “the parallel valuing or devaluing of the reproductive labor of women and of the natural environment will likely affect both gender equality and state environmentalism.”). As the representation of women in parliament increases, it defies the stereotype of their passivity, as we see women in far more active and powerful roles. When underrepresented groups are finally heard, more environmentally-conscious and inclusive work gets done. And if women (perhaps from historical/modern patriarchal oppression) are more vulnerable to environmental degradation, they may be the strongest to champion eco-friendliness. As Norgaard and York write, “If women both perceive environmental risks as greater and are less willing to impose these risks on others, higher status of women may lead to more environmentally progressive policies as women put their views and values into action” (509). I noticed one of the greatest reasons for fewer women in business positions from the graph you posted was “businesses aren’t ready to hire women in top positions” (n.a.). I believe the reason is because society does not value “feminine” qualities like it does “masculine” ones. Patriarchy emphasizes “parallel social and historical constructions of women and nature,” as something negative, rather than something to encourage; and women are still underrepresented in positions of political power, making it much harder to take proper action in caring for women and the environment (Norgaard and York 510).
Piper
Work Cited
Norgaard, Kari and Richard York. “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism.” Gender & Society, vol. 19, no. 4, August 2005, pp. 506-522; University of California-Davis; University of Oregon; University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 20 March 2025.
Hi Jeanise,
The statistic that sticks out to me is the women aren’t good at being managers and family responsibilities get in the way of running a corporation. For me they contradict one another? Much of running a household is managing an entire family with individual needs and a very intimate understanding of them. I think it’s interesting how people feel these skills wouldn’t transfer to professional life.