“Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next. We can choose to walk through it, dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us. Or we can walk through lightly, with little luggage, ready to imagine another world. And ready to fight for it.” So ends a Financial Times article penned by author Arundhati Roy earlier this year, when the extent of the COVID-19 situation was just beginning to become clear. Her words hold truer than ever as we near the final month of this chaotic, tragic, wake-up call of a year. Everything has changed, but have we as a society changed enough to make the most of the times to come?
In my last article, I gave a sketch of the vision of some feminist climate activists, one that involves knocking down the capitalist world order and replacing it with a collectivist and egalitarian framework. I now want to highlight some of the work already being done, within the system, to reform and rebuild the economy with both social and climate justice at the forefront.
First, some hopeful facts, as explained by Joni Seager, a feminist geographer at Bentley University. Renewables have passed non-renewables in the EU for electricity. The BP oil company says that the peak of their output has passed. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund has said it won’t put any more funding toward fossil fuels. As a whole, in developed nations, fossil fuels are on the way out—all due the fact that rational economic behaviors would move us away from fossil fuels at this moment, more so than as a result of the compassion of the powerful and the passion of the powerless. In fact, much has been accomplished despite what Seager calls “a stubborn attachment that defies sensibility of economics” in the United States and Australia, where governments have ratcheted up commitment to fossil fuels through identity politics. From the top to bottom predominately male work force, to the fact that capital benefits accrue most to men, to the very language we use of “drill baby drill and “dominating the Permian Basin,” the fossil fuels industry is a remarkably masculinized one. Outdated for more than one reason, a society reliant on fossil fuels is also one that propagates a limiting, gendered worldview—and even those who challenge the science and economics of fossil fuels don’t always do so with equality in mind.
There’s a particular, 21st century brand of masculinity that drives environmental policy with methods that only enforce outdated social norms. The economic effects of the pandemic make the Green New Deal more urgent and relevant than ever, yet a feminist analysis of its proposed policies reveals numerous shortcomings, due in large part to the male elite perspective it relies on. A paper commissioned by two UK feminist organizations, Wen and the Women’s Budget Group, found that the Green New Deal creates tech jobs for “men in hard hats lifting solar panels,” a masculinist assumption of what the economy is for. With little acknowledgement of social difference, they emphasize that true progress lies in investing in women and POC-dominated care work, which pollutes less than construction. Care work can be paid or unpaid, and it mainly takes place in the home in the service of others, including children, aging parents, and spouses. The interconnections between the exploitation of women’s care work and the Earth need to be addressed simultaneously because all those doing the care work make survival, learning, and change possible in the face of existential threats—despite the free subsidy that care work represents to people in power. The study found that each pound invested in care produces three times as many jobs as one invested in construction, and this fact, coupled with that the vast majority of people of all genders want care work to be paid, points toward an economic solution that would also have a positive social impact. Supporters of a care-centered green movement consciously distance themselves from some of the ideas of the climate feminists of my last article. Branding themselves “eco-feminists,” supporters of a Feminist Green New Deal emphasize that their ideas are not about women being close to nature or other such caricatures, but about rational arguments for the democratization of care work.
Within the Femtech sector, which is “an all-encompassing name that defines innovations designed to support, improve and promote women’s health,” many products designed and sold for and by women are also eco-friendly. Replacing wasteful, disposable menstrual products with reusable cups, for example, is one of many ways that women are dominating the movement toward sustainable innovation and consumerism. Of course, this is problematic in another way—most available environmentally conscious products on the market, including reusable shopping bags, household cleaning products, and cosmetics, are marketed toward women, with some saying that green is the new pink in women’s marketing. While showcasing the ingenuity and motivation of the women behind some of these campaigns, such an approach alienates men, actually fueling the belief that saving the planet is women’s work, rather than something that can only be achieved through intersectional, inclusive action. But even these notions are dwindling among younger generations, which is a definite cause for hope.
There’s much to be done in the climate movement by both men and women—and deconstructing needlessly gendered economic and business policies seems like a good start. In reforming our global order to address the climate crisis, the pandemic, social injustice, and the economic crisis, solutions need not throw out the system in order to improve it. Policies that are feminist, sustainable, and economically sound would move society forward in a way that’s equal parts revolutionary and truly feasible.
Featured Image from Tee Public