Before these readings, I did not know that there was any sort of relationship between war, peace, and the environment. All readings challenged the patriarchal, militaristic, capitalist, and colonialist frameworks that govern our contemporary societies.
Yoshida’s advocacy for recognizing the rights of nature resonates with current environmental crises. The concept that nature itself could hold rights to human rights challenges legal and ethical dynamics. What surprises and inspires me is the tangible demonstration of how ecofeminist principles can manifest in real-world actions that yield significant environmental and social benefits
A concept that was interesting to was the critique of “settler futurity” presented by Russ-Smith. That narrative that ensures the continuation of colonial dominance and erasure of Indigenous peoples and knowledge systems makes us critically think about the truth behind the so-called progress narratives in mainstream discourses on peace and environmental conservation for Indigenous people. It raises crucial questions about who is imagined to have a future in these narratives and at whose expense these futures are secured.
Moreover, the emphasis on “giyira” or the mix of past, present, and future, as central to Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing, offered a counterpoint to the Western concept of time. This Indigenous epistemology not only critiques the foundational violence of colonization but also presents a pathway toward healing.
These readings connect with current events such as the climate crisis and the movements for racial justice, showing the importance of addressing these issues not as separate crises but as a holistic struggle for justice and peace.
This reflection raises new questions for me about the roles that individuals and communities can play in helping these types of oppression that fuel wars. How can we, as individuals and communities, actively contribute participate in peace, justice, and sustainability?
Sharp and well-focused questions for class discussion:
1) How can we help transform the current dominant narratives around peace, environmental, and social justice, especially in the context of climate change?
2) How can the rights of nature be integrated into legal frameworks, and what challenges might arise in balancing these rights with human development needs and economic interests?
I appreciated Yoshida’s integration of gender and environment into conflict and sustainable peace practices. I had known the gendered impact of natural disasters and/or climate change but had not considered the key role of security and how this could be considered in the WPS agenda. Wangari Maathai’s words summarized it well: “We are called to assist the earth to heal her wounds, and in the process heal our own”; complimenting Yoshida’s suggestions to have a rights-of-nature framework embedded in the WPS agenda.
I found Moulton and Carey’s article to be a helpful overview of the mundane and overlooked impacts of climate change; offering a spotlight to voices typically overlooked in the global conversation around disaster risk reduction & resilience. The first pillar of futuremaking was “Prioritizing every day over someday”. When women described their days, their answers included a variety of ‘mundane’ and unglamorous tasks – tasks that would be typical for a farmer. I found the request from the Quechua women for local governments to focus on things like water and fertilizer very thought-provoking. It’s typical for the government’s response to climate change to be programs that address the disastrous events or entirely shift agriculture practices for local communities (this is especially true for Global Affairs Canada and their bilateral development programming). These types of responses have their time and space. But the Quechua women’s request to consider the everyday life is a cry to consider the everyday tasks – all of which make up their days, weeks, months, years, and ultimately, their quality of life. I’m reminded of Week 8’s class where we discussed justice as a daily act that happens in everyday tasks.
A common theme throughout the readings was a shared vision, ‘imagined community’, the idea of futuremaking; a hope for something better. I love this idea so much, but I also know that any sustainable change cannot happen under our current power structures and oppressive systems. As Yoshida mentioned, we need to adopt a radical and transformative approach to what and how we protect our planet. What would it take to adopt such a radical framework? Similar to some of our class discussions, how can we get buy-in from people who are skeptical/uninterested?
This week’s material deepened my understanding the ecological violence posed by extractive industries. The film, “There is Something in the Water” illustrated the devastating impact of environmental racism in Nova Scotia. This issue in Halifax came as a bit of a surprise to me as I too have only heard many great things about the province.
Evidently, there have been many forms to supress the voices of the most marginalized. However, these women showed courage despite the challenges that they faced to see change within their communities to protect their land and water – for me it is these stories that will stick.
It highlights that the place of which you live could have an impact on your well-being. This reminds me of the film “the Descendants” that we watched last semester, and the link of extractive industries and the health implications that this has on the communities. There is a erosion of distrust between the communities and the government, where treaty rights have been violated and where environmental rights are ignored .
The reading by Yoshida, helped me to further my understanding of the nexus between climate change and conflict prevention. We have witnessed that powerful entities who have continued to prioritize profit before sustainable livelihoods and ecosystems.
This reminds me of an article that I have read by Global Witness which in 2015 saw the highest number of killings of land and environmental defenders, spotlighting the challenges faced by those striving to protect their land, forests, and rivers through non-violent means (Global Witness, 2016). There are extensive ramifications of capitalist accumulation, resulting in substantial environmental dispossession and this can be seen in countries like Cambodia.
Intersectionality is helpful to consider the ways that climate change can impact the most marginalized communities. For instance, the reading allude that mining projects can have consequential impacts on the health and well-being of women.
What intrigued me the most was the Rights-Based approach within the WPS agenda, as discussed in the Yoshida reading. From the Hunt reading, it aided my perspective on how we can elevate political awareness through ecofeminist practices for fostering social change. The narrative of Wangari Maathai was particularly inspiring to me.
From the reading by Moulton et al., what intrigued me the most was the concept of incremental changes occurring in our daily lives, along with the formation of community care networks, which can have a significant impact, exemplified by actions such as watering the herbs. This example was best highlighted by the Quechua women employ future-making as a means to navigate the intersecting realms of environmental and social change.
From the Daggett reading, it expanded my understanding of the ways in which fossil fuel extraction and consumption can be served to exemplify masculinity in addition to furthering fossil capitalism.
Given the colonial history in Canada, what reparations and measures can be made to ensure to enhance government transparency, accountability, as well as swift and efficient action in addressing these issues to ensure true reconciliation?
I’m not surprised by the interplay of power dynamics in climate change per se, after all, the systemic inequalities that exist are a sort of open secret at this point. However, the concept of ‘petro-masculinity’ from the Dagger reading is new for me. I learned how the traditional ideals of masculinity intersect with fossil fuel consumption only to further societal norms of dominance and control.
I still remember the documentary we saw last semester on the Clotilda and the “There is Something in the Water” documentary and the Daggett reading both reminded me of the the stark disparities in vulnerability to climate change, particularly along lines of race and socio-economic status. We understand how coloured peoples and indigenous populations continue to suffer from colonial legacies of oppression and climate change is just another segment of this. These people and communities are now bearing the brunt of environmental injustices in the form of pollution/limited access to resources like clean water. We saw this in Africatown and we see this with Indigenous peoples across Canada and even in Pakistan in the Baloch and Sindh provinces. The discrimination is becoming harder to conceal as natural resources run scare and are depleting. The story of Africatown and the descendants of the Clotilda is very good example of how historical legacies of colonialism and slavery continue to shape patterns of environmental degradation and socio-economic disparities. Race and gender, I feel, should be the centre of climate change discussions to address the systemic injustices that are perpetuating environmental harm.
A reoccurring team through the readings + documentary has been the prioritization of corporal greed – profits and power. Daggett’s concept of “fossil authoritarianism” revealed how political agendas prioritize profit and power over the well-being of communities and the planet. Look at the sheer scale of unnecessary war and destruction across the planet, a business in itself. By militarizing responses to climate change and denying its existence, authoritarian/ right-wing regimes like Trump’s perpetuate existing power structures and exacerbate environmental injustices as we see happening in Mexico with climate refugees trying to get in. Even Pakistan suffers greatly and is among the top 10 most vulnerable countries facing sever climate change risks but it contributes very little to global greenhouse gas emissions, something the Global North cannot claim.
Also, women, particularly those in marginalized communities, often bear the brunt of climate change impacts due to unequal access to resources and decision-making power. I feel gender-based violence will worsen as opportunities for resilience decrease. There is a gender dimension to climate change and this requires gender-sensitive approaches.
Q) I wonder what initiatives might help mitigate the exacerbation of gender-based violence amidst declining opportunities for climate resilience, especially in developing countries.
I’ve been thinking a lot about how one’s proximity to hazardous environmental conditions is determined by systemic injustices. The statement, “In Canada, your postal code determines your health,” from the documentary really struck a chord. For example, the Indigenous community of Grassy Narrows in Ontario has suffered from decades of mercury contamination in their waterways. This has impacted the community’s health and long-term wellbeing with issues like neurological disorders, developmental delays, and increased rates of mental illness.
I also like the statement, “Canada is not a nation, it’s a corporation,” it summarizes he prioritization of corporate interests over public health. It reminds me of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion and the risks it poses to Indigenous lands and water sources, but the government still seems perfectly aligned with corporate agendas at the expense of Indigenous rights and environmental sustainability. I mean I don’t expect them to be geniuses but it’s very visible.
Next, Hunt’s reading helped me understand the interconnectedness of environmental degradation with social injustice. This is especially the case for communities who rely heavily on natural resources for their livelihoods. My aunt farms and she taught me that in Pakistan, rural communities, particularly those dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods, bear the brunt of water scarcity. They are at greater risk of food insecurity, malnutrition with economic hardship. Then there are also, smaller farms that lack access to irrigation infrastructure and face competition for water resources from large-scale agricultural operations and these the elite politicians generally ahem monopoly over. This perpetuates social injustice by deepening rural poverty and exacerbating inequalities in access to resources and economic opportunities. The same politicians during PM Bhutto’s rule also took land away from farmers only to redistribute it among themselves under the lie that it would go to the impoverished, never happened. In the cities, like Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad air pollution because of cars and industrial activities of the rich contribute to the cities’ renowned poor air quality contributing to respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular diseases, and premature deaths, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities living in densely populated urban areas with limited access to healthcare services. Just one of many examples.
The Moulton and Carey reading, spoke at length on gender dynamics. In Pakistan, a similar narrative unfolds where women often bear the brunt of climate change especially because the worker force in agricultural farms is largely women whereas men handle things like tractors and work management. For example, women are primarily responsible for collecting water but we don’t have any mechanism for preserving rainwater and water sources are diminishing from erratic rainfall patterns. This means these women then have to work even longer while already having a heavy workload, which takes time away from other activities like education.
Something that really upset me in the wake of the 2022 floods was the prevalence of gender-based violence and how it intensified. Women and girls faced heightened risks of sexual violence and exploitation in the overcrowded relief camps just after surviving the floods! They didn’t even have access to safe sanitation facilities as it’s not seen as a necessity meaning higher health risks. It really infuriates me. I wonder how societies can prioritize the safety and dignity of women and girls during humanitarian crises like floods in the wake of intensifying gender-based violence that exacerbates their vulnerabilities in such challenging times?
This week’s readings are both daunting and powerful, and they all convey a profound sense of urgency. The intersectionality between gender, race, and environmental degradation clarifies how marginalized communities, particularly women and people of color, disproportionately bear the brunt of climate impacts while facing systemic inequalities and discrimination. Gender norms and power dynamics influence vulnerability and resilience to climate change, shaping access to resources, decision-making processes, and adaptive strategies. Also, racial and ethnic minorities they often disproportionately experience environmental injustices, such as exposure to pollution and lack of access to clean water and adequate housing.
Dagget’s article explores the complex intersectionality of climate denial, racism, misogyny, and authoritarianism through the lens of petro-masculinity. The author highlights how fossil fuel systems historically buttressed white patriarchal rule, leading to a reactionary defense of fossil fuels as not just sources of profit, but also symbols of cultural identity and power. By framing climate denial and fossil fuel boosterism as intertwined with masculinity, Dagget reveals how anxieties over gender and climate converge, often resulting in violent compensatory practices. The concept of petro-masculinity exposes the ways in which fossil fuel consumption becomes a performance of masculinity, predominantly evident in new authoritarian movements in the West, such as Trump’s administration. Particularly, it was mind opening to understand the link between fossil violence and misogyny, and viewing it not merely as individual hatred, but as a systemic practice reinforcing patriarchal norms.
When I was wondering what can be done to resolve the issue of petro-masculinity and misogyny in climate change, I found Yoshida’s article as an answer to that. Her advocacy for a holistic understanding of peace that embraces environmental sustainability and social justice, I believe it can bring change because it is an approach that acknowledges the intersecting forms of oppression and underscores the need to challenge existing power dynamics to ensure the well-being of both people and the planet. I also agree with her call for the inclusion of environmental considerations within the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) framework, acknowledging the impact of climate change on international peace and security.
It was inspiring to read Kathleen Hunt’s article about Wangari Maathai, a trailblazer in environmental activism who began her journey in Kenya and went on to inspire countless others globally. Despite immense setbacks in her environment activism, Maathai’s work not only left a profound impact on the environment in Kenya but also served as a catalyst for similar grassroots movements worldwide. What makes Maathai unique is her holistic approach to environmentalism, which not only aimed at planting trees to combat deforestation but also sought to empower local communities, particularly women, to take control of their natural resources and improve their livelihoods.
Moulton and Carey introduced us to the concept of “futuremaking,” which emphasizes the importance of prioritizing everyday practices and desires over solely focusing on future risks and emergencies. Using the example of Quechua women’s everyday actions to navigate environmental changes, such as tending home gardens and cultivating community networks of care, the authors reminded us that there is much we can learn from indigenous ways of knowing and their connection to land and nature. By centering the experiences and capabilities of Indigenous women, the article advocates for a more transformative approach to climate change adaptation that recognizes the agency of marginalized communities and challenges existing power dynamics in adaptation planning. The authors also highlight the intersectional nature of vulnerability, emphasizing the need for feminist perspectives in climate change adaptation planning. By acknowledging the complex interplay of race, gender, class, and other social factors, the article calls for a more holistic understanding of adaptation that moves beyond traditional, top-down approaches and prioritizes the well-being and agency of Indigenous women.
My question:
When considering climate change and other pressing social issues, I sometimes feel helpless because it’s evident, as highlighted in the readings, that politicians and the wealthy (and other people with power) play a key role in perpetuating these injustices. It’s the systemic issue we discussed in one of our previous classes. I would like to revisit the idea of addressing the system, particularly concerning climate change, as this would disrupt the wealthy and powerful.
The Dagget article on Petro-Masculinity was quite interesting, especially for someone fascinated by different forms of masculinity. I thought she brought up an interesting point that fossil fuels were a catalyst to bring on a mass of modern liberal democracies, which suggests that we owe part of our loyalties to this destructive energy form. To me, Petro-Masculinity seems to be concerned with a nostalgia for past times when people didn’t have to think as much about the environmental and social consequences of their actions and the scarcity of oil could be controlled more easily to ensure oligopolistic tendencies. It’s also interesting how tied this into eco-modernism, which saw the transition of hyper-masculine men having to shift to still being thought, but having small forms of compassion and care for the environment to maintain their control, authority and agency over supplies of fossil fuels. This reinforces the notions that toxic forms of masculinity can take on various forms and can even become embedded within minority communities in which it initially targeted. I did find her article to be slightly more theoretical-based, but while still acknowledging that, she used American political examples to reinforce her concept. I still remain unsure whether these Petro-Masculine zones of influence remain a systemic issue in the sense that they are a source of the problem or if men are conditioned into these tendencies at an earlier age and have then treated the processes within the energy sectors based on this; I think you could argue it both ways.
The Moulton and Carey reading provided a refreshing perspective, offering a more optimistic outlook on addressing climate change through feminist adaptation frameworks. What struck me most was their emphasis on the importance of centring typically overlooked aspects of human experiences, such as subjectivities and emotions, within these frameworks. By shining a light on these dimensions, they underscored the need to move beyond the narrow lens of economic struggles and concerns that often dominate discussions about climate change. Their approach highlighted that while economic considerations are undeniably crucial, they represent only a fraction of the complex tapestry of human existence intertwined with environmental challenges. By acknowledging and integrating the full spectrum of human experiences, from personal narratives to emotional responses, feminist adaptation frameworks can offer more holistic and effective responses to the climate emergency. One aspect that particularly resonated with me was their emphasis on the urgency of action in the present moment. Too often, climate policies are framed in terms of distant future scenarios, perpetuating a sense of detachment and complacency. However, Moulton and Carey’s call to focus on “Today” rather than perpetually deferring action to “Someday” underscores the immediate need for bold and decisive measures. Their perspective challenged me to confront the reality of climate change head-on and to prioritize meaningful action in the here and now. It was a powerful reminder that the time for action is not in some distant future but right now, demanding a shift in mindset and approach towards addressing the climate emergency with urgency and determination. Ultimately, the Moulton and Carey reading left me feeling inspired and energized, offering a compelling framework for transformative action grounded in empathy, inclusivity, and a profound understanding of the human experience.
Based on this, my question for the class is, “How can we further implement feminist adaptation frameworks that emphasize lived experiences without needing to offer financial incentives for policymakers and government to take action?”
With this week’s topic, I find myself drawn into a complex web where environmental issues, cultural norms, and gender dynamics intersect in fascinating and sometimes unsettling ways. The concept of petro-masculinity, particularly, has opened a new lens for me to view the intricate connections between gender identities and environmental policies.
One quote that struck me in the Daggett reading was the idea that “burning fossil fuels in an age of global warming can offer a compensatory practice of violence.” This resonates with me profoundly, not only for its bold assertion but also for the way it encapsulates a deeper, often overlooked, psychological and cultural facet of environmental debates. It suggests a rebellion, not just against scientific evidence and environmental activism but also against an evolving societal understanding of gender roles and identities.
This defiance, rooted in traditional masculine norms, ties back to Naomi Klein’s discussions in ‘This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate’, where the entanglements of economic systems and environmental crises are scrutinised. Adding the layer of petro-masculinity suggests that tackling climate change is as much about challenging deeply ingrained gender norms as it is about altering economic policies.
One aspect that stands out is the unique vulnerabilities of women in the face of environmental crises. Thinking of this in a Pakistani context (please forgive me for always doing that) in rural Pakistan, where agriculture is a key livelihood, women often bear the brunt of climate change impacts due to their roles in food production and water collection. However, their contributions and challenges are frequently overshadowed by the male-dominated narrative in agricultural practices and environmental policies. This gender disparity is not just a matter of social inequality; it significantly hampers effective climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.
The concept of petro-masculinity adds another layer to this discussion. In the Pakistani context, where fossil fuel consumption and industries are critical to the economy, masculinity is often intertwined with these sectors. The aggressive stance against acknowledging climate change and adopting sustainable practices could be viewed as a defence of not just economic interests but also of a certain masculine identity associated with control over natural resources and resistance to change.
However, this perspective raises several questions: How does the concept of petro-masculinity manifest in a country like Pakistan, where the economic reliance on fossil fuels intersects with cultural notions of masculinity? How do these intersections impact women’s roles and voices in climate change discourse and action?
These considerations lead me to think about how empowering women, particularly in rural and agricultural contexts, could be a key strategy in tackling climate change effectively in Pakistan. This approach would require a shift in both policy and cultural norms, valuing women’s knowledge and roles in environmental stewardship, and addressing the gendered impacts of climate change.
What surprised me was the extent to which these gender dynamics are entrenched in the socio-political fabric of various issues. I was also intrigued by the notion of using feminist reflexivity and curiosity as tools to dissect these complex interactions. This approach encourages a more nuanced understanding of the issues at hand, delving deeper into the “why” and “how” rather than just the “what.”
In light of these reflections, I have these questions: In the context of petro-masculinity, how can feminist reflexivity be utilised to effectively challenge and reshape entrenched gender norms that are detrimental to environmental sustainability? How can we bridge the gap between acknowledging the psychological and cultural dimensions of environmental policies and implementing practical, effective strategies that address these underlying issues?
There is a tendency to draw upon the worst-case scenario when writing about environmental issues. It is an emergency and it is an existential threat for us all and this urgency has led to seminal works like a Silent Spring. However, this expression of upcoming catastrophe has led groups of scholars and policymakers to focus on possible disasters which forgets that the crisis is happening now and its effects are being felt by people. It is typically racialized bodies and marginalized communities that are experiencing firsthand the damage caused by climate change. Moulton and Careys article about Quechua women back in my home country is an example of this scholarly and policy tendency. They explain how the government and scholars are focused on glacial lake outburst floods instead of focusing on the now. Quechua women are the ones living in these lands, they are the ones trying to survive and thrive through the changing climate conditions and they necessities are today not tomorrow. This bottom-up approach of empowering the people who are most affected is what Hunt explores through the study of ecofeminism. These actions of resistance through environmental action is method to break free from the narratives imposed by colonialism and the labels that are thrusted upon this communities by scholars and policymakers. In our Memory and Justice class we dedicated an entire lecture to community-based approaches and we are once again reminded how these approaches can help us understand the how community face issues that are intersectional by nature. Plenty of times it is Global South governments working together with foreign entities that enact policies that are blind to the ground issues. Turning towards a community-based approach would be a paradigm shift when currently there is an emphasis on speed and efficiency and we must ask how can governments be convinced to make the change. Perhaps, X’s talk this Thursday can help with understanding the type of advocacy that can create these narrative shifts.
Sumak kawsay or buen vivir, we live together in harmony and this involves nature we share our wisdom with the land and in return they let us live a dignified life that we share with our community. This basic conception is what has led to many of the land rights that Yoshida mentions in Ecuador and Bolivia. Reconnecting with nature and treating it as a living being is considered to be a way that we Latin Americans can resurface our indigenous traditions and move away from the legacies of colonization and the continued narratives from Western hegemony. This return to indigenous practices and narratives is in tension with capitalism and Western narratives which has led to Latin America being one of the most dangerous regions for climate activists. Nature is at the intersection of many themes which is why Yoshida succinctly articulates that it should be included in the WPS agenda. My question in this subject would be how do others adopt a narrative that has little resonance with their experience and history.
Also, if anyone is curious about the damages of oil extraction, I would recommend watching Vice’s short video on it: The World’s Worst Oil Related Disaster You’ve Never Heard Of | I Was There.
This week has helped me consider an important aspect to gender, peace and security, that is so intertwined: the climate.
Starting off with the documentary, it clearly demonstrated the disproportionate effect of the climate, and any policy decisions, on different communities, including Indigenous Peoples and racialized populations. It was such a powerful way to visualize this impact, and it truly made me so angry with what people have had to cope with, as well as the inadequacy of policymakers to fully consider intersectional lens.
The article by Dagget on Petro-Masculinity was an interesting way to look at masculinity and how that intersects with gender, peace and security. We have definitely witnessed forms of toxic masculinity rise, especially in this sector, in the past few years — and how this intertwines with gender norms and patriarchy. Recently, a co-founder of Next Gen Men came to speak one of my classes, and while reading this article, I was reflecting on the things that were discussed. He had mentioned the ways in which he seeks to transform the definition of masculinity and therefore address gender inequalities, which has included going into sectors such as energy and mining companies, and having a workshop. The reading made me think of the ways in which climate intersects with so many themes discussed in this course, but also reflect on ways in which we can transform the system and norms.
Both Hunt’s and Moulton and Carey’s articles shed light on how ideas and policy work can advance climate agenda and intersect with gender. Hunt’s discussion on how they utilized planting as a way to plant and spread ideas amongst the people. Reading this, however, I was critical of how despite these well-meaning movements, organizations and governments can create policies that are greenwashing and not meaningful. When I was in Kenya, the second day was an impromptu national “plant the tree” day, all in the effort to use climate change as an excuse to raise taxes and prices on due to their corrupt scheme. It is sad that while there are so many meaningful and powerful movements to address climate change that intersect with gender and race, there are always those who take an advantage of this.
To me, Yoshida’s article felt personal and nostalgic to me — her references to the rights of nature and considering nature as having agency was something that has been instilled in me since I was young. But, as we grow older, I think it’s a concept that we forget to maintain and something that we overlook. It served as a reminder to continue looking at the nature as something that holds agency and rights, and we must continue to protect it.
Questions:
1. How do we continue our efforts to address climate change, while avoiding companies, organizations, and governments from partaking in greenwashing schemes? Is greenwashing schemes still better than nothing?
Before these readings, I did not know that there was any sort of relationship between war, peace, and the environment. All readings challenged the patriarchal, militaristic, capitalist, and colonialist frameworks that govern our contemporary societies.
Yoshida’s advocacy for recognizing the rights of nature resonates with current environmental crises. The concept that nature itself could hold rights to human rights challenges legal and ethical dynamics. What surprises and inspires me is the tangible demonstration of how ecofeminist principles can manifest in real-world actions that yield significant environmental and social benefits
A concept that was interesting to was the critique of “settler futurity” presented by Russ-Smith. That narrative that ensures the continuation of colonial dominance and erasure of Indigenous peoples and knowledge systems makes us critically think about the truth behind the so-called progress narratives in mainstream discourses on peace and environmental conservation for Indigenous people. It raises crucial questions about who is imagined to have a future in these narratives and at whose expense these futures are secured.
Moreover, the emphasis on “giyira” or the mix of past, present, and future, as central to Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing, offered a counterpoint to the Western concept of time. This Indigenous epistemology not only critiques the foundational violence of colonization but also presents a pathway toward healing.
These readings connect with current events such as the climate crisis and the movements for racial justice, showing the importance of addressing these issues not as separate crises but as a holistic struggle for justice and peace.
This reflection raises new questions for me about the roles that individuals and communities can play in helping these types of oppression that fuel wars. How can we, as individuals and communities, actively contribute participate in peace, justice, and sustainability?
Sharp and well-focused questions for class discussion:
1) How can we help transform the current dominant narratives around peace, environmental, and social justice, especially in the context of climate change?
2) How can the rights of nature be integrated into legal frameworks, and what challenges might arise in balancing these rights with human development needs and economic interests?
I appreciated Yoshida’s integration of gender and environment into conflict and sustainable peace practices. I had known the gendered impact of natural disasters and/or climate change but had not considered the key role of security and how this could be considered in the WPS agenda. Wangari Maathai’s words summarized it well: “We are called to assist the earth to heal her wounds, and in the process heal our own”; complimenting Yoshida’s suggestions to have a rights-of-nature framework embedded in the WPS agenda.
I found Moulton and Carey’s article to be a helpful overview of the mundane and overlooked impacts of climate change; offering a spotlight to voices typically overlooked in the global conversation around disaster risk reduction & resilience. The first pillar of futuremaking was “Prioritizing every day over someday”. When women described their days, their answers included a variety of ‘mundane’ and unglamorous tasks – tasks that would be typical for a farmer. I found the request from the Quechua women for local governments to focus on things like water and fertilizer very thought-provoking. It’s typical for the government’s response to climate change to be programs that address the disastrous events or entirely shift agriculture practices for local communities (this is especially true for Global Affairs Canada and their bilateral development programming). These types of responses have their time and space. But the Quechua women’s request to consider the everyday life is a cry to consider the everyday tasks – all of which make up their days, weeks, months, years, and ultimately, their quality of life. I’m reminded of Week 8’s class where we discussed justice as a daily act that happens in everyday tasks.
A common theme throughout the readings was a shared vision, ‘imagined community’, the idea of futuremaking; a hope for something better. I love this idea so much, but I also know that any sustainable change cannot happen under our current power structures and oppressive systems. As Yoshida mentioned, we need to adopt a radical and transformative approach to what and how we protect our planet. What would it take to adopt such a radical framework? Similar to some of our class discussions, how can we get buy-in from people who are skeptical/uninterested?
This week’s material deepened my understanding the ecological violence posed by extractive industries. The film, “There is Something in the Water” illustrated the devastating impact of environmental racism in Nova Scotia. This issue in Halifax came as a bit of a surprise to me as I too have only heard many great things about the province.
Evidently, there have been many forms to supress the voices of the most marginalized. However, these women showed courage despite the challenges that they faced to see change within their communities to protect their land and water – for me it is these stories that will stick.
It highlights that the place of which you live could have an impact on your well-being. This reminds me of the film “the Descendants” that we watched last semester, and the link of extractive industries and the health implications that this has on the communities. There is a erosion of distrust between the communities and the government, where treaty rights have been violated and where environmental rights are ignored .
The reading by Yoshida, helped me to further my understanding of the nexus between climate change and conflict prevention. We have witnessed that powerful entities who have continued to prioritize profit before sustainable livelihoods and ecosystems.
This reminds me of an article that I have read by Global Witness which in 2015 saw the highest number of killings of land and environmental defenders, spotlighting the challenges faced by those striving to protect their land, forests, and rivers through non-violent means (Global Witness, 2016). There are extensive ramifications of capitalist accumulation, resulting in substantial environmental dispossession and this can be seen in countries like Cambodia.
Intersectionality is helpful to consider the ways that climate change can impact the most marginalized communities. For instance, the reading allude that mining projects can have consequential impacts on the health and well-being of women.
What intrigued me the most was the Rights-Based approach within the WPS agenda, as discussed in the Yoshida reading. From the Hunt reading, it aided my perspective on how we can elevate political awareness through ecofeminist practices for fostering social change. The narrative of Wangari Maathai was particularly inspiring to me.
From the reading by Moulton et al., what intrigued me the most was the concept of incremental changes occurring in our daily lives, along with the formation of community care networks, which can have a significant impact, exemplified by actions such as watering the herbs. This example was best highlighted by the Quechua women employ future-making as a means to navigate the intersecting realms of environmental and social change.
From the Daggett reading, it expanded my understanding of the ways in which fossil fuel extraction and consumption can be served to exemplify masculinity in addition to furthering fossil capitalism.
Given the colonial history in Canada, what reparations and measures can be made to ensure to enhance government transparency, accountability, as well as swift and efficient action in addressing these issues to ensure true reconciliation?
I’m not surprised by the interplay of power dynamics in climate change per se, after all, the systemic inequalities that exist are a sort of open secret at this point. However, the concept of ‘petro-masculinity’ from the Dagger reading is new for me. I learned how the traditional ideals of masculinity intersect with fossil fuel consumption only to further societal norms of dominance and control.
I still remember the documentary we saw last semester on the Clotilda and the “There is Something in the Water” documentary and the Daggett reading both reminded me of the the stark disparities in vulnerability to climate change, particularly along lines of race and socio-economic status. We understand how coloured peoples and indigenous populations continue to suffer from colonial legacies of oppression and climate change is just another segment of this. These people and communities are now bearing the brunt of environmental injustices in the form of pollution/limited access to resources like clean water. We saw this in Africatown and we see this with Indigenous peoples across Canada and even in Pakistan in the Baloch and Sindh provinces. The discrimination is becoming harder to conceal as natural resources run scare and are depleting. The story of Africatown and the descendants of the Clotilda is very good example of how historical legacies of colonialism and slavery continue to shape patterns of environmental degradation and socio-economic disparities. Race and gender, I feel, should be the centre of climate change discussions to address the systemic injustices that are perpetuating environmental harm.
A reoccurring team through the readings + documentary has been the prioritization of corporal greed – profits and power. Daggett’s concept of “fossil authoritarianism” revealed how political agendas prioritize profit and power over the well-being of communities and the planet. Look at the sheer scale of unnecessary war and destruction across the planet, a business in itself. By militarizing responses to climate change and denying its existence, authoritarian/ right-wing regimes like Trump’s perpetuate existing power structures and exacerbate environmental injustices as we see happening in Mexico with climate refugees trying to get in. Even Pakistan suffers greatly and is among the top 10 most vulnerable countries facing sever climate change risks but it contributes very little to global greenhouse gas emissions, something the Global North cannot claim.
Also, women, particularly those in marginalized communities, often bear the brunt of climate change impacts due to unequal access to resources and decision-making power. I feel gender-based violence will worsen as opportunities for resilience decrease. There is a gender dimension to climate change and this requires gender-sensitive approaches.
Q) I wonder what initiatives might help mitigate the exacerbation of gender-based violence amidst declining opportunities for climate resilience, especially in developing countries.
I’ve been thinking a lot about how one’s proximity to hazardous environmental conditions is determined by systemic injustices. The statement, “In Canada, your postal code determines your health,” from the documentary really struck a chord. For example, the Indigenous community of Grassy Narrows in Ontario has suffered from decades of mercury contamination in their waterways. This has impacted the community’s health and long-term wellbeing with issues like neurological disorders, developmental delays, and increased rates of mental illness.
I also like the statement, “Canada is not a nation, it’s a corporation,” it summarizes he prioritization of corporate interests over public health. It reminds me of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion and the risks it poses to Indigenous lands and water sources, but the government still seems perfectly aligned with corporate agendas at the expense of Indigenous rights and environmental sustainability. I mean I don’t expect them to be geniuses but it’s very visible.
Next, Hunt’s reading helped me understand the interconnectedness of environmental degradation with social injustice. This is especially the case for communities who rely heavily on natural resources for their livelihoods. My aunt farms and she taught me that in Pakistan, rural communities, particularly those dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods, bear the brunt of water scarcity. They are at greater risk of food insecurity, malnutrition with economic hardship. Then there are also, smaller farms that lack access to irrigation infrastructure and face competition for water resources from large-scale agricultural operations and these the elite politicians generally ahem monopoly over. This perpetuates social injustice by deepening rural poverty and exacerbating inequalities in access to resources and economic opportunities. The same politicians during PM Bhutto’s rule also took land away from farmers only to redistribute it among themselves under the lie that it would go to the impoverished, never happened. In the cities, like Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad air pollution because of cars and industrial activities of the rich contribute to the cities’ renowned poor air quality contributing to respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular diseases, and premature deaths, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities living in densely populated urban areas with limited access to healthcare services. Just one of many examples.
The Moulton and Carey reading, spoke at length on gender dynamics. In Pakistan, a similar narrative unfolds where women often bear the brunt of climate change especially because the worker force in agricultural farms is largely women whereas men handle things like tractors and work management. For example, women are primarily responsible for collecting water but we don’t have any mechanism for preserving rainwater and water sources are diminishing from erratic rainfall patterns. This means these women then have to work even longer while already having a heavy workload, which takes time away from other activities like education.
Something that really upset me in the wake of the 2022 floods was the prevalence of gender-based violence and how it intensified. Women and girls faced heightened risks of sexual violence and exploitation in the overcrowded relief camps just after surviving the floods! They didn’t even have access to safe sanitation facilities as it’s not seen as a necessity meaning higher health risks. It really infuriates me. I wonder how societies can prioritize the safety and dignity of women and girls during humanitarian crises like floods in the wake of intensifying gender-based violence that exacerbates their vulnerabilities in such challenging times?
This week’s readings are both daunting and powerful, and they all convey a profound sense of urgency. The intersectionality between gender, race, and environmental degradation clarifies how marginalized communities, particularly women and people of color, disproportionately bear the brunt of climate impacts while facing systemic inequalities and discrimination. Gender norms and power dynamics influence vulnerability and resilience to climate change, shaping access to resources, decision-making processes, and adaptive strategies. Also, racial and ethnic minorities they often disproportionately experience environmental injustices, such as exposure to pollution and lack of access to clean water and adequate housing.
Dagget’s article explores the complex intersectionality of climate denial, racism, misogyny, and authoritarianism through the lens of petro-masculinity. The author highlights how fossil fuel systems historically buttressed white patriarchal rule, leading to a reactionary defense of fossil fuels as not just sources of profit, but also symbols of cultural identity and power. By framing climate denial and fossil fuel boosterism as intertwined with masculinity, Dagget reveals how anxieties over gender and climate converge, often resulting in violent compensatory practices. The concept of petro-masculinity exposes the ways in which fossil fuel consumption becomes a performance of masculinity, predominantly evident in new authoritarian movements in the West, such as Trump’s administration. Particularly, it was mind opening to understand the link between fossil violence and misogyny, and viewing it not merely as individual hatred, but as a systemic practice reinforcing patriarchal norms.
When I was wondering what can be done to resolve the issue of petro-masculinity and misogyny in climate change, I found Yoshida’s article as an answer to that. Her advocacy for a holistic understanding of peace that embraces environmental sustainability and social justice, I believe it can bring change because it is an approach that acknowledges the intersecting forms of oppression and underscores the need to challenge existing power dynamics to ensure the well-being of both people and the planet. I also agree with her call for the inclusion of environmental considerations within the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) framework, acknowledging the impact of climate change on international peace and security.
It was inspiring to read Kathleen Hunt’s article about Wangari Maathai, a trailblazer in environmental activism who began her journey in Kenya and went on to inspire countless others globally. Despite immense setbacks in her environment activism, Maathai’s work not only left a profound impact on the environment in Kenya but also served as a catalyst for similar grassroots movements worldwide. What makes Maathai unique is her holistic approach to environmentalism, which not only aimed at planting trees to combat deforestation but also sought to empower local communities, particularly women, to take control of their natural resources and improve their livelihoods.
Moulton and Carey introduced us to the concept of “futuremaking,” which emphasizes the importance of prioritizing everyday practices and desires over solely focusing on future risks and emergencies. Using the example of Quechua women’s everyday actions to navigate environmental changes, such as tending home gardens and cultivating community networks of care, the authors reminded us that there is much we can learn from indigenous ways of knowing and their connection to land and nature. By centering the experiences and capabilities of Indigenous women, the article advocates for a more transformative approach to climate change adaptation that recognizes the agency of marginalized communities and challenges existing power dynamics in adaptation planning. The authors also highlight the intersectional nature of vulnerability, emphasizing the need for feminist perspectives in climate change adaptation planning. By acknowledging the complex interplay of race, gender, class, and other social factors, the article calls for a more holistic understanding of adaptation that moves beyond traditional, top-down approaches and prioritizes the well-being and agency of Indigenous women.
My question:
When considering climate change and other pressing social issues, I sometimes feel helpless because it’s evident, as highlighted in the readings, that politicians and the wealthy (and other people with power) play a key role in perpetuating these injustices. It’s the systemic issue we discussed in one of our previous classes. I would like to revisit the idea of addressing the system, particularly concerning climate change, as this would disrupt the wealthy and powerful.
The Dagget article on Petro-Masculinity was quite interesting, especially for someone fascinated by different forms of masculinity. I thought she brought up an interesting point that fossil fuels were a catalyst to bring on a mass of modern liberal democracies, which suggests that we owe part of our loyalties to this destructive energy form. To me, Petro-Masculinity seems to be concerned with a nostalgia for past times when people didn’t have to think as much about the environmental and social consequences of their actions and the scarcity of oil could be controlled more easily to ensure oligopolistic tendencies. It’s also interesting how tied this into eco-modernism, which saw the transition of hyper-masculine men having to shift to still being thought, but having small forms of compassion and care for the environment to maintain their control, authority and agency over supplies of fossil fuels. This reinforces the notions that toxic forms of masculinity can take on various forms and can even become embedded within minority communities in which it initially targeted. I did find her article to be slightly more theoretical-based, but while still acknowledging that, she used American political examples to reinforce her concept. I still remain unsure whether these Petro-Masculine zones of influence remain a systemic issue in the sense that they are a source of the problem or if men are conditioned into these tendencies at an earlier age and have then treated the processes within the energy sectors based on this; I think you could argue it both ways.
The Moulton and Carey reading provided a refreshing perspective, offering a more optimistic outlook on addressing climate change through feminist adaptation frameworks. What struck me most was their emphasis on the importance of centring typically overlooked aspects of human experiences, such as subjectivities and emotions, within these frameworks. By shining a light on these dimensions, they underscored the need to move beyond the narrow lens of economic struggles and concerns that often dominate discussions about climate change. Their approach highlighted that while economic considerations are undeniably crucial, they represent only a fraction of the complex tapestry of human existence intertwined with environmental challenges. By acknowledging and integrating the full spectrum of human experiences, from personal narratives to emotional responses, feminist adaptation frameworks can offer more holistic and effective responses to the climate emergency. One aspect that particularly resonated with me was their emphasis on the urgency of action in the present moment. Too often, climate policies are framed in terms of distant future scenarios, perpetuating a sense of detachment and complacency. However, Moulton and Carey’s call to focus on “Today” rather than perpetually deferring action to “Someday” underscores the immediate need for bold and decisive measures. Their perspective challenged me to confront the reality of climate change head-on and to prioritize meaningful action in the here and now. It was a powerful reminder that the time for action is not in some distant future but right now, demanding a shift in mindset and approach towards addressing the climate emergency with urgency and determination. Ultimately, the Moulton and Carey reading left me feeling inspired and energized, offering a compelling framework for transformative action grounded in empathy, inclusivity, and a profound understanding of the human experience.
Based on this, my question for the class is, “How can we further implement feminist adaptation frameworks that emphasize lived experiences without needing to offer financial incentives for policymakers and government to take action?”
With this week’s topic, I find myself drawn into a complex web where environmental issues, cultural norms, and gender dynamics intersect in fascinating and sometimes unsettling ways. The concept of petro-masculinity, particularly, has opened a new lens for me to view the intricate connections between gender identities and environmental policies.
One quote that struck me in the Daggett reading was the idea that “burning fossil fuels in an age of global warming can offer a compensatory practice of violence.” This resonates with me profoundly, not only for its bold assertion but also for the way it encapsulates a deeper, often overlooked, psychological and cultural facet of environmental debates. It suggests a rebellion, not just against scientific evidence and environmental activism but also against an evolving societal understanding of gender roles and identities.
This defiance, rooted in traditional masculine norms, ties back to Naomi Klein’s discussions in ‘This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate’, where the entanglements of economic systems and environmental crises are scrutinised. Adding the layer of petro-masculinity suggests that tackling climate change is as much about challenging deeply ingrained gender norms as it is about altering economic policies.
One aspect that stands out is the unique vulnerabilities of women in the face of environmental crises. Thinking of this in a Pakistani context (please forgive me for always doing that) in rural Pakistan, where agriculture is a key livelihood, women often bear the brunt of climate change impacts due to their roles in food production and water collection. However, their contributions and challenges are frequently overshadowed by the male-dominated narrative in agricultural practices and environmental policies. This gender disparity is not just a matter of social inequality; it significantly hampers effective climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.
The concept of petro-masculinity adds another layer to this discussion. In the Pakistani context, where fossil fuel consumption and industries are critical to the economy, masculinity is often intertwined with these sectors. The aggressive stance against acknowledging climate change and adopting sustainable practices could be viewed as a defence of not just economic interests but also of a certain masculine identity associated with control over natural resources and resistance to change.
However, this perspective raises several questions: How does the concept of petro-masculinity manifest in a country like Pakistan, where the economic reliance on fossil fuels intersects with cultural notions of masculinity? How do these intersections impact women’s roles and voices in climate change discourse and action?
These considerations lead me to think about how empowering women, particularly in rural and agricultural contexts, could be a key strategy in tackling climate change effectively in Pakistan. This approach would require a shift in both policy and cultural norms, valuing women’s knowledge and roles in environmental stewardship, and addressing the gendered impacts of climate change.
What surprised me was the extent to which these gender dynamics are entrenched in the socio-political fabric of various issues. I was also intrigued by the notion of using feminist reflexivity and curiosity as tools to dissect these complex interactions. This approach encourages a more nuanced understanding of the issues at hand, delving deeper into the “why” and “how” rather than just the “what.”
In light of these reflections, I have these questions: In the context of petro-masculinity, how can feminist reflexivity be utilised to effectively challenge and reshape entrenched gender norms that are detrimental to environmental sustainability? How can we bridge the gap between acknowledging the psychological and cultural dimensions of environmental policies and implementing practical, effective strategies that address these underlying issues?
There is a tendency to draw upon the worst-case scenario when writing about environmental issues. It is an emergency and it is an existential threat for us all and this urgency has led to seminal works like a Silent Spring. However, this expression of upcoming catastrophe has led groups of scholars and policymakers to focus on possible disasters which forgets that the crisis is happening now and its effects are being felt by people. It is typically racialized bodies and marginalized communities that are experiencing firsthand the damage caused by climate change. Moulton and Careys article about Quechua women back in my home country is an example of this scholarly and policy tendency. They explain how the government and scholars are focused on glacial lake outburst floods instead of focusing on the now. Quechua women are the ones living in these lands, they are the ones trying to survive and thrive through the changing climate conditions and they necessities are today not tomorrow. This bottom-up approach of empowering the people who are most affected is what Hunt explores through the study of ecofeminism. These actions of resistance through environmental action is method to break free from the narratives imposed by colonialism and the labels that are thrusted upon this communities by scholars and policymakers. In our Memory and Justice class we dedicated an entire lecture to community-based approaches and we are once again reminded how these approaches can help us understand the how community face issues that are intersectional by nature. Plenty of times it is Global South governments working together with foreign entities that enact policies that are blind to the ground issues. Turning towards a community-based approach would be a paradigm shift when currently there is an emphasis on speed and efficiency and we must ask how can governments be convinced to make the change. Perhaps, X’s talk this Thursday can help with understanding the type of advocacy that can create these narrative shifts.
Sumak kawsay or buen vivir, we live together in harmony and this involves nature we share our wisdom with the land and in return they let us live a dignified life that we share with our community. This basic conception is what has led to many of the land rights that Yoshida mentions in Ecuador and Bolivia. Reconnecting with nature and treating it as a living being is considered to be a way that we Latin Americans can resurface our indigenous traditions and move away from the legacies of colonization and the continued narratives from Western hegemony. This return to indigenous practices and narratives is in tension with capitalism and Western narratives which has led to Latin America being one of the most dangerous regions for climate activists. Nature is at the intersection of many themes which is why Yoshida succinctly articulates that it should be included in the WPS agenda. My question in this subject would be how do others adopt a narrative that has little resonance with their experience and history.
Also, if anyone is curious about the damages of oil extraction, I would recommend watching Vice’s short video on it: The World’s Worst Oil Related Disaster You’ve Never Heard Of | I Was There.
This week has helped me consider an important aspect to gender, peace and security, that is so intertwined: the climate.
Starting off with the documentary, it clearly demonstrated the disproportionate effect of the climate, and any policy decisions, on different communities, including Indigenous Peoples and racialized populations. It was such a powerful way to visualize this impact, and it truly made me so angry with what people have had to cope with, as well as the inadequacy of policymakers to fully consider intersectional lens.
The article by Dagget on Petro-Masculinity was an interesting way to look at masculinity and how that intersects with gender, peace and security. We have definitely witnessed forms of toxic masculinity rise, especially in this sector, in the past few years — and how this intertwines with gender norms and patriarchy. Recently, a co-founder of Next Gen Men came to speak one of my classes, and while reading this article, I was reflecting on the things that were discussed. He had mentioned the ways in which he seeks to transform the definition of masculinity and therefore address gender inequalities, which has included going into sectors such as energy and mining companies, and having a workshop. The reading made me think of the ways in which climate intersects with so many themes discussed in this course, but also reflect on ways in which we can transform the system and norms.
Both Hunt’s and Moulton and Carey’s articles shed light on how ideas and policy work can advance climate agenda and intersect with gender. Hunt’s discussion on how they utilized planting as a way to plant and spread ideas amongst the people. Reading this, however, I was critical of how despite these well-meaning movements, organizations and governments can create policies that are greenwashing and not meaningful. When I was in Kenya, the second day was an impromptu national “plant the tree” day, all in the effort to use climate change as an excuse to raise taxes and prices on due to their corrupt scheme. It is sad that while there are so many meaningful and powerful movements to address climate change that intersect with gender and race, there are always those who take an advantage of this.
To me, Yoshida’s article felt personal and nostalgic to me — her references to the rights of nature and considering nature as having agency was something that has been instilled in me since I was young. But, as we grow older, I think it’s a concept that we forget to maintain and something that we overlook. It served as a reminder to continue looking at the nature as something that holds agency and rights, and we must continue to protect it.
Questions:
1. How do we continue our efforts to address climate change, while avoiding companies, organizations, and governments from partaking in greenwashing schemes? Is greenwashing schemes still better than nothing?