Electronic copy available at : http : / / ssrn.com / abstract = 2793803 Sexual Politics in Environmental Ethics : Impacts, Causes, Alternative s Chris Cuom o Forthcoming. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Edited by Stephen M Gardiner and Allen Thompson Abstract: M atters related to sex and gender are central in environmental ethics , intersecting with class and race . In Western capitalis t and other colonizing systems, negative views about nature are deeply interwoven with derogatory views about those people who are associated with nature, including wome n and the feminin e G endered relationships with nature and other species are highly var ied across classes and cultures Nonetheless, these days nearly everywhere females are more directly and negatively impacted by environmental harms , because gendered work and labor roles, including unpaid , domestic, caretaking and “ flexible ” work, often pu t women in closest proximity to environmental risks and challenges. Critical and reconstructive attention to specific systems and realities of sex and gender is therefore needed to develop adequate understanding of many issues at the heart of environmental ethics , and to bring diverse knowledge and more caring, empoweri ng and effective moral responses to the fore. Too often e nvironme ntal ethics are described as concerning “ human ” relationships with nature, as if human beings comprise a great monolithic “we” that acts on nature en masse, or as if simply being human is the deciding factor determining how people use and regard land, othe r animals, waterways, the atmosphere , and natural resources. But ecological harms are perpetrated and eco - controversies are generated by people and groups moved by distinct interests, values, and perspectives. O ften people harm other peo ple through harm s to nature, and disregard for human communities enables ecological devastation, such as in many cases of deforestation or mining, where local people ’ s land and labor are jointly abused and th eir interests jointly ignored by those with more economic or political power. S uggestions that there is a species - driven or characteristically “ human ” cause of the devas t a tion Earth has experienced in the last two centuries neglects gendered and Electronic copy available at : http : / / ssrn.com / abstract = 2793803 2 cultural differences in orientations toward nature , su ch as the fact that if we look at humanity ’s great historical diversity we find that many cultures have developed gentler technologies and more respectful relationships with nature To reduce human or modern subjectivity to a violent and violating dominati ng tendency , or to an essential, inevitably harmful collective force , is to misrepresent a minority as all of humanity , and to identify ideologies of domination and disregard for nature as paradigmatic and definitive of all humanity 1 However, i t is not sp ecies - wide human agency, but rather a particular set of cultures and players which have encouraged and allowed for the devastating and unprecedented harms to nature that we currently face . And i t is particular cultures and practices that must be resisted , overturned or developed for alternative ecological and social values to gain broader influence Considering environmental challenges such as the impacts of industrial agriculture, animal abuse, ubiquitous toxins and plastic s in human bodies, grossly pollut ed waterways , and transnational monopoli es controlling key resources, the signific ance of social , political and ideological , factors is unmistakable , if difficult to trace in its specificity Intentionally and unintentionally, d ominating forces take advant age of the compromised agency of impoverished and disempowered communities , getting away with extraordinary environmental harms that would be avoided, protested , or punished if privileged and respected rights - holders were to suffer the m Yet even the privi leged are victimized by ecologically destructive practices and technologies Gender roles and identities are dominant expressions of c ulture, creating patterns of consumption and relationships with nature that express sexual and political economies and lin k sex and gender norms to specific ideas about nature and other species. C ulturally 3 specific m oral paradigms provide compulsory guidelines for how to live, consume, use materials, and regard oneself and others. P ervasive representations of subordinated fem ininity as “close to nature” reinforce the idea that to be male is to transcend or to be inherently superior to animal , Earthly nature. Similarly, racist characterizations of nonwestern cultures and people of color as inferior because they are “close to na ture ” ass ert s a hierarchy that associates whiteness with distance from nature, thereby encouraging such distance Ecofeminist writers have highlighted t he roles that dualistic sexual and colonial politics play in fueling the ideologies and technologies tha t wreak havoc on the natural world , showing that the domination of nature is an issue of central concern for feminism ( Griffin , 1978 ; Kheel , 1985 ; Gaard and Gruen, 1993; Seager , 1993 ; Plumwood , 1994 ; Warren , 2000 ; Shiva and Mies , 1993/ 2014 ) While there ar e gendered patterns in relationships with nature, such as masculinized hunting and feminized food preparation, sex and gender are interwoven with particulars of class, race, culture and other factors, and so they are also diverse. Differences within catego ries of sex and gender are equally important. For example, a biding harms caused by specific histories of violence include their effects on comfort, desire, mobility, relations hips, and therefore moral agency I n her essay “Black Women and the Wilderness” E velyn White describes a way of relating to “nature” that is mediated by astute awareness of the threat of racist violence, an awareness that is heightened in the outdoors, where her “sense of vulnerability and exposure” is palpable and “genetic memory of a ncestors hunted down and preyed upon in ru ral settings ” disrupts her ability to feel a sense of connection with nature (White 2002, p. 1064). While the river’s roar gave me a certain comfort and my heart warmed when I gazed at the sun - dappled trees out of a classroom window, I didn’t want to get 4 closer. I was certain that if I ventured outside to admire a meadow or to feel the cool ripples in a stream, I’d be taunted, attacked... because of the color of my skin. I believe the fear I experience in the outdoors is shared by many African - American women and that it limits the way we move through the world and colors the decisions we make about our lives. There are patterns to our Earthly inhabitations as sexed beings, but “women” are not essentially “closer to na ture.” Rather, sexism, colonialism, racism, and harms to nature are practically , causally and conceptually linked, and specific male - dominant cultures have been and continue to be the leading drivers of modern environmental destruction and degrading social violence. How to respond, resist and repair? 1. Feminist Solidarity with Nature: Critical Themes In contrast with the ecofeminist idea that norms and practices of sex and gender create conditions for solidarity with nature , historically feminist philosop hers have stressed t he importance of women’s “ r ising above nature ” beyond realms associated with necessity and domesticity and toward equality with privileged men F rom Christina de Pi z an ’ s The Book of the City of Ladies , published in France in the early 1 400s , to Shulamith Firestone’s Dialectic of Sex (1970) , feminis t philosophers often beg i n with an acknowledgement and immediate rejection of pervasive cultural associations between femaleness and “ nature ,” taking those associations to be false generalizati ons that can only l ock females into realms of subordination However , more nuanced investigat ions of the complex material , symbolic and ethical relationships between women, animals , and the land have long been prominent in feminist literature s (Gilman 1915 /1998 , Walker 1989 , Silko 2000 ) A nd as social and environmental movements have developed in tandem , women activists focused on the sexual politics of environmental health, animal 5 rights, and agricultural reform have recast cultural associations between ‘w omen and nature ’ as opportunities for solidarity and coalition - building. Some themes that have emerged in work emphasizing the significance of sex and gender in relation to environmental ethics are : (1) the linked harms of sexism and environmental destruct ion, (2) the cultural and symbolic associations between femaleness/femininity and “nature,” and (3 ) the transformative power of multicultural feminist approaches to environmental ethics. Drawing attention to linked harms experienced by “ nature ,” animals, w omen, and other subjugated groups, asserts the importance for environmental ethics of tracing the real risks and impacts of environmental harms on particular people, and integrating questions abou t social justice and equality , environmental racism , violenc e and economic disparities into environmental ethics. Although interwoven harms are not linked in uniform or universal way s , the connections amon g them are often traceable F or example, f eminist environmentalists highlight the evident , and likely l inks bet ween harms such as rampant breast cancer, ubiquitous plastics in Earth ’ s biosphere, and current global climate change, referring to gendered, sexed, raced, classed (etc.) links that are accidental and intentional, practical and conceptual, abstract and mat erial. The social dimensions of environmental practices are central because e cological harms are often harms to people , and t hose who experience the most immediate and dramatic impacts of environmental harms are often the s ame groups or communities who hav e been targeted by oppression, and put in “ vulnerable ” physical positions and social locations by exploitative forces . Due to the feminization of poverty in its multiple guises, the inherent vulnerabilities of those who care for young children, and the marginalization 6 of poor communities , women, people of color and others lacking economic and political resources are statistically more impacted, and more intensely negatively impacted , by en vironmental disasters and systemic degradations ( Enarson , 2000, Laditka et al. , 2010 ) Culturally constructed images of nature are also used against females and other subordinated groups in the forms of repressive and punishing norms of sexuali ty, beauty, criminality, and morality, confining whatever is associated with femininity or degraded nature while granting more freedom and protection to masculinity and/or privileged me n. What matters in bringing attention to such linked harms is that real harms to bodies — biological bodies, psyches, social bodies/species, pseudo - bodies ( eco - regions ) , and Earthly bodies (bodies of water or air) — are multiplied, exacerbated , and intensified through the collaborative synergies of multiple systems of oppression. Identifying linked harms points to the need for ethics and politics that can address those interwoven systems, and integrate considerations of social justice and environmental ethics at all levels. Regarding sex and gender , which are always interwoven wit h other factors, the “second class” yet simultaneously exhalted nature of feminity and what is associated with female biological reproductivity is a fundamental feature shaping ideas and relationships in sexist and nature - harming cultures, as is the identi fication of masculinity and superiority with domination and the absence of vulnerability. A second theme in work focused on matters of sex and gender in environmental ethics is the investigation of the conceptual presuppositions and frameworks , an d hence the subtle values, that inform and enable systems of oppression P hilosoph ers and critical historicans have argued that environmentally destructive and dismissive value systems reflect meanings and symbolic systems built on identities an d conceptions of nature and 7 nonhuman animals that create and maintain a general logics of domination (Merchant , 1982 ; Warren , 1990 ; Allen , 1992 ) A guiding theory has been that nature and subordinated groups are symbolically associated on the debased side of western culture ’ s foundational hierarchies. Rather than being essentialist in an Aristotelian sense , this analysis emphasizes the historical material and symbolic associations between women and nature, and tracks evident patterns in who bears the b runt of the violence. To say that women and nature have been powerfully linked in w estern culture, and that those association have enabled sexist, racist, colonizing intersecting oppression s and social dominations , is not to imply that all femaleness is id entified with only one cultural stereotype of what or how nature is, or that all women suffer the same or similar domination. Different women are symbolically identified with different aspects or fantasies of nature and anti - nature, and those associations have distinct repercussions in exploitative social systems, such as being revered as a natural beauty or being treated as a beast of burden. And n aturalness is a pliable designation, for masculinities can be associated with certain ideas about nature and n aturalness ( physical strength , wildness ), and femininity is also often characterized as a domesticating cultural force , or an enemy of nature What matters for politics and ethics is not mere ly that nature and femininity are reductively associat ed with each other, but also that the effects of the association are debilitating and distorting for both P ernicious cultural and symbolic connections between women and nature as reproductive, submissive, and decorative create and ma intain divisions of labor that put women in closer proximity to the material world and symbolically associate femininity with subject a ble natural ness, which can or even ought to be molded to man ’ s needs or 8 whims. Projected a ssociations between “women and nature” and the like propagate subordination and the potential for victimization , for example by compulsively relegating females to the work of caring for others H ierarchical characterizations of male/female, nature/culture, primitive/ civiliz ed are interw oven systems of exploitation that shape and inform environmental relationship s at every scale . U nderstanding sex and gender critically in relation to environmental ethics , and deconstructing the roles certain conception s of nature play in propagating social oppression , complicates one - dimensional ideas about the nature of environmental problems, and point s toward fruitful areas for ethical development and exploration. Accordingly, a third theme emphasized in work foc used on the sexual politics of environmental ethics, and environmentalism more broadly, focuses on creating and reclaiming alternative values , priorities and practices , because ethics ought to replace colonizing and exploitati on with empowerment, h ealing, justice and cooperation F eminists and e cofeminists have highlighted alternative models of ethics, politics and science that challenge the stewardship or noble hunter models of environmentalism, and instead give life to principle s of mutual care - taking, co - existence, empathy and respect (Plumwood , 1994 ; Cuomo 1998; Kheel , 2007 ; Gruen , 201 4 ; Whyte and Cuomo, this volume ) Unfortunately, s exism , marginalization and media conglomerates can prevent alternative efforts and paradigms fr om gaining ground, silencing fem inist and “ other ” perspectives through the domination of culture and public space , including the scapegoating of women who question the status quo. In response, critical attention to sex and gender and the historical impacts of sexism brings to light to the important, undervalued contributions of women, from Rachel Carson, Lois Gibbs, and Wangari 9 Maathai to those currently leading campaigns for pollution mitigation, food security, and climate justice , as models of ethics in action in diverse social and ecological contexts. 2. Linked Harms and Association through Proximity Where sexual double - standards associate women with domestic and caretaking labor, women may have decision - making power concerning water and energy use, food acquisition and preparation, and other matter s with dramatic environmental implications. In addition, close proximity to nature through gendered work and responsibilities makes women important environmental experts and actors , but also puts them on the front lines of those directly impacted by environmental stresses and harms. Gender norms and responsibilities create gendered risks and harms, as when women in their roles as care workers are more burdened by environmental change and uncertainty. When extreme hardship or disaster occurs, increases in care - related workloads and gendered “vulnerabilities” reinforce subordinating gender norms, exacerbating the deprivations of those in subordinate caretaking positions or marginalized communities, including the elderly , people with disabilities, sexual minorities and th ose who are gender non - conforming (Enarson, 2000; Covan and Fugate - Whitlock, 2010; Alston and Whittenbury, 2012; Mortimer - Sandilands and Erickson, 2010; Egan et al., 2011). I n sexist, racist societies those in power may be slow to notice and acknowledge harms to marginalized or poor communities, and political disempowerment undermines individuals’ and communities’ abilities to advocate for themselves and their enviro nments (Smith, 2016). 10 Arguing that linked harms can become sources of solidarity and revolutionary knowledge, in her influential essay “Taking Empirical Data Seriously,” philosopher Karen Warren showed that women in most societies are in key stakeholder po sitions in relation to the world’s fundamental areas of concern for environmental policy: forestry, water policy, food politics, farming, technology, and pollution (1997). Yet their central roles and efforts do not necessarily translate into economic or de cision - making power. For example, “women account for almost 80% of the agricultural sector in Africa,” yet “seventy per cent of the 1.3 billion people in the developing world living below the threshold of poverty are women” (Denton, 2002, p. 10). Research and political practice focused on the nexus of gender and the environment has long emphasized the synergistic impacts of sexism, colonialism, technological modernization and ecological destruction for women, and the need for more power in the hands of wome n themselves (Agarwal, 1994 , 2000 ; Mies, 1998; Shiva and Mies, 2014). The question of power is crucial. Recently the idea that oppressed people can be organized in ways that ultimately promote social progress, and that this can primarily be done by advanci ng the agency of poor women, has been mobilized to assert the primacy of human rights in international treaty negotiations to address climate change, and they are evident in NGO campaigns that aim to uplift communities and even entir e nations through collective female agency or empowerment (UNFCCC, 2015; CARE International, 2014). The Preamble to the Paris Agreement on climate change acknowledges international ethical obligations regarding human rights, indigenous rights, gender equal ity, and the empowerment of women, and the a greement itself states that adaptation programs should be “gender - responsive, participatory and fully transparent,” 11 and particularly attentive to “vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems” (UNFCCC, 2015, A rticle 7, Section 5). Prioritizing the needs and interests of impoverished and marginalized women is thought by many to be a pragmatic necessity for moving toward greater social equality and dramatic reductions in violence and fundamental insecurity (Krist of and WuDunn, 2010). But are environmental “development” efforts targeting females helping women and girls to be more free, knowledgeable or “self” - actualized? Familiar rhetoric such as “If you teach one girl, you teach a whole village,” may not be as sup portive as it sounds, if it implies that some girls should be educated because they will be useful to others. Sexist cultures often mandate female self - sacrifice, but as Kantians and environmental ethicists have long emphasized, to be reduced to one’s use value is to be denied entry into the realm of moral concern. Attention to the gendered aspects of global injustice is crucial for grounding moral understanding and ethical engagement. However, deeper questions must also be asked, s uch as why some women and “others” are so vulnerable, and how those vulnerabilities are constructed and maintained through interwoven systems of oppressive power What are the gendered dimensions of the ethical perspectives of those whose lifesty les maintain the environmental misery of the world’s most “vulnerable”? Reducing the gendered dimensions of ecological problems to only the vulnerabilities of the most severely targeted and impoverished fails to address inequality or to hold the privileged accountable in ways that lead to reparations or effective structural change (Fineman 2008) . Instead, looking at specific mechanisms of ecological domination , and the diverse but interrelated gendered and social roles and concepts that support them, illumi nate s the 12 practical links between systemic environmental harms and the regimes of othering, alienated work , and social control that maintain them. 3. Women and Nature: Conceptual Connections Enabling and actualizing the linked harms waged o n the oppressed are conceptual frameworks that make unjust, abusive hierarchies appear normal and inevitable. For example, t he “naturalizing” of gender is a process through which a society’s particular views about what it means to be a sex or gender are de fined as natural when they are really socially specific and engineered to benefit dominant systems of privilege and order. Culture’s sex and gender norms are particularly effective means of control in the name of morality, and they are sturdy and coercive precisely because they are described or assumed to be natural. As Val Plumwood wrote , “Separate ‘natures’ explain, justify, and naturalize widely different privileges and fates between women and men,” and the idea of separate natures makes it easier for th e privileged to ignore or refuse to identify with those marked as “other” (1994, p. 337). The naturalizing of gender also expresses and redeploys philosophical and morally loaded ideas about what nature is, and why and when “being natural” is considered im portant, decisive, or laudatory. Yet dominating norms of gender can be analyzed, engaged, rejected and transformed. Attention to the conceptual underpinnings of human values is a hallmark of environmental ethics. Since at least the mid - twentieth century cr itical philosophers have described the widespread disregard and abusive use of nature as expressions of a “logic of domination” that includes definitions, values and systems that also enable sexism, racism and colonization (Horkheimer and Adorno, 2007; Rue ther, 197 5 ; Plumwood, 13 199 4 ; Warren, 2000). Many have argued that the rampant conscious and unconscious association of femaleness with nature is part of the philosophical foundation that has allowed for so much human domination and social and ecological dev astation. W riting in 1940s, in the midst of their experiences of fascism and World War II, Jewish philosophers Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer introduced the idea of a logic of domination to describe what they considered a pervasive “European” mindset, b uilt on a tendency to categorize the world dichotomously and hierarchically, which creates value systems that enable domination, including man over nature, men over women, civilized over primitive, white over black, technology over biology, etcetera. Regar ding the intertwined meanings of gender, sex, and the nature/culture separation, Horkheimer and Adorno locate d the roots of sexism in men’s relationships with nature: Man the ruler denies woman the honor of individuation ... male logic sees her wholly a s standing for nature, as the substrate of never - ending subsumption notionally, and of never - ending subjection in reality ( 1947/2002, p. 87 ). Echoing and elaborating on that characterization of the categorical subordination of females, Simone deBeauv oir famously explored the implications the woman/nature association theory — the theory that the meanings of “woman,” or biological femaleness, and therefore the options and real experiences of female human beings, are informed by fundamental, limiting and d istorting associations between femaleness and nature. In The Second Sex , Beauvoir presented an origin story of women’s oppression that identifies the birth of patriarchy with the subjugation of nature, describing a singular logic and mode of inter action that relegates women and nature to the realm of the consumable, usable, and dangerous. Exploring in some detail the aesthetic and symbolic associations between women and nature cross - culturally, from art and literature to love letters and fashion 14 ad vertising, she concluded that the very meaning of femaleness is built upon the fact that men associate women with nature, categorically reducing femaleness to object status and in turn justifying treating nature like man’s submissive possession (1949, p p. 75, 174 – 175). In contrast with females’ reduction to nature, men in power are seen by the dominant ideology as truly human, fully capable of and drawn toward the exercise of freedom and meaningful agency in a challenging world, destined to use nature as they desire , and to realize their wildest dreams. Beauvoir was sensitive to the fact that as part of its propagation of alienation, anti - nature society’s insidious rules about male conformity to masculine norms can also be painfully scarri ng to the supposedly or paradigmatically “powerful.” In order conform to the ruling model of humanity, assumed to be male, boys and men must dissociate from their dependent, finite, bodily nature, which is accomplished through subjugation of their own vuln erability and femininity, and the subjugation of others (p. 86). Ordering maleness over femaleness is therefore fueled in some sense by masculine emotional and physical self - denial, which creates a schism of consciousness and psychological tendencies towar d more violence. Beauvoir’s theory opened a conversation, though it asserts a n overly simple logic of sexual difference by attending more to women’s presumed similarities than their actual diversiti es In a popular essay from the mid - seventies “Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?” anthropologist Sherry Ortner presented a more complicated picture, arguing that females cross - culturally are not simply identified with nature in a starkly dualistic system. Instead, in most male - dominated societies females are cast in various roles in which they serve a s mediators between nature and male - identified culture, occupying an 15 “ambiguous status” that can be used and reshaped according to the desires of men in power. Associations with nature depict women as “lower than man in the order of things,” devalued but a lso “circumscribed and restricted” in domestic and caretaking roles which are “mechanisms for the conversion of nature into culture” (Ortner, 1974, p. 224). However, there is also diversity and flexibility in the roles prescribed for women, and “in specifi c cultural ideologies and symbolizations, woman can occasionally be aligned with culture, and in any event is often assigned polarized and contradictory meanings within a single symbolic system” (1974, p. 85). Cultural ideas about the meanings of identitie s and categories are created and reinforced by institutions, laws and technologies. In her canonical study The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution historian, Carolyn Merchant (1980) showed how the development of European science i n the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was fueled by misogynist and mechanistic ideologies that disempowered women economically and justified the disenchantment of nature, through scientific paradigms and practices of mastery and plunder that replaced c ultural tendencies to respect nature’s inherent vitality. Identifying the major moral shift that enabled the rise of cultures of severe eco - destruction with the development of modern science, Merchant argues that as science consolidated into a powerful soc ial force, “the image of an organic cosmos with a living female earth at its center gave way to a mechanistic world view in which nature was reconstructed as dead and passive, to be dominated and controlled by humans” (1980, p. xvi). Ideas and assumptions about “nature” gradually but decisively shifted from regarding it as a sphere demanding respect to category of degradation. The developing degradation of nature occurred comingled 16 with a rise in economic and cultural characterizations of women’s sphere as negative and therefore needing/desiring the control of violating techno - science. Logics, technologies and institutions of domination are targeting strategies, conscious and unconscious systems of definition and understanding that align with the exploitatio n of particular groups and “resources.” They define the powerful and the powerless, and encourage the control of subordinate others, as well as the control, suppression or hiding of qualities and affinities associated with inferior “others” (such as needin ess, dependency, emotionality, uncontrollability). A logic of domination comprises a way of perceiving, thinking and prioritizing that encourages the exploitative use of nature, feminin ity and those characterized as less civilized or more animalisti c and therefore deserving of brutal treatment . As Karen Warren illustrates: Women are described in animal terms as pets, cows, sows, foxes, chicks, serpents, bitches, beavers, old bats ... Similarly, language which feminizes nature in a (patriarcha l) culture where women are viewed as subordinate and inferior reinforces and authorizes the domination of nature: “Mother Nature” is ..., mastered, conquered, mined; her secrets are “penetrated” and her “womb” is to be put into service of the “man of science ” ( Warren 1997, p. 12 ). E cofeminist philosophers have posited that the definitive, starkly dichotomous “Western” categories of culture/nature, civilized/primitive and heaven/earth are fundamentally interwoven with specific cultural rules and ideals about the meanings of sex, gender and sexuality (Gaard and Gruen, 1993; Plumwood, 199 4 ; Cuomo, 1998; Warren, 2000) Indigenous and decolonial feminists have emphasized that Western metaphysics and the modern colonial systems of race and gender express not a dual ism but a monism that holds up only one ideal form of being human as valuable, and categorically excludes racialized others and nature from the realm of basic respect (Mann, 2009 ; Lugones, 17 2010 ). “Nature” pays a high price for its association with racializ ed and feminized realms of human inferiority, for the careless and violent use of nonhuman nature and animals is bolstered by claims that nature is the passive, lowly substrate upon which masculine culture ought to be built. The projection of similar “inferior” characteristics onto the oppressed, who are identified with nature and each other, creates resonances and repulsions among them, linking them conceptually, practically, and ambiguously. Myths about th e common features the oppressed supposedly share — being vulnerable, being visceral, having feelings — make them threatening or strange, allowing oppressor classes to distance themselves from the oppressed, comforted by their own fictional s elf - conceptions as essentially superior or destined to dominate 4. Monoculture and Gendered Work : “Flexibility” and the Corporate Tomato To illustrate the u sefulness of feminist analyses of linked harms, structures of exploitation, and the conceptual norms that support them, let us consider the significance of agricultural monoculture, a paradigm of dominating agency over nature that is both detrimental to Ea rthly balance , and enabled by s exism and s ocial inequality. Environmentalists point out that modern chemical factory - farm monocultures result in egregious harms through pesticides, deforestation and reduction of wilderness, and more, resulting in seve re collateral impacts on ecosystemic and atmospheric balance wherever they are dominant (Shiva and Moser, 1995). And as Vandana Shiva highlights in her aptly titled Monocultures of the Mind, the contemporary problem of monoculture is also a result of explo itation and disparity of wealth at all scales, which is intensely gendered, 18 and propagated by neoliberal global capitalism. Understanding the politics of sex and gender in the context of colonialism and capitalism’s enforcement of global monoculture system s can be crucial for understanding how harmful monocultures are maintained, and how they might be transformed. Sociologist Deborah Barndt presents a compelling case study of gendered monoculture in her book Tangled Routes: Women, Work and Globalization on the Tomato Trail , which traces the creation through commodification of the supermarket tomato. Through monocultural systems of agriculture and work that are extraordinarily demanding of women, especially poor women of color, the tomatl , a bright delicate f ruit indigenous to southern Mexico, has been converted into the sturdy pale grocery store tomato. A relatively tasteless orb , suitable for shipping north and for gracing fast - food taco s in winter th e corporate tomato depends on monocropping systems and grocery store monopolies that are built on female labor and buying power A t all levels women workers are at the center of the process , through transnational systems of corporate agriculture, food distribution, purchasing and cuisine , although they rarely posess significant decision - making power : Women are key protagonists for their families in their triple function: as salaried workers (with varying status and wage levels), as subsistence farmers (when they have access to the land), and as domestic laborers (with a wide range of living conditions, from the horrific albergues of Indi genous migrants to the better - equipped but transient homes of the mobile packers). Globalizing agribusinesses ... have built their workforces on these historically entrenched inequalities and differences .... Indigenous women and children are clearly in the m ost precarious position of all who bring us the corporate tomato,” ( Barndt, 2008, p. 245 - 6 ) The harms and difficulties associated with women’s different work roles are specific to class and culture, although similar gendered messages and dynamics can be 19 used to normalize increased pressures on diverse workers and consumers. Barndt’s research shows that the cross - cultural discourse constructing women workers and mothers as “flexible” workers, rather than workers with inherent and respe ct - worthy needs regarding wages, work hours and benefits, normalizes the untenable demands placed on female laborers in contemporary food industries, and squeezes nature more and more in the process. Worker “flexibility” is a dominating theme in a dichotom ized economic system that produces complicated relationships between a formal sector that is structured and regulated, and an informal sector marked by its supposed flexibility and immunity to regulat ion . But discourses of f emale and worker “flexibility” can be cunning linguistic reversals which repackage workers’ desperation as a license to exploit , enabling more and more unplea sant and low - wage part - time jobs without benefits, childcare, or protection for workers’ rights or the environment . With women’s gendered labor across classes at the core, the people and natural resources that make up the informa l economy “are the internal and external colonies of capital,” where “workers in the informal sector, like housewives, have no lobby and are atomized” (Mies, 1998, pp. 17, 16). Are women therefore more exploited than nourished through complex food systems in which they work? Where the propagation of monoculture occurs on the back of diverse, feminized, female laborers who are farmers, farmworkers, cashiers, fast - food consumers, and shoppers, the ethics of monocropping cannot be addressed without investigati ng how particular agricultural and commercial practices are enabled by underlying politics of gender, class and social power. 5. Tentative Hope 20 Gendered norms, women’s labor, and female workers’ over - determined needs help maintain harmful systems and str uctures that are also devastating to nature and other species . Understanding and redressing dynamics through which some people are relegated to undervalu ed, underpaid work via their projected or real “closeness to nature” brings us face to face with an array of systematic and interlocking harms that are not merely environmental or social, but both. Ethically, th e realities of linked harms raise questions about the causes and interdependencies of those harms, and the possibility that there are beliefs, conceptual assumptions, and culturally/politically manufactured symbolic systems that have created or encouraged them. Tracing the racial histories and sexual politics influencing ethics, and reflexively engaging our gendered values and presumptions , are crucial processes for developing and realizing environmental ethics. Along with developing alternative moral parad igms, f eminist philosophers have proposed that more thorough, accurate, and ethically effective science can result through the integration of ecological and feminist values (Hallen 1987, Grasswick, 2014). Patsy Hallen proposes that if the science of ecolog y aims to “make peace with nature,” by enabling “collective action for the ecological reconstruction of society,” it needs to take into account feminist criticism of science, culture and sexuality. But a s crucial as it is that we make peace with nature, th e most direct and lasting routes to doing so lie in the transformation of social , political and economic structures and relationships. A recent global survey reported that 55% of women in the United States see climate change as a “very serious problem,” compared to 39% of American men. And 75% of American women polled (compared to 57% of American men) acknowledge that