Eco-feminism can be looked at as the bonding of feminism and environmentalism, looking at the qualities of both through the lens of male domination. While men exist in the hegemonic masculinity bubble of sexism, socialized homophobia, and other regional or local trait dramatized as “masculine”, an older study by Robert W. Connell in ” A Whole New World,” illustrates how masculinity is reinvented through the context of the environmental movement. The study was conducted in Australia with 6 heterosexual males, categorized as “Countercultural Milieux” [Connel,453] whom all involved in the practice of environmental projects in the 1980s. Throughout the entirety of the study, the subjects were interviewed about their perspectives in a gender-political lens by learning about their interactions and relationships with females. As each men experienced a shift from their naturally male-approved spaces to a more femininely engaged and dominant one, the subjects begin to reconstruct their self in relation to hegemonic masculinity.

For most men, feminism was not traditionally met in their childhood and years of maturing. These subjects instead, found feminism directly through the countercultural revolution and through their participation in the green movement. Connell writes that “environmental politics produced the key encounter with feminist practice.” (464) the relationship between feminist ideologies and how environmental issues were handled shed to light the formation of femininity influence on the male subjects. For example, men come to realize being an active participant or to be educated on the issues meant they put in a position of discomfort as the identity of the oppressor. This guilt, in other words, became a visible sign of reshaping their conceptions of masculinity and embracing more effeminate qualities of openly embracing their humility, honesty, and in effect, demonstrating passivity.

Danny Taylor was interviewed and told a story which “illustrates his openness” :

“…And it was really disarming for her because, like, I just cut through all this superficiality of mannerisms and stuff, and just went straight to the core, the soul. And now we have this relationship, she’s closer to me than anybody else there.”

this relationship with women as being more emotionally communicative also translated to male on male relationships that the men had in their lifetimes. Bill Lindeman shares his new “self” when growing up, friendships among men was often a barred by homophobia. Bill responded to the questions: How have you changed your relationships with men with being able to be more “caring” trusting” and more significantly, physically comfortable with “caring, touching, and cuddling.” This study has shown how ecofeminism has altered the masculinity of a few men in ways of opening new interactions between men and women, men and men, which were historically more feminine. The conclusion of the study shows how these men can reform their self in Connell’s words “undoing the effects of oedipal masculinization,” and embrace more viewpoints linked to a passive listening attitude towards Nature and people like the caretaker role of a mother.

The idea of transforming men through the context of an environmental movement has possibly shown readers how femininity can be shared and even subvert some historicized masculinities, however its dangerous to assume that the inclusion of characteristics less directly masculine does not mutate the hegemony to just another modernized masculinity. The problem in believing advocating for more feministic integration into the patriarchy will abolish the patriarchy, is how the process is only successful at the individual level.  The men’s relationship to the feminism in the study is largely based on what Connell describes as “moralized individualism” (474). They went through some aspect of self-discovery and transformation with a more feminine space than they grew up in. this individualized journey to demasculinization cannot be transferred to larger scales. On the contrary, white men have a pattern of leading environmental movements of today.

There lies a direct link between white men and the privilege’s and power they are granted through hegemonic masculinity. The reason why there appears to be so many white men leading in representation and debates on climate change issues and other environmental concerns which more severely effect women and people of color communities is a test of how powerful and influential hegemonic masculinity just really is. A study was conducted which looked into group dynamics on student environmental groups in order to make sense of how being white and male meant being the most seen and heard. The research team recognized themes in the engagement of the white men in groups in contrast to other people (women and people of color). This included:

1. Exclusive talk
2. Establishing expertise

Hegemonic masculinity in both cases promote their power to perform the two patterns. For example, the research observed a tendency of white men in the study to split larger groups into exclusive ones which was established by eye contact, body language, and even “explicit naming of speakers” (80) so there was an obvious hierarchical divide on who was chosen and who wasn’t qualified. Exclusive talk often involved a final decision being closed within the smaller group, and this smaller group was constituted normally of only other men. A few times women were included, but people of color were rarely, if ever included in exclusive talk. This normalization of “relegating” women and people of color onto the “sidelines” (81) during important decision-making had the effect of socially constructing white men as the ones who had more knowledge and were more experienced. Similarly in importance is the micro-practice of establishing expertise that was often observed in study. White men were likely to dismiss the voices of other people and advocate strongly for their own ideas under the frameworks of hegemonic masculinity. While they worked to discredit and oppress the approaches of people who introduced a different idea, they pushed to forward their agenda as the most viable one. Another way the white men were able to establish expertise was through participation. During meetings which welcomed new members, there was a noticeable imbalance of men who spoke versus women. Out of the the first 10 minutes of the meeting, men spoke for 9 minutes while the women spoke for less than a minute. When white men are seen as the ones who participate the most and silently dismiss other people of race and gender, they are seen to new members and non male/white people as experts in the group while the minority people are seen as unable to come up with good ideas and maintain positions of authority.

With this positive feedback loop of acting out the hegemony in society and perceiving white men as the demographic in positions of power, its easy to see how the ecofeminist movement in the 1970s did little to decrease the gender gap. In review of the two articles, I believe that the environmental movement has touched some areas of the patriarchy and brought new institutional changes to the way which masculinity is viewed today. However, the patriarchal sexist bubble which society lives in reigns over us silently in ever aspect of our lives and continues to suppress minority voices granting privilege’s only to white men. It may be a pessimistic thought to consider, but realizing how powerful hegemonic masculinity can help shed light to how much still needs to be understood in order to transform the inequality.

sources:

Chan, Jody, and Joe Curnow. “Taking Up Space: Men, Masculinity, and the Student Climate Movement.” RCC Perspectives, no. 4, 2017, pp. 77–86. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26241458. Accessed 11 July 2021.

Connell, Robert W. “A Whole New World: Remaking Masculinity in the Context of the Environmental Movement.” Gender and Society, vol. 4, no. 4, 1990, pp. 452–478. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/189749. Accessed 11 July 2021.