woman-earthsally-blog

[woman-earthsally-blog]

Intimacy

The readings from this week speak about intimacy and connection in the technological age in a very specific way. There are ways to look at what is deemed “correct” and what can actually be deemed intimacy or love or connection. Is it love if its not between two humans? We are programmed ourselves from day 1, just as any other computer, by our caregivers, our surroundings, and the people we come in contact with. The state of technology in a society reflects how people exist and present themselves. How people feel, what they do, and how they do things, is reflective of how technology works and where technology is in its advancement. I have mentioned this idea in another blog post and I think this idea continues to be relevant because the more you think about it, the more it makes sense. The topic of intimacy is no exception. 

Many people find themselves glued to technology whether it be by choice or not. There is no denying the addictive nature of the tech that is not only everywhere, but in many societies expected of its citizens. We are becoming closer to technology because it is becoming more diverse, deeper, nuanced, and smarter. Through this, we are becoming largely disconnected from nature, the natural, and the Earth. The norm of society is getting closer to tech. @odeandiefreude posted this sentiment “We have become divorced from nature - instead of learning to be still, [we’ve] slowly learned to be as distracted as possible.” I feel like this reminded me of the thoughts being put out in relation to whether or not online relationships and love in the age of technology (between human and non-human) is okay or not. This judgement is the first thought that starts this argument. That being said is something being deemed “okay” based off of what has thought to be in the past, or what is considered the norm of the present? It seems like the advancement of technology, the induction of distraction, the need for ease and the overall disconnection from the natural are usually the signifiers for a society’s demise. Possibly connected to the lack of connection to nature, there is a lack of “human” experience according to Pettman. He says, “young people in Japan are almost as likely to be dating an algorithm than a human being. We hear of the Otaku: asocial young – and not so young – men, who flirt with a virtual woman on their hand-held devices.“ There is no question that it is happening. Pettman relays that “ it speaks to the cultural anxieties and curiosity which are emerging at a time when the most ‘human’ of experiences – intimacy or love – is increasingly being mediated by the technologies which link one agent to another.” This idea of the more “human” experiences being linked to technology is directly linked to the ideas brought up in @Odeandiefreude’s post. It may not be a question about whether or not these things can be put into a box of intimacy or non-intimacy. However, I think that people can easily find their stance according to their personal logic in relation to the importance of the natural, the ease of technology, and the ultimate dissection of whether or not this whole situation that we have put ourselves in as a society is a good thing or not. 

I personally think that it is a bad thing, but the fact is that its the truth and its happening whether some of us like it or not. One can be on the fringe of society, but to be a full fledged member-tech can’t be ignored. When it isn’t ignored, it advances further. This further advancement takes us further from nature and further from humanity. Pettman talks specifically about tech practices happening in Japan, connected to their culture, their relationship with technology as a society, and even their language (collectivist). I think American society is closer to these practices than some people think. There is of course an argument for the opportunities brought forth by the intense amount of internet “connections” (whether that is general or specifically connected to dating or intimate situations. However, these connections again take us further from nature and humanity. Ironically, the goal of it seemed to be the opposite.

[woman-earthsally-blog]

Labor

The ideas that are brought forth in Duffy’s “The romance of work: Gender and aspirational labour in the digital culture industries”  was an interesting piece to connect to my topic. Ecofeminism as a philosophy almost wholeheartedly goes against the logistics of the type of “aspirational” labor that exists via these media platforms. Duffy explains this modern model of labor as being specifically gendered and classist. It is funny to see how a niche community that takes shape on the platform of Instagram takes on the specific traits that Duffy offers up in her study. 

At its foundation, ecofeminism aims to take down the walls built by classism, sexism, capitalism, and myriad topics all cohesive and central to helping women and the Earth. Labor is not just a means of doing work, it is in some way or another adding to the capitalist machine. Thinking about what exactly ecofeminsim is, @Odeandfruede takes it on as one of the central traits that explains the ideologies and beliefs they carry. 

That being said, a specific post subtly caught my eye. In a post with a picture of a woman in a unique crop top, their caption read “If you like to buy clothes but also care where it comes from and how and by who it has been made follow these brands.” What followed was a list of brands that did in fact align with ideas of ecofeminism that are related to. However, it is promoting brands in the first place. Promoting brands that they care about and believe in, but brands none-the-less. That being said, upon further examination, these brands that are eco-friendly and or have some sort of feminist alignment, are also extremely expensive. Duffy says, “although I did not specifically ask questions about participants’ socio-economic statuses, class emerged as a sensitizing concept through discussions of technology access, education, and professionalization opportunities, among others. As such, I explore class through its intersectionality with gender, an acknowledgement of the ‘multidimensional,’ interacting subjectivities of those occupying marginalized positions (Crenshaw, 1989).” Sex is a defining and purposeful factor connected to this study, but I do think that the repetition of class connection is not a coincidence. 

This got me thinking abut the deeper connection pertaining to the actual brands background in connection to classism. Not really to my surprise, it seemed like these brands only seemed like they could cater successfully to women in a certain class with a specific socio economic status. One of the brands that was included on the @Odeandiefreude post was Mara Hoffman where the cheapest dress on the site is over $500. Revolve was another, where the cheapest non-sale item is approximately $90. Taje swimwear was another brand listed, where one bikini top alone is over $100. To look at the aspirational labor aspect of social media being classist and gendered, I think it’s important to look at the content consumer’s job as also being just as classist and gendered. To further this, looking at a philosophy like ecofeminism.  The act of the labor, that sells for brands, with some trying to go “against the system,” are all still connected to this sexism and classism that Duffy talks about. The ability to follow a philosophy like ecofeminism proves that even if something exists with intentions -to fight certain societal problems, the philosophy itself can still have the potential to be stuck within those lines.

[woman-earthsally-blog]

Fans & Amatuers

Fuchs notions regarding how social media works are very pertinent to the way that people present themselves specifically on Instagram. The branding of the self on platforms such as these, make the people into actual forms media, of course along with their content. They essentially want to present themselves in such a way that they believe will be both personally accurate, but also fascinating and personal to a larger amount of society (those participating in the platform). They encapsulate a certain brand, align themselves with certain products or lifestyle choices, and make statements that effectively call their audiences (consumers) to action. If they can garner the audience, they can also garner the “spread” that Fuchs explains is so important, and essentially drives these platforms existence. The personal bond that can be created through these platforms is such a point of contention because of the ability for it to cause negative or positive things for the world. Fuchs, on the positive side of the debate, states that “consumers in this model are [. . .] grassroots advocates for materials which are personally and socially meaningful to them." 

This statement makes me think about the fact that the arguments for and against this new way to consume media are both valid in their own respect. Giving a consumable product or ideology (whatever the media may be) or a personality helps it thrive because of the fact that no matter what, people are still people and connections online are still seen as valid, even though they exist because of pixels and algorithms. @elizabethcouse_ is a perfect example of the participatory aspect that social media drives. She has certain outlooks, beliefs, and ideas. Through this medium she makes these things known by exhibiting a life that reflects them and visually showing those parts of her life. Since she believes so firmly in these things and since specifically her actions and beliefs are about making change, many of her social media posts are calls to action. She is heavily aligned with movements that promote respect for the the Earth and all living things. No matter how environmentally friendly and Earth conscious someone is, consumption is a part of being on this world and society. Like Fuchs explains, she promotes things that she (and her followers) find meaningful, both “personally and socially.” Nearly all of her posts are some sort of call to action or the promotion of something that is available to the movement of Earth and environmental consciousness. 

What interests me about her is that mainly she promotes actual grassroots efforts in favor of her ideologies. She tells her audience to buy and eat locally, shop at farmers markets, see plastic and single use for the evil it truly is, and continually reinforces (ironically in a sense) the importance of community and close ties to the people that are geographically around you. I find it interesting to think about the dialogues about the positives and negatives of social media platforms because to an extent it is all about the consumer which means it is all about modern capitalism, which means it is all evil. The theories are literally about consumers and the effect. The thoughts are valid but none are truly “good.” I think @elizabethcouse_ is in the minority of “influencers” on Instagram that promote what can be done to defy capitalism by effectively using a model of media output that feeds off of it and exists because of it. In a post she says, “I want to live in a world made up of close knit resilient local communities. I want to live in a world made up of healthy empowered individuals. I want to live in a beautiful world with thriving and abundant natural environments. I want to live in a world with less hate, less oppression, less suffering, and more love. I want to live in a world where healthy food is a human right. I want to live in a world where local communities have power over their food systems. I want to live in a world where farmers are respected and viewed as community leaders. I try to vote for these ideals with my everyday actions. To me that means being very intentional with my food choices.” These things she talks about are almost opposite of social medias entire ideology.  It places importance on loose ties, consumption of what “looks good,” what the average person will want to BUY. Is her existence on this platform ironic and counter-intuitive, or is it counter statement-effective in the fact that it is a light among the darkness that is Instagram? 

On another post she says, “more than anything, plastic pollution is a social justice issue. we oppress other people and countries, use and abuse their environments, resources, and people, all to make cheap thoughtless products for ourselves. then we send our trash “away” to far off communities with less power who aren’t able to advocate for clean water and environments. to me, living plastic free or zero waste is about taking responsibility. it’s acknowledging this fucked up oppressive distanced unjust world that we live in and owning my place in that. it’s about recognizing my privilege and making intentional choices.” It intrigues me that the avenue she uses to brand herself and explain her ideologies and sell things (that are “zero waste” and “Earth friendly”) is literally propelled and motivated by the things she vilifies and the way she carries herself and shows herself online perfectly aligns with Fuchs explanation of his opinion on the media consumption model. I like that there is a place for people like her to have a voice and an impact on many, but isn’t is a little ironic? The collision of this type of lifestyle existing in the world of “social media”... She has branded herself speaking about things she cares about, because of X amount of followers people feel she can be trusted. Is that now the defining factor that is at the root of the dialogue of fans, amatuers, and professionals. Has this platform completely erased that line?  If you have fans and people that trust you at all in a world where any niche ideas can become commonalities between people across the world, what really is a professional? Does it matter? Is this bringing people together for a common good..or because of the nature of this media outlet that inherently involves consumption, are consumers being taken advantage of no matter what is the subject line of the media output? To disagree with Fuchs would be this statement. He wants to believe that the consumer has more of a voice because of this but is Instagram telling you what you like through algorithmic monotony? Can we be as free as @elizabethcouse_ tells us we can be  through a platform that reigns us in promotes consumption and conformity?

[woman-earthsally-blog]

Gender

In Banet-Weiser’s article, “Empowered: Popular Feminism and Popular Misogyny” she comments on the popular feminists mandate which is to be “confident” in part as “a response to generations of relentless messages about what the ideal of femininity is, what girls and women should look like. The standard of beauty that was long ago called the “tyranny of slenderness” (Chernin 1994) has become even more tyrannical in the contemporary moment, in part because of the dramatic increase in images of the body that circulate, endlessly and abundantly, through social media.” I think this perfectly encapsulates my personal issue with “popular feminism.” I don’t think it is particularly bad to “inspire” women to be confident and happy no matter how they look, however the way it is being done is completely contradictory. Through the scope of popular feminism, women are told to be “body positive” and social media is pushed to be a place to express that, because of the reality this platform holds in society. Yet, like Weiser says, social media is inherently a breeding ground in which society’s unattainable idea of femininity is force fed down our throats.

The objectification of women has become the subjectification. The most popular images on social media are connected to the male gaze which is connected to what sells, because women are still being told to look a certain way, pleasing to men. The reason these images are so present can really be boiled down to capitalism. In theory, capitalism is what keeps social media alive and really these days, vice versa. Capitalism is what subordinates women, keeping them thinking they are always imperfect, always needing change, always needing to buy something to fit into these confines of unattainable perfection. It hurts women, the environment, as well as marginalized people as a whole.

The state of popular feminism, this post feminism ideal, who is it for? What does it do for anyone who doesnt find a way to fit in the lines of societal perfection? The answer is nothing. Popular feminism is connected to classism, racism, and a slew of other very marginalizing points. The page @odeandiefreude, run by an ecofeminist from the UK states in a post “Regular' feminists need to consider the way environmental factors aid or challenge their work. If you're the type of feminist fighting for more women in CEO positions, you might be fighting for women to join the ranks of those keeping classism and white supremacy pumping. This is not, to put it mildly, nice to people who are poor or not white. But it is not only not nice in terms of race and class. It's also not sustainable in terms of the environment. We need structures that are not plundering the Earth. Climate change is real and needs to be addressed and if your feminism is seeking for women to be part of the climate change problem rather than its solutions, you need to reevaluate.” There are more important things to worry about and work on. Gill states, “One of the most striking aspects of postfeminist media culture is its obsessive preoccupation with the body.” The focus on the female “body” is an interesting part of this era of what is feminism in the popular sense, postfeminism. It has become a tool so far gone that women think this is the way to break through the subordination but it amplifies it and pushes popular misogyny.

Makeover shows are all about this body focus. They are extremely popular, mixing the misery of another, the ideal of “necessary change” of women, and of course broad (white) audience oriented stories. “As Hellen Wood and Beverly Skeggs (2004) have argued, the ubiquity of...[makeover shows] produce ‘new ethical selves’ in which particular forms of modernized and upgrade selfhood are presented as solutions to the dilemmas of contemporary life. The scenarios are profoundly classed and gendered and, as Angela McRobbie (2004a) points out, racialized too (if largely through exclusion)...” Not only does popular feminism advocate for the intense participation it presented capitalistic needs (wants, things that aren’t needed, unnecessary), but it is extremely exclusionary. The notion of popular feminism basically makes little sense, is contradictory to itself, and only promotes popular misogyny.

Ecofeminists take the ideas brought forth by the capitalistic feeding white washed popular feminist ideals and turn them right on their heads. @odeandiefreude posts a history of ecofeminism saying, “Ecofeminism, established by French feminist Francois d'Eaubonne in the 1970s, is a relatively new form of feminist theory. It caught the eye of feminists, environmentalists, and peace activists as a result of its aim to break down the structures and institutions limiting feminism as a philosophy. Ecofeminism addresses phenomena that affect contemporary society, particularly gender equality and environmental preservation, to understand oppression as a structural process in order to eliminate domination. The theory argues that society has been constructed to prioritise the dominance of patriarchal values and acknowledges that the union of groups who are oppressed can deconstruct the current social hierarchy to create a more inclusive society. The theory utilises intersectionality, that is the interconnectedness of identity traits (race, class, gender, sexuality, etc.), to recognise similarities between the oppression of the environment and the domination of women. The ecofeminist movement concludes that humans' need to control the environment is identical to men's need to control women, elites' need to control the poor, and 'whites' need to control 'blacks'.” This feminist theory speaks so much in opposition to what encommpases popular feminism. It in intersectional, applicable to all women (including Mother Earth), it takes our bodies back by ignoring the obsession and seeing the natural as important (That’s not to say that the female body is not a beautiful powerful thing, however, obsession with perfection is the problem brought on by the patriarchy), identifies capitalism as a detriment/distraction, and focuses on the real problems.

[woman-earthsally-blog]

Friendship

Within the first few paragraphs, Bloor explains the ideas of an influential 20th-century philosopher, Martin Heideggar. The central thought of his philosophy is a bit of a grim one, especially considering he was alive from 1889-1976. He focuses on the idea of nihilism. Present during a time of intense technological advancement, he was concerned about humanity. Noting, “that there is no central, shared arbitrator of what really matters in human affairs, as Greek society had with their temple or medieval Christian states had with the church.” I began thinking about what technological advancements were made during his lifetime, inferring that maybe the intensity would mirror that of my own. For example, typewriters were invented the year before he was born, however, the first “email” was sent when he was 82. These extremes explain his need to cope, and his questions about how. I think his concerns were valid then, and relatable today. A year before I was born, the DVD was invented, today I have the ability to watch virtually anything, anywhere. Over 5.5 million DVDs are thrown into landfills each year. I look at the world today and have similar ideas. In a world of fast-paced efficiency-driven lifestyles, what is friendship? We are so quick to throw away this old tech because something better came along-in this process the earth hurts. When we treat friends the same way, I think we hurt the same way the Earth does.

Technological extremes are everywhere we look, and changing every day and what feels like every second. We feel a very noticeable disconnection. It could be said that this is the real central/shared arbitrator. The disconnection is actually becoming our biggest connection. What we thought would help us, is the biggest detriment. There is this idea that society mirrors the technology present within it. Looking at what the many possibilities for this definition today are, it’s clear that we are in fact mimicking our tech. Fast technology, fast invention, fast food, fast cars, and subsequently fast friendship.

I can so easily connect with Heideggar’s thoughts because we are having similar experiences and asking similar questions about society.

If the point of life is to live it and experience it fully, why are we making everything easy? What is the point of efficiency if we are supposed to savor life?

After examining our current world under the gaze of nihilism, Bloor speaks about the fact that our society is in fact organized around efficiency, saying, “Into the void comes the drive to make more efficient use of the things we find around us. We see the world as a realm of objects to be manipulated for the achievement of human ends-rivers to be harnessed for power, not purpose or meaning.” Friendship turns into a tool, an object, that we have begun to manipulate intensely.

I follow the Instagram account of @elizabethcouse_, her bio reads “let’s start a new chapter and heal the world together.” She is a vegan environmentalist farmer who is an advocate for the Earth and an entity with strong feelings about the importance of community. She posted recently, opening with a quote from her favorite book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It says, “Forever wondering how we have become so disillusioned, so distanced from what’s real. when did it go wrong? when did we make a wrong turn?” She paired this with a beautiful landscape of a waterfall.

What speaks to me from this quotation most is the word “disillusioned.” Bloor states, “this process of ignoring the aspects of the world in order to manipulate it drives us to perceive ourselves as part of this realm, as simply objects to be improved on, trained, put into a position to further our progress towards an arbitrary set of goals.” If we see ourselves as objects in this state of disillusionment living in the “realm,” there is no question that we would similarly see and treat friendship this way. As humans, this efficiency is hurting our internal world as well as our equally important external world.

[woman-earthsally-blog]

An Introduction

This semester I will be focusing on how women make an impact on social media through sharing ideas that incorporate art and Ecofeminism to spread awareness, feeling and ultimately, action. Action within themselves as well as the natural world. In many countries, including the United States, women are one of many marginalized groups. Specifically in the United States, women have come a long way since the Suffrage movement. However, there are many struggles that come with being a woman produced by the society we live in today. To name a few, there is still a widely practiced gender bias against women, a pay gap, and the ever present fight for reproductive rights. Spreading ideas that question societal norms and normalize the natural, put women in a place of power. 

Social media is a common platform where women are often groomed through toxic imagery upon what the definition of beauty is, what they need to buy to fit into this criteria, in general what they need to care about, and altogether what boxes society wants them to remain in. Capitalism targets women and the world as a whole, with social media being a perfect avenue to push these things further and make them worse. Coincidentally enough the most important feminine figure, Mother Earth, is also treated unfairly and hurt through these processes. In reality, there are much more important things to care about than the trivial prospects brought forth by popular “influencers” that are mainly, sell outs, trying to sell you unnecessary things and unattainable existences. Seeing women using this platform to lock horns with these norms is inspiring and extremely impactful. 

To see that there are women all across the world sharing similar ideas as well as things I have no idea about (but should) is amazing. The fact that women from different countries have commonalities says a lot about the feminine experience. The longing connection of feminism and environmentalism is quintessential if not highly underrepresented. 

The definition of Ecofeminism is: a philosophical and political movement that combines ecological concerns with feminist ones, regarding both as resulting from male domination of society. Social media opens the door for this scope. I believe that my observation and attendance to this topic is worth it because of the ever growing space for women that has been coming about in recent years, along with the reality that we still have a long way to go, in terms of the needs of our planet as well as the needs of women. 

I think the use of the modern platform of Instagram for this topic is interesting. As a niche topic in the first place, one that focuses on the natural and powerful, it uses the positive side of social media. The larger portion of images and messages on this platform goes against this philosophy in many ways. I believe these accounts are a great example of using social media for good rather than, mostly, the evil that is so present. I am inspired by women who inspire other women to care about themselves and the planet and I believe these accounts do this genuinely in hopes of passing the baton. 

I will be focusing on four Instagram accounts that focus on the topics within Ecofeminism. Each account is run by a woman from a different country. I will be paying close attention to the words they share and how they use this platform to inspire, inform, and connect other women all across the world.

@odeandieffeude

This is a larger account run a woman from the United Kingdom. The focus on the idea of the divine feminine, self care, Ecofeminism, zero waste, art, and many other things.

@elizabethcouse_

This is account is run by a woman in America. She emphasizes environmentalism, Ecofeminism, internal connection, veganism, and multiple [topics in the same wheelhouse.

@vrouwenwijs

This account is run by a woman in the Netherlands. She focuses on the idea of the sacred feminine, yoga, nature, the moon cycle, and the connection between women and Mother Earth. 

@managuafuriosa

This account is run by a woman in Nicaragua. She highlights activism, Ecofeminism, creativity, along with other topics.