This article introduces students of International Relations (IR) to ecofeminism, its diverse approaches, and critiques. Ecofeminism emerged in the 1970’s following the history of the intersection between the transnational women’s movement and the global environmental movement (Kelleher 2019). Subsequently, given the rise of ecofeminism scholarship in the 1980’s, ecofeminism became integrated into the IR scholarly discipline as a critical theory (Allison 2017; Detraz 2010). Ecofeminism is critical of patriarchy and its intertwined effects on women and the environment. In sum, the goal is to improve women’s conditions alongside environmental protection across the globe because the improvement of the former causes the improvement of the latter. The following paragraphs emphasize on how ecofeminism defines the environment and the different ecofeminism perspectives about the causes of and solutions to global environmental problems. The final paragraphs emphasize on the critiques of ecofeminism.

Ecofeminism is derived from key thinkers from all over the world that belong to the feminist tradition whose attempt is to combine feminist and environmental ideas (Bretherton 1995; Ruether 1997). The history of ecofeminism is tied to French feminist philosopher and environmentalist Françoise d’Eaubonne who is among the key founders of ecofeminism. She coined the term “ecofeminisme” in 1974 in her book Le Féminisme ou la Mort (i.e. Feminism or Death) (Allison 2017; Detraz 2010). Other key notable ecofeminists include Vandana Shiva, an Indian physicist, philosopher, and environmental activist. Author of the 1988 Staying Alive and Ecofeminism book. she extensively addresses dual marginalization and domination of women and the environment in the Third World. Val Plumwood is also another notable feminist philosopher from Australia and author of the 1993 Feminism and the Mastery of Nature book. She critiques the dual separation of men and women as well as human and nature into distinct opposing categories, arguing that women and nature especially are considered as lesser than men. Susan Griffin, author of the 1978 book Woman and Nature, moves a similar critique to the concept that women’s subordination is rooted in their symbolic connection to nature.

Ecofeminism defines the environment as a living ecosystem that comprises not only animals, plants, and the natural elements, but also humans, all of which are equal, interconnected, and dependent on each other (Plumwood 2012). Furthermore, according to ecofeminism, the female gender has always historically and naturally been more concerned about environmental protection. This is expressed through nurturing relationship with the natural environment, and through the organisation of and participation in environmental activism (Allison 2017; Bretherton 1995; Detraz 2010). However, ecofeminism argues that the leading conceptual meaning of the environment separates humans from the environment, and it is socially constructed by and for men who believe in men’s domination of all things, otherwise known as patriarchy (Detraz 2010; Ruether 1997). Patriarchy has particularly shaped our conventional understanding of the environment as an object to be conquered and degraded rather than nurtured and protected. In a similar way, patriarchy has shaped our understanding of the female gender as one to be oppressed and subjugated. And so, ecofeminism argues against men’s dual domination over the natural environment and over women (Bretherton 1995).

Feminist political historian Gerda Lerner, the author of 1986 The Creation of Patriarchy, and feminist political scientist Sylvia Walby, the author of 1990 Theorizing Patriarchy wrote extensively about patriarchy and its origins. According to Lerner, patriarchy is historically constructed over thousands of years by men around 3100–600 BCE. It emerged alongside the development of cultural norms, economic property, social class, and the political state. Therefore, it was sustained through social, cultural, economic, and political ideologies and institutions. Walby expounds on this and analyses how patriarchy operates in both public and private life, arguing that it’s a multi-faceted, evolving system rooted in institutions, not just a matter of personal relationships. In private households, the individual male dominates the family and controls women, who are unpaid for domestic labor. Outside the household, women are marginalized collectively by broader institutional constraints. To name a few, gendered violence as a form of control on women, gender inequality in employment and wages, underrepresentation of women in politics, and stigmatization of women in media, religion, and education. These patriarchal gendered patterns also extend from the public and private sphere within the state to the international realm of politics and are perpetuated by men’s control of the state and the dominance of men in international politics. For instance, in IR, feminist scholars such as Cynthia Enloe, the author of 1989 Bananas, Beaches and Bases and Ann Tickner, the author of 1992 Gender in International Relations, have written extensively about the dominance of patriarchal ideas and systems in international politics. Others like Spike Peterson and Christine Sylvester have written about the structural inequality and exclusion of women in international politics etc.

Nonetheless, women are actively challenging patriarchy and are at the forefront of the global environmental movement fighting for access to fresh water, clean air, and healthy soil to ensure a sustainable future for generations of children to come (Jabeen 2020; Resurrección 2017; Roy 2005). This is partly because women and children are among the most vulnerable victims of environmental degradation alongside indigenous peoples and other impoverished minorities. Although ecofeminism believes that patriarchy is the mutual root cause of environmental degradation and women’s subjugation, ecofeminists have differing gendered perspectives about how patriarchy causes global environmental problems and how to solve them (Detraz 2010; Jabeen 2020). The mainstream ecofeminist perspectives include liberal ecofeminism sometimes referred to as empirical ecofeminism, cultural ecofeminism, and socialist ecofeminism (Allison 2017). There is nonetheless yet another more contemporary ecofeminist perspective such as postcolonial ecofeminism, which is seen as promoting intersectionality within ecofeminism (Chae 2015; Kaur 2012; Kelleher 2019).

Liberal ecofeminism emphasizes the correlation between global gender inequality and global environmental problems (Allison 2017; Bretherton 1995; Detraz 2010). According to liberal ecofeminism, women and women-headed households are the world’s poorest because patriarchy fosters gender income inequality. This however means that women are therefore at the most risk of environmental challenges. For instance, not only are women disproportionately affected by natural disasters and environmental problems, but they also suffer the most from conflicts caused by the environment in the form of food insecurity, water scarcity, loss of livelihood, and displacement (Bretherton 1995). Furthermore, according to liberal ecofeminism, women are marginalised and underrepresented in the global governance of the environment because of patriarchy (i.e., men’s excessive representation and domination) (Allison 2017). Women are disempowered and excluded from participating in the sustainable development of the global environment (Detraz 2010). This not only results in the lack of gender-sensitive laws that should target global environmental problems affecting women but also results in insufficient global environmental policies. Therefore, liberal ecofeminism believes in the democratization of global environmental governance because opening up the global political space to all women will enrich them and empower them on how to better manage the global environment and will be reflected in global environmental policies.

Liberal ecofeminism therefore points to several gender-sensitive environmental policies that have been created with increased women participation in global environmental governance architecture of the United Nations (Detraz 2010). For example, the first ever United Nations global conference on the human environment held in 1972, made only reference to men, thus asserting: “Man had the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permitted a life of dignity and well-being, and he bore a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations” (Bretherton 1995, 109). Increased women participation in the United Nations in the 1980’s however culminated into the women’s action agenda presented at the subsequent global conference of environment and development, which stated “Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development” (109).

Cultural ecofeminism, on the other hand, believes that global environmental degradation is caused by a patriarchal culture that prioritises a masculine way of life, which emphasises on environmental domination over protection (Allison 2017; Jabeen 2020). According to cultural ecofeminism, women have a feminine way of life so much so that it is inherently and culturally different from that of men (Ruether 1997). Because women have feminine way of life, women are naturally, historically, and socially closer, and more akin to the environment. Just like nature provides and caters for all of humanity, women physiologically bring forth life from their bodies and are psychologically assigned greater emotional capacities, and thus, are socially responsible for nurturing. This has also kept women close to nature and out of the man-made environment and workspace where a lot of environmental extraction, degradation, and pollution occurs. Therefore, cultural ecofeminism, advocates a feminine culture or way of life that reflects women’s unique experiences with and connection to nature (Kaur 2012). However, unlike liberal ecofeminism, cultural ecofeminism believes that women should advocate for more than an equal representation in global governance. Women are better-suited than men when it comes to advocating, understanding, and developing environmental policy (Allison 2017; Bretherton 1995). And therefore, women should be given the role of environmental protection over men.

Social ecofeminism, unlike liberal and cultural ecofeminism, emphasizes on the intertwined relationship between patriarchy and capitalism, and the negative effects on nature and women (Chae 2015; Kaur 2012). According to social ecofeminism, both nature and women are the source of human life but also the source of capitalist sustenance (Mies 1986; Salleh 1997). However, nature, like women, has been devalued, exploited, and destroyed because capitalism is a by-product of patriarchy; it is a socioeconomic structure made for men by men to dominate and exploit nature as well as women’s cheap labor (Allison 2017; Mies 1986). According to social ecofeminism, not all women are caregivers, and neither is it ‘natural’ for them to undertake such gendered assigned roles (Chae 2015; Kaur 2012). However, in a capitalist society that is so entrenched in patriarchy, women are relegated to gendered stereotypical roles that elevate men on the backs of women. Women are disproportionately employed in low paying caregiving jobs such as nursing, administration, and teaching (González et al. 2022; Pounder 1989; Strachan, Jenkins, and Ortbals 2019). Women are also not adequately compensated for the disproportionate extra caregiving labor that they perform as wives and mothers at home such as cooking, cleaning, and nurturing children etc. (Kaur 2012). And even when women do work in men dominated roles like engineering and executive management, they are underpaid compared to men for essentially performing the same job (Strachan, Jenkins, and Ortbals 2019).

The only way to resolve the dual challenges faced by nature and women, according to social ecofeminism, is to eliminate capitalism and with-it patriarchy (Chae 2015; Kaur 2012). Social ecofeminism also argues that the state should be abolished because it serves capitalism and thus, upholds patriarchy (Salleh 1997). These changes would require the environmental movement and women’s feminist movement to work together to fight for a socialist stateless world. A socialist stateless world where the dual forces of capitalism and patriarchy no longer exist is one where women will be equally and fairly treated, and the natural environment would be only minimally subjugated to providing the necessary resources adequate to sustain all people, regardless of social class or gender (Allison 2017; Salleh 1997).

Postcolonial ecofeminism emphasises on the beliefs and experiences of Third World women in the global environment much of which share cultural and social ecofeminism sentiments (Jabeen 2020). Third World women, according to postcolonial ecofeminists, are members of both a globally marginalized class and a subjugated gender, and therefore, are the most impoverished and have suffered the most from postcolonial maldevelopment one of which is globalization and the loss of localized social practices and customs that otherwise would help to maintain the environment within its natural limits/capacity (Kaur 2012; Pandey 2013). In precolonial times, there were many locales and cultures in the Third world that were matriarchal and therefore, esteemed not just women but also nature (Ruether 1997). For instance, women in matriarchal cultures were deemed powerful and not subordinate to men because they headed both the nuclear and extended family, and passed on their names, inheritance, property, and leadership to their daughters (Paxton, Hughes, and Barnes 2020; Strachan, Jenkins, and Ortbals 2019; Taylor 2015). Also, women were in charge of the land including food production, harvesting and distribution, which made them stewards of nature but also gave them authority and autonomy in society (Strachan, Jenkins, and Ortbals 2019).

However, with the introduction of patriarchy, women’s role and value in society alongside nature diminished simultaneously. This pattern continues in today’s postcolonial world in the form of globalization, which is the new colonialism (Chae 2015). According to postcolonial feminism, globalization fosters the spread of patriarchy and underdevelopment throughout the Third World (Shiva 1988). This is because women who used to be pillar of society in the Third World are forgotten, forced away from their lands and nature, forced to abandon their traditional matriarchal culture and religious practices, forced to migrate in search of a livelihood including being trafficked for their sexual bodies, and forced to participate in or adopt a Western patriarchal way of life (Pandey 2013; Shiva 1988). According to postcolonial ecofeminists, women in the Third World are reclaiming the affinity between the sacrality of nature and the sacrality of their own sexuality and life-powers (Jabeen 2020; Ruether 1997), as well as organizing globalization-challenging movements to at least ensure subsistence and good health for their communities (Gaard and Gruen 1993; Pandey 2013).

Ecofeminism perspectives are not without critiques. For instance, liberal ecofeminism is critiqued for its emphasis on the democratic representation of women within the existing global environment governance structure, which is deemed patriarchal and dominated by states largely controlled by men (Allison 2017; Salleh 1997). For Liberal ecofeminism, increasing the representation for women will make the existing political environment less patriarchal, so that over time the global environmental governance system will gradually align with ecofeminist ideals. Nonetheless, some critiques still contend that this will only lead to minimal reforms within the existing system (Salleh 1997). Moreover, most women appointed in the global environmental governance are hardly different from their male counterparts in terms of their approach to gender inequality and the global environment (Mies and Shiva 1993). They fail to see the linkage between women’s suffering and environmental degradation, and they do not view the global environment as a feminist issue, and thus, they do not regard themselves as ecofeminists (Allison 2017).

Likewise, cultural ecofeminism is critiqued because it does not seek to transform the existing patriarchal approach to the global environment (Agarwal 1992). For instance, cultural ecofeminism perpetuates the patriarchal notion of biological essentialism that women are naturally feminine and therefore more akin to the nurturing of the environment (Jabeen 2020; Ruether 1997). According to its critics, biological determinism is a social construct by men used to maintain feminine stereotypes that benefit men. In other words, it absolves men from the duty as humans to care for the environment, which they depend on for survival and their livelihoods, fostering their lack of accountability for degrading the environment (Gaard 2011; Merchant 1996; Plumwood 1993;). Furthermore,critics argue thatbiological determinism is used to limit women’s role and diversity in society (Allison 2017; Kaur 2012). Not all women are inclined to nurturing, and women should not be bound to ecological responsibility (Ruether 1997).

In contrast, social ecofeminism seeks the transformation of the existing patriarchal global environment into one that is based on socialist ideals of equality and nonexploitation. However, according to its critics, social ecofeminism is utopian because it does not offer any clear mechanism on how to transform the global environmental system into an ideal one (Gaard 2011; Mellor 1997). Also, some argue that social ecofeminism is economically essentialist and reductionist (Agarwal 1992; Gaard and Gruen 1993). It homogenizes all women by treating them as impoverished subjects of capitalist labour exploitation, and it focuses solely on the economic exploitation of women and equates it to the economic exploitation environment (Gaard 2011; Mellor 1997). Not all women are subject to unpaid domestic labour, receive a low income, or are part of the impoverished working class in society. It is thus unrealistic to homogenize diverse background under one econometric category (Allison 2017). And because social ecofeminism focuses on the economic aspects of patriarchy, it ignores non-capitalist sources of oppression and exploitation affecting diverse women across the world and the global environment (Agarwal 1992; Mohanty 2003).

Finally, though considered the most critical of all ecofeminism perspectives, postcolonial ecofeminism is also critiqued for its environmental essentialism of Third World women. Not all women in the Third World are closely and sacredly tied to nature nor are they all environmental activists, and they belong to different ethnicities, cultures, religion, and class (Agarwal 1992; Mohanty 1988; Sturgeon 1997). Furthermore, despite environmental degradation becoming more widespread in many parts of the Third World, several non-western cultures prior to colonisation were responsible for unsustainable environmental practices that degraded nature and practiced patriarchy-like gendered hierarchies that exploited or oppressed women (Agarwal 1992; Guha 1989; Merchant 1980). Also, critics claim that postcolonial ecofeminism is dominated by perspectives on Southeast Asia, and thus, there is a need to incorporate more diverse Third World ecofeminism perspectives from regions like Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa (DeLoughrey and Handley 2011; Salleh 1997; Sturgeon 1997).

Overall, ecofeminism is critiqued for its utopian morality, its emphasis on an ethics of care that is based on the same gender stereotypes that it seeks to dismantle such as women’s inherent connection to and care for nature in contrast to men (Ottuh 2022). In other words, critics of ecofeminism see essentialism and dualism as a problem across all ecofeminist perspectives. The use of the word gender and patriarchy means that men and women are described as distinct genders with the latter having qualities that are inherently good for the environment (Matthews 2017; Plumwood 1986). Likewise, women are romanticized as victims or saviours of the global environment. This mode of thinking fosters superiority of one gender over the other and justifies their domination when it comes to environmental protection across the world.

Despite these critiques, ecofeminism remains an important critical theory that compels IR students to think about not just the value of the global environment, but also to remember the impact of environmental destruction on women across the world and the significance of women in fostering global environmental protection. Ecofeminism maintains that global environmental protection is possible because gender and patriarchy are all social constructs. Theoretical definitions of women and men and their roles in society are fluid, and should be transformed so that both men and women are considered not at odds but equal partners and stewards of the global environment (Plumwood 1993; Sturgeon 1997).

References

Agarwal, Bina. 1992. “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India.” Feminist Studies 18 (1): 119–158.

Allison, Juliann Emmons. 2010. “Ecofeminism and Global Environmental Politics.” In The International Studies Encyclopedia, edited by Robert A. Denemark and Renée Marlin-Bennett. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://www-oxfordreference-com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/view/10.1093/acref/9780191842665.001.0001/acref-9780191842665-e-0068.

Allison, Juliann Emmons. 2017. “Ecofeminism and Global Environmental Politics.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. November 30. Accessed October 13, 2025. https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-158.

Amadiume, Ifi. 1987. Male Daughters, Female Husbands: Gender and Sex in an African Society. London: Zed Books.

Archambault, Anne. 1993. “A Critique of Ecofeminism.” Canadian Woman Studies 13 (3): 19–22. https://libezproxy.syr.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/critique-ecofeminism/docview/217438353/se-2.

Bretherton, Charlotte. 1995. “Gender Environmental Change: Are Women the Key to Safeguarding the Planet.” In The Environment and International Relations, edited by Mark Imber and John Vogler. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203995525.

Chae, Youngsuk. 2015. “Postcolonial Ecofeminism in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things.” Journal of Postcolonial Writing 51 (5): 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449855.2015.1070010.

DeLoughrey, Elizabeth, and George B. Handley, eds. 2011. Postcolonial Ecologies: Literatures of the Environment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Detraz, Nicole. 2010. “Gender and International Environmental Politics.” In Advances in International Environmental Politics, edited by Michele M. Betsill, Kathryn Hochstetler, and Dimitris Stevis. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137338976_6.

Dube, Leela. 1997. Women and Kinship: Comparative Perspectives on Gender in South and South-East Asia. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Gaard, Greta. 2011. “Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism and Re-Placing Species in a Material Feminist Environmentalism.” Feminist Formations 23 (2): 26–53.

Gaard, Greta, and Lori Gruen. 1993. “Ecofeminism: Toward Global Justice and Planetary Health.” Society and Nature 2 (1): 1–35.

González, Inmaculada, Bo Seo, and Maria S. Floro. 2022. “Gender Wage Gap, Gender Norms, and Long-Term Care: A Theoretical Framework.” Feminist Economics 28 (3): 84–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2022.2081353.

Guha, Ramachandra. 1989. The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jabeen, Neelam. 2020. “Women, Land, Embodiment: A Case of Postcolonial Ecofeminism.” Interventions 22 (8): 1095–1109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2020.1753556.

Kaur, Gurpreet. 2012. “Postcolonial Ecofeminism in Indian Novels in English.” International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 2 (5): 384–390. https://www.ijssh.net/papers/131-W00008.pdf.

Kelleher, Fatimah. 2019. “Why the World Needs an African Ecofeminist Future.” African Arguments, March 12. https://africanarguments.org/2019/03/why-world-needs-african-ecofeminist-future/.

MacGregor, Sherilyn, ed. 2017. Routledge Handbook of Gender and Environment. 1st ed. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315886572.

Mathews, Freya. 2017. “The Dilemma of Dualism.” In Routledge Handbook of Gender and Environment, edited by Sherilyn MacGregor. London: Routledge.

Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Merchant, Carolyn. 1996. Earthcare: Women and the Environment. New York: Routledge.

Mellor, Mary. 1997. Feminism and Ecology. New York: New York University Press.

Mies, Maria. 1986. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour. London: Zed Books.

Mies, Maria, and Vandana Shiva. 1993. Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books; New Delhi: Kali for Women.

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1988. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.” Boundary 2 12 (3): 333–358.

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 2003. Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Ottuh, Peter. 2020. “A Critique of Eco-Feminism: An Attempt Towards Environmental Solution.” International Journal of Environmental Pollution and Environmental Modelling 3 (4): 167–179.

Pandey, Anupam. 2013. “Globalization and Ecofeminism in the South: Keeping the ‘Third World’ Alive.” Journal of Global Ethics 9 (3): 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2013.855647.

Paxton, Pamela, Melanie M. Hughes, and Tiffany D. Barnes. 2020. Women, Politics, and Power. 4th ed. New York: Bloomsbury USA.

Plumwood, Val. 1986. “Ecofeminism: An Overview and Discussion of Positions and Arguments.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64 (sup1): 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.1986.9755430.

Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge.

Pounder, Diana G. 1989. “The Gender Gap in Salaries of Educational Administration.” Educational Administration Quarterly 25 (2): 183–201.

Resurrección, Bernadette P. 2017. “Gender and Environment in the Global South: From ‘Women, Environment, and Development’ to Feminist Political Ecology.” In Routledge Handbook of Gender and Environment, edited by Sherilyn MacGregor. London: Routledge.

Roy, Amitabh. 2005. The God of Small Things: A Novel of Social Commitment. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Distributors.

Ruether, Rosemary Radford. 1997. “Ecofeminism: First and Third World Women.” American Journal of Theology & Philosophy 18 (1): 33–45. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27944009.

Salleh, Ariel. 1997. Ecofeminism as Politics: Nature, Marx and the Postmodern. London: Zed Books.

Sargisson, Lucy. 2001. “What’s Wrong with Ecofeminism.” Environmental Politics 10 (1): 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/714000513.

Shiva, Vandana. 1988. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development. London: Zed Books.

Sturgeon, Noël. 1997. Ecofeminist Natures: Race, Gender, Feminist Theory, and Political Action. New York: Routledge.

Strachan, Jessica, Laura Poloni-Staudinger, Sarah Jenkins, and Candice Ortbals. 2019. Why Don’t Women Rule the World? Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Svampa, Maristella. 2019. Neo-extractivism in Latin America: Socio-environmental Conflicts, the Territorial Turn, and New Political Narratives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tamale, Sylvia. 2020. Decolonization and Afro-Feminism. Ottawa: Daraja Press.

Taylor, Betty, ed. 2015. Listening to the Voices: Multi-Ethnic Women in Education. San Francisco, CA: University of San Francisco.

Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. 2005. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• Whatever Happened to the Frankfurt School in International Relations?
• Opinion – #arrestlucknowgirl: A Reminder of India’s Postcolonial Desire to Control Women
• The ‘Failure of Critical Theory’ as an Ideological Discourse
• Opinion – A Feminist Foreign Policy for India: Where to Turn?
• Against Mystification, or What Went Wrong with Critical IR
• Alienation and Marxism: An Alternative Starting Point for Critical IR Theory