Gender And Environment Analysis

Nightingale (2006) critical analysis was to recognize gender-environment nexus from different point of views (feminists, political ecologists, essentialists, historical materialists etc) for innate knowledge to conceptualize about relationship between gender and environment. Her main argument was ‘gender’ is biologically constructed social, cultural and political phenomena defined by sex where women are more oppressed and marginalized by male hegemony but also dominated by class, race, color and religious belief. She also added as women interact more with environment hence valuing their understanding to protect ecosystem is incredibly important. I found the truth in my real life and agreed with her quotation of “work on gender and environment …show more content…
But she claimed that nature is an essential concept for feminist theory that should be transformed into undomesticated spaces and not be confined by contextual concepts. I would like converge with her powerful notion in “the slash not only distinguishes sex from gender but severs nature from culture (pp. 05).” I think culture is a part of nature where different theories and critics from individual aspects arguing a new demand but not holistic in all time. Consequently, the critic on sex and gender does not bring out a framework rather than making a new argument from other relevant hypothesis and lead to make distance from each other. Oppositely, “women are products of culture not nature (pp. 04)” has seemed to me confusing because gender and women is socially constructed where culture is a part of nature. In this vein, I believe women and culture intertwined to each other as a social …show more content…
She argued that the shaping contradiction on gender and mobility neglected each other along with nature that raised nothing more than divergent strands between them. In essence, she blamed to knowledge gap as the hindrance sake for this divergence and her applied “questioning sustainability” approach with keeping ‘them’ in central position raised an argument of necessity to make bridge among gender, mobility and nature for achieving future sustainability. I am agreed with her argument “we need to truly synthesize the two major strands of work on gender and mobility (pp. 16)” because I believe that partial analysis does not reflect the contextual and inner theme of a problem but make a divergent distance rather than solve it. On the other hand, I need to differ in “only by connecting the two now-divergent strands, and building on the strengths of each, will we feminist geographers be able to contribute significantly to the discussion about sustainable mobility (pp. 14)” Since, sustainability is a multifaceted, interlinked, interdependent and complex system therefore I think “nature” should remain along with gender and mobility to describe social, economic, political, cultural and technological