Talk:Women and the environment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments from 2009[edit]

This is a shocking poor and narrow minded article. It is full of lies, speculative statements, half-truths, misleading statements, and just plain nonsense. -- (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I, and I say this as a pro-feminist male and an ecologist, must agree. This is an extremely poorly written article. It makes the unfounded claim that women's role in ecology has been ignored- especially given that most ecology looks at society as a whole. In the first section, it makes the logical fallacy of assuming that correlation is equal to causation, implying that the rise of feminism and the rise of ecology are linked. Unless an entire section demonstrating this link can be written, it should in my opinion be deleted. The author then makes the mistake of assuming that rural life automatically makes one ecologically wise. Her sources from there on out are too broad and not adequately supported. While there may be a place for an article on Women in Environmental Activism, articles like this belong on blogs or, at best, as external links on the eco-feminism page. While there may be a call for some page looking at ecology with a feminist perspective, perhaps expanding on the Chipko movement, this one does an extremely poor job of it. --Ejdoyle (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this stuff reappears to be the old nonsense about Native Americans allegedly having a similar relationship with nature. Now that has been debunked, it appears that the old nonsense is being repeated, but with Native Americans being replaced by woman. Dare I hope someone real scientific and historical evidence as opposed to bogus women's and feminist studies gibberish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View[edit]

A lot of this article seems to be biased and not sourced. Take the following sentences: "Women are often the most directly affected by environmental issues, so they become more concerned about environmental problems. Studies have shown the direct effects of chemicals and pesticides on human health.[5]" They contradict each other. Women are not the "most directly affected by environmental issues." Rather, "chemicals and pesticides" have a "direct effect" on "human health" not female health. The neutrality of this article seems to be largely in dispute. --Rotellam1 (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nominees for Women and the Environment[edit]

I would certainly add these two names Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall to your list of woman environmentalist. These two woman have been major inspirations for an entire generation of female and male environmentalists.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Women's Connection with the environment[edit]

I would like to substantially add and modify the section about women’s attitude and the environment. There is merit to the already existing section but the issue goes much deeper than the information currently presented. It is true that in many developing countries rely on nature for survival and that women are the primary users of the land. Women are responsible for agricultural work, food production and general land cultivation. There exist a number of studies performed by economists, feminists and activists alike, such as Esther Boserup, Bina Agarwal, Carolyn Merchant and Vandana Shiva, that show the connection between women and the land. Gender and class inequalities exist and farming and land ownership play a major role when studying those inequalities.

Using a number of scholarly studies and articles, I propose to make an addition that shows the differences in the way women and men view and use the environment. I would to emphasize the gender division of labor, with regard to agriculture and land ownership regulations, and the effect it has on the environment, the economy, and the people. Also, there are newer factors, such as advancing technologies and climate change that affecting the role of women in land cultivation that should be explored and discussed. Alainas (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest renaming the article to indicate a more specific time period: "throughout history" sounds too general. BerikG (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)BerikG

Peer Review[edit]

The link for Caroline Merchant on the “Relationship between violence of Nature and Women” section is not set up properly. The link was inputted but you might want to change the brackets to make it work unless the link is not present on Wikipedia . In the same paragraph you have the line ‘both the environment and women have been viewed as exploitable resources that are significantly undervalued.’ If you have time and energy it might be interesting to explore this reality a little more, why is this the case? What parts of the world is this most prevalent?

Ecofeminism 4th sentence, spelling error she, should be the.

I would suggest reading through the article again with someone who can edit the grammatical problems with you. It is a very interesting article. I like the variety of examples you use of women environmentalists and women who initiated ecological movements. These could all be individual Wikipedia pages with links to your page. This is a very broad topic and an interesting subject. I think you edit the grammar again as well as address the other talk page questions you will be just fine. (Haskimas B Naskasi) 05:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

I would add a stronger thesis sentence explaining what this article is about, the name also seems really wordy, but im not sure what to make of it, this is also related to any concern about notability etc. 1.2 seems to need a copy edit with that quote, more for summary purposes. Also, the land-takeover piece could be a little expanded for copy edit. The 2.2.3 section could use a little expansion, maybe some discussion of land distribution policies. In the US there the homestead act might be a broader trend than just the US. Thekappen (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

I would like to see more statistics on how many women own land and how many countries it is legal for women to own land. This article is very one sided but that is the topic being covered. It says that women are more into farming than men because the trend of men going off to the city to work. But there are not facts about this. I would be really intrigued to see the numbers on this. over all the information provided was interesting and well stated. (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review Response[edit]

I would love to change the title but Wikipedia requires a minimum of ten edits before it allows you to change article titles. I like the idea of addressing the issue of women and the environment seen as exploitable resources. I was considering doing this and just need to take the time to add to it. It can be added to the section about the connection between violence of environment and women. Also, I had thought about increasing land distribution and property rights so that is a good suggestion.

There are sections of this article that were already in existence when I started to work on it. I am trying to clear up some of the one-sidedness or at least present the information in a way that clarifies that the ideas are not proven fact, rather they are just ideas and theories. Thanks for all the advice! I certainly have some more work to do. Alainas (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Alainas

Comments on the new incarnation/sections of "Women and the Environment"[edit]

This was an article that had lot's of problems (signaled earlier on the Talk page) and the new additions look really good. It would be good to make explicit in the Talk page the sections that need attention (that you have not worked on) for future improvements.

The lead paragraph sounds as if the World Bank was the entity that first problematized women's relationship with the environment from 1991 onwards. This needs refinement, you say from a resource management perspective, but a more explicit refinement is necessary. Also the quotation needs a reference at the end of the sentence.

Avoid general and timeless statements. Several sentences require specification of time frame/year, place, specific social group.

For example, "An increasing number of women are taking over and expanding their involvement in agricultural tasks but this has not changed the gender division of labor with regard to reproductive work." When?
The Boserup sentence needs to specify that her research focused on changes in the 1940s, 1950s (verify from tables in Chapters 1 and 3).
"The dependence on nature and the environment for survival is common among Third World women.[3" sounds like a truism that holds for everyone--women or men. It needs to be specified, in the next sentence that elaborates the sense in which this holds more for women than men. Also, social class and rural location is clearly at work here. Needs to be part of the specification.

Avoid passive tense and specify the author(s) in: "For this reason, it has been argued that this dependence creates an deeply rooted connection between women and their surroundings." Apply this style throughout.

"The views women have on nature are unique in that they connect the land to immediate survival and concern for future generations rather than simply looking at the land as a resource with monetary value." This sentence is a contentious one that attributes an essence to women, rather than their attitudes being shaped by their material conditions of work, which could just as well hold for men. Even though you reference an author, there is need for a critical evaluative note here.

The next sentence: "With the development of newer technologies, there has been a shift to more non-farm activities, however, men more than women are the ones participating in the shift, leaving women behind." has a timeless quality again, whereas you are referring to evidence from Boserup (1970).

"Kenyan land takeover:" seems to belong to the movements discussion.

Bina Agarwal's critique of ecofeminism needs to be elaborated (bulleted points are not clear).

The "Welfare" and "Efficiency" sections need to explained. What is their connection to the Environmental Feminism section? These seem to be the arguments for supporting land rights for women. So, they belong earlier, but then the connection to the environment story is not clear (i.e. what is the connection of women having land rights to their relationship with the environment?).

Women Environmentalists section needs to move beyond biographical information to elaboration of the ideas and achievements of these women. For example, elaborate on Maathai's Greenbelt movement. BerikG (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)BerikG

Summary of contributions and suggestions for further improvement[edit]

As it has been stated a number of times above, this started out as an very poorly written article. Unfortunately, due to lack of time and the massive amount of work needed, I could not make all the improvements necessary but did contribute a significant amount. My contributions start at the beginning of the article and stop just before "Women's attitude and the environment". The one exceptions is an added movement, the "Kenyan Land Takeover". All of the following sections, "Women's attitude and the environment", "Environmental change and women", and "Gender and perception of the environment" could benefit from increased editing and revisions. In my contribution, I touched a some of those ideas but there is still a need for further research and contributions.

Also, as BerikG stated, the Women Environmentalists as well as the Environmentalist Movements sections could benefit from elaboration.

Thank you to all those who read the article and gave advice. Hopefully, with a little more time, effort and further contributions this article will become a source of validity and interesting information. User:Alainas —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

Impact of recent student edits[edit]

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

  • 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
  • 1 - A few minutes of work needed
  • 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
  • 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
  • 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)