Introduction

​

            Many cultures—including the United States—fixate paramount importance on physical appearance as a basis of female worth. Physical appearance is not just of the utmost value, but a specific conception of physical appearance, in other words: the idea of beauty. North American media depicts the ideal woman with a thin body, long legs, light eyes, clear skin, and no wrinkles (Davalos et al. 2007). This pressure of an ideal appearance leads to the consumption of countless serums, creams, sprays and scrubs to attain and maintain mainstream physical attractiveness. This expectation to look a certain way not only marginalizes women who do not meet these standards, but also compromises the ability of all women to be effective in and accepted by society. Moreover I want to argue that these patriarchal and capitalistic beauty ideals have led to a harmful split between nature and culture. Through the theoretical framework of ecofeminism we can begin to understand the cultural mechanisms that dictate the subordination of women and the environment. The narrow cultural beauty ideals that oppress women also oppress nature. To achieve “beauty,” women are compelled to purchase countless products that in turn harm ecosystems across the globe. Ultimately this hegemonic “beauty” undermines the possibility of a more nuanced concept of female worth and disproportionately places the burden of environmental impact on women. A deconstruction of western beauty ideals in the framework of ecofeminism is but one solution to reverse the man-made environmental degradation we face today.

​

            Before we can begin to unpack the cultural mechanisms that dictate the subordination of women and nature, we must define the theoretical frameworks that will allow us to understand them. What exactly is ecofeminism? What is patriarchy? Paternalism? Capitalism? And how do these political theories relate to a split between culture and nature? In an article examining the historical foundations of ecofeminism, activist and scholar Greta Gaard postulates that ecofeminism arose in the 1980s from the “intersections of feminist research and the various movements for social justice and environmental health, explorations that uncovered the linked oppressions of gender, ecology, race, [and] species” (Gaard, 2011). In short, ecofeminism is a term that links feminism with ecology. By establishing a relationship between the oppression and domination of subordinate groups and the oppression and domination of nature, advocates of ecofeminism say that paternalistic, capitalistic society has led to a harmful fracture between ecology and society. A key feature of paternalism is the limitation of personal freedom. This interference of individual liberty is justified by narratives of welfare, good, happiness, needs, interests and values. These narratives are highly influential and vary from culture to culture. David Schlosberg points in his book, Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature, that paternalism refers to outside parties defining an individual’s conception of good (Schlosberg, 2009, p. 95). Therefore whose personal freedom is limited, and the kinds of limitations are decided by figures of authority and their personal conceptions of good, happiness, needs, interests and values—even if they don’t align with the conceptions of subordinates. Gerald Dworkin, a scholar of political philosophy, explains in his essay entitled “Paternalism” that the etymology of paternalism is rooted in the Latin word, pater (“father”). This reflects the implicit social hierarchies of patriarchal cultures, in which male heads of families were expected to be responsible for the welfare of dependents. In paternalistic convention, members of states, corporations, and communities existed under the presumably benevolent authority of male figures such as kings, presidents, or executives. These presumptions inform the “stratified economic, political, and social arrangements [of a society]” (Dworkin, 1972). Sharing large crossover with paternalism, patriarchy is a social system in which males—even if not explicitly defined by constitution or laws—hold primary power. In patriarchal societies, males often predominate roles of political leadership, moral authority, and social privilege. Craig Lockard defines patriarchy as a system whereby men “largely control women and children, shape ideas about appropriate gender behavior, and generally dominate society” (Lockard, 2007). In his book entitled, “Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach,” U.S. economist Andrew Zimbalist defines capitalism as a “system wherein all of the means of production (physical capital) are privately owned and run by the capitalist class for a profit, while most other people are workers who work for a salary or wage (and who do not own the capital or the product)” (Zimbalist & Sherman, 2014).

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

           

 

 

 

 

 

​

A large majority of societies today are patriarchal. A patriarchal and paternalistic society would be

defined by a system in which conceptions of “happiness” and “values” are not determined by the individual, but instead by men in power. Because of the pervasiveness of media today and the importance of the private sector in capitalistic societies, some of the most influential titles in modern U.S. society are those of large private companies. The private companies are overwhelmingly run by male CEOs and this phenomenon reinforces patriarchal and paternalistic conventions of male power and outside parties defining an individual’s conception of good. The environmental footprint of these companies is so expansive, that much of the environmental degradation and climate change we face today can be rooted back the values of the individuals in charge of the private sector, males. So what exactly do those values look like? And what mechanisms perpetuate the endurance of these values?

​

            Because men place more value on the physical attractiveness of women than women do on the physical attractiveness of men, a woman's social opportunities are more affected by her physical appearance. Therefore achieving and preserving an attractive, youthful appearance is essential to a woman’s role, value, and social standing in most western cultures. However, not the same can be said for men: while female worth is seen as a determinant of physical attractiveness, male worth is determined instead by power, education, and career. In her nonfiction work, The Beauty Myth (1991), journalist Naomi Wolf describes women’s magazines as a source for female authority figures who are admired and obeyed by the average female consumer (Wolf, 1991). She parallels this beauty authority figure to the mentor–apprentice relationship that men are expected to establish not through magazines, but instead through their educations and careers. Wolf also argues that although female social power and prominence have increased in recent decades, the “pressure [women] feel to adhere to unrealistic social standards of physical beauty has also grown stronger because of commercial influences on the mass media” (Wolf, 1991). The increasing centrality of media (e.g. magazines, television, film, social media, and advertisements) to everyday life has coerced many women into distorted conceptions of reality. Psychologists Grabe, Ward and Hyde (2008) discovered through a meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies that “repeated exposure to media content leads viewers to begin to accept media portrayals as representations of reality” (Grabe, Ward & Hyde, 2008). This “reality” is very specific, arbitrary, and for many women, impossible to obtain. According to a content analysis of magazine headlines performed by Davalos et al. (2007), North American media depicts the ideal woman with a thin body, long legs, light eyes, clear skin, and no wrinkles (Davalos et al. 2007). Moreover, these perceptions can transform into behavior and attitudes. A study performed by Haboush, Warren and Benuto (2012) examined the relationships between internalization of the youthful, thin-ideal appearance perpetuated by media and attitudes toward the elderly (Haboush, Warren, & Benuto, 2012). They analyzed the self-report measures of 281 undergraduate females attending a university in the Western United States. Results found that attitudes towards the elderly were significantly more negative at higher levels of internalization which implies that “mainstream North American media promotes the message that attaining a thin, youthful appearance is central to a woman’s value and social role while appearing older is highly undesirable” (Haboush, Warren, & Benuto, 2012). In order to avoid social ostracism and to maintain self-esteem, women turn to countless serums, creams, sprays and scrubs to attain and maintain mainstream physical attractiveness. The pressure to look a certain way not only marginalizes women who don’t conform to these standards, but also compromises the ability of all women to be effective in and accepted by society. Moreover I want to argue that these patriarchal and capitalistic pressures on women have led to a harmful split between nature and culture.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

            According to Business Wire, the global skin care market saw revenues worth 83 billion U.S. dollars in 2013 and “the market is anticipated to garner revenues worth USD 106 billion in 2018” (Business Wire). This huge sector of the global economy has sizable ecological implications. For example, microbeads—or small plastic particles—are often found in personal care products such as face wash, soap, and toothpaste (Girard et al., 2016). Researchers who extracted polyethylene microbeads from several personal care products estimated that a single product can contain 5,000 to 95,000 microbeads (Napper et al., 2015). This is significant because these microbeads are so small that they are unable to be processed by water treatment facilities and are consequently discharged into the world’s water sources. Recent research has shown that these microbeads “can be considered toxic substances” and demonstrate “serious environmental concern for aquatic habitats and wildlife” by contaminating food chains (Thompson et al., 2009).

​

            Beauty products can damage the environment when harmful chemical substances accumulate in global ecosystems. The chemical substances used in cosmetics and personal care products do not break down but instead remain in ecosystems, jeopardizing all life forms. Anaerobic microbiologist King-Thom Chung researched the environmental effects of monocyclic aromatic amines (MAAs), a class of organic compound derived from dyes widely used in hair coloring products, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and plastics. MAAs are released into the environment when discharged into bodies of water from manufacturing plants. Dr. Chung’s research found that many of these monocyclic aromatic amines are “toxic, mutagenic and/or carcinogenic to humans and animals” (Chung et al, 1997). 

​

            Expanding into a broader scope of environmental impact, in 2015 the global plastic production was estimated to be almost 300 million metric tons and has increased six-fold since 1975 (PlasticsEurope, 2015). This number is only growing and it is estimated that ten percent of global plastics will enter the oceans (Girard et al., 2016). These metrics on global plastics are partly due to the bottling, packaging, treatment and disposal of personal care products. Examining the environmental implications of plastic debris, Murray R. Gregory at the University of Auckland (Auckland, New Zealand) highlighted that plastic pollution can be ingested by or entangle marine fauna, “ranging from zooplankton and cetaceans to seabirds and marine reptiles” (Gregory, 2009). Also impacting marine organisms is the adsorption—or the adhesion of molecules onto a surface—of persistent organic pollutants onto plastic and the subsequent transfer of these pollutants through the ingestion of plastics by local species (Teuten et al., 2009; Tanaka et al., 2013; Bakir, Rowland & Thompson, 2014). These impacts are further exacerbated by the endurance of buoyant plastics that float across oceans and transport species (i.e. microbial communities, algae, invertebrates, and fish) and their attached pollutants to non-native ecosystems (Eriksen et al., 2014). Beauty products negatively impact the natural environment and this pollution is ubiquitous across the globe. 

​

            Despite the negative environmental impact of beauty products, women still feel compelled to purchase anti-aging creams to reduce the appearance of wrinkles, exfoliating face washes to brighten their skin, hair dyes to cover up gray roots, and so on. Why does this rift between societal expectations and ecological consciousness exist? Referring back to the theoretical perspectives outlined earlier, social features such as patriarchy, paternalism and capitalism are all driving forces behind this dichotomy of culture and nature. These underlying theories help to possibly explain why society bases female worth in terms of appearance and consequently why women turn to environmentally harmful products to obtain a narrow and oppressive notion of worth.

​

            In paternalistic societies it is the few who decide for the many. To repeat Schlosberg’s words, paternalism refers outside parties defining an individual’s conception of good (Schlosberg, 2009, p. 95). In a patriarchal society such as the United States, these deciding “few” are more often than not, men. Moreover, in capitalistic societies, social power is inextricably linked to financial, economic, and industrial power. So at the convergence of these three theories is the root to the subordination of both women and nature: a male conception of what is good for the economy.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

             In patriarchal societies, men dominate. Despite moderate feminist progress, the U.S. is still a patriarchal society—evidenced by the fact that it has never realized a female president. Additionally, out of the five hundred most profitable U.S. industrial corporations in 2016, only 21 of them are run by women (Zarya, 2016). This 4.2% of female leadership in the economy illustrates a heavy predominance of male power in the United States. As a capitalistic society, the U.S. economy is greatly affected by the private industry. Therefore with men at the helm of most companies in the private sector, decisions regarding matters like advertising content, media presence, and target demographics are highly determined by the male perspective.    

​

            Specifically, the top ten leading global personal care companies all have male CEOs (see Appendix 1 for a list of the CEOs at the top 10 global personal care companies) (Hunkar, 2008). Underlying the female compulsion to look a certain way is often (if not always) approval from men. Whether a woman is interested in attracting a husband, securing a job, or advancing her social status in any way, she is pressured to succumb to a male conception of female worth. According to an analysis of research entitled “U.S. Trends in Feminine Beauty and Overadaptation” by Allan Mazur, PhD, when men and women are asked to identify the most attractive features of the opposite sex, “men giv[e] top choice to physical attributes, whereas women indicate preference for personality traits such as intelligence or sensitivity” (Mazur, 1986). Therefore an accelerated interest in looks among females is a matter of social necessity. When applying for social gains, a women must adhere to a arbitrary conception of physical attractiveness. An exploratory factor analysis on a sample of 150 female consumers by Pudaruth, Juwaheer and Seewoo (2015) found that “cosmetics and beauty care products are central to the lifestyles and self-image of females because, nowadays, individuals are increasingly judged on how they look rather than what they do” (Pudaruth, Juwaheer & Seewoo, 2015). Because the U.S. is an economy predominated by male leadership, the “judgers” mentioned above are largely men. Therefore women are powerless against the authority and decision-making influenced by a male conception of female worth, i.e. “beauty.”

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

            Consequently, women turn to beauty products to achieve social status, career gains, and ultimately a sense of worth and fulfillment. The choice to use beauty products has environmental impacts. How do we reverse this vicious cycle of culture versus nature, and instead create compatibility between the two? Instructing women to simply “not give in” to societal beauty standards not only perpetuates the harmful structures of paternalism and patriarchy, but it fails to create a sustainable pathway to eco-consciousness. Instead, activists should employ frameworks of ecofeminism. By establishing a relationship between the oppression and domination of women and the oppression and domination of nature, ecofeminism can unravel the societal norms we internalize in today’s patriarchal, paternalistic, and capitalistic societies.

​

            While some individuals champion ecofeminism as a solution to gender inequality, others disagree. Development economist Bina Agarwal criticizes ecofeminism for its “overdependence on ideological constructions to historically infer the situation of women and of the environment” (Agarwal, 1998). She qualifies her grievance by claiming that “ecofeminism has tended to obscure, rather than grapple with, the political economy factors underlying women's subordination, nature's degradation, and their interlinks” (Agarwal, 1998). Additionally, Agarwal condemns prior ecofeminist literature for “ignor[ing] gender inequalities that are independent of the environment question” (Agarwal, 1998). For the reasons that feminist and economist Agarwal denounces ecofeminism, it is important to outline exactly how ecofeminism can materialize in day-to-day life; to break away from ecofeminism’s historical tendency to “obscure” and focus on ways to “grapple.” I anticipate that it will be difficult to address Agarwal’s criticism of ecofeminism as “ignor[ing] gender inequalities that are independent of the environment question” (Agarwal, 1998). Gender inequalities are pervasive across disciplines and cultures, that ecofeminism can hardly begin to address all inequalities independent of environmental impact. However, to recognize ecofeminism as a solution to environmental degradation, women and men alike must recognize individual agency. Ecofeminism as a solution claims that nature can only be healed by the traditionally "feminine" values such as reciprocity, care and cooperation. This isn’t to say that women are solely responsible to healing man-made environmental harm. Instead, nature is healed when women and men equally and jointly employ values of cooperation, reciprocity, and care towards our global ecosystems.

​

Conclusion

​

            We can begin to have a positive impact on global wellbeing by employing agency in seemingly small ways, such as changing personal consumer behavior. Check ingredients in beauty products to avoid harmful chemicals such as dioxane, parabens or triclocan. Instead use sustainable products like aloe vera and coconut oil. Do research and use products from companies that use natural, biodegradable exfoliates like sea salt, crushed shells, sugar, sand, and ground bark (e.g. Freeman, Ives, Burt’s Bees and Bioré). If you don’t have the time or resources to research, seek out labels that read “100% Natural.” Although not economically feasibly for everyone, you can also forgo products and instead visit a dermatologist regularly for procedures such as microdermabrasion in which a doctor will use a high-speed instrument with an abrasive wheel or brush to remove the outer layers of skin to rejuvenate dull or sun-damaged skin (Shim et al., 2001). To reduce the impact of plastics, choose products packaged in glass bottles, recycled materials, or ones that use minimal packaging. While there are many ways to have an individual positive impact on global health, these individual solutions can potentially create complacency for the larger issues at hand, undermining a need for sustainable progress in both gender equality and environmental change.

​

            By linking women’s rights with ecological sustainability, ecofeminism identifies the paternalistic, patriarchal and capitalistic structures that subordinate both women and nature. By creating this link, ecofeminism catapults theorists, policy makers, and citizens into transcending this framework into other forms of inequality. While Agarwal makes the point that ecofeminism does more to obscure gender inequalities than grapple with them, it is still important that we have a framework through which we can identify the mechanisms that perpetuate social inequality. Ecofeminism allows us to do this. Once we understand the mechanisms, we can launch activism and create sustainable change for gender equality, environmental preservation, and all other forms of injustice.          

 

 

References

​

Agarwal, B. (1998). Environmental management, equity and ecofeminism: Debating India's experience. The Journal of

 

Peasant Studies, 25(4), 56-57.

 

Bakir, A., Rowland, S. J., & Thompson, R. C. (2014). Enhanced desorption of persistent organic pollutants from

 

microplastics under simulated physiological conditions. Environmental Pollution, 185, 16-23.

 

Business Wire. (2014). Research and Markets: Global Beauty Care Market 2014-2018.(Data File). Retrieved From

​

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20141029006053/en/Research-Markets-Global-Beauty-Care-Market-

 

2014-2018.

 

Chung, K. T., Kirkovsky, L., Kirkovsky, A., & Purcell, W. P. (1997). Review of mutagenicity of monocyclic aromatic

 

amines: quantitative structure–activity relationships. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research, 387(1),

 

1-16.

 

Davalos, D. B., Davalos, R. A., & Layton, H. S. (2007). III. Content analysis of magazine headlines changes over three

 

decades?. Feminism & Psychology, 17(2), 250-258.

 

Dworkin, G. (1972). Paternalism. the Monist, 64-84.

 

Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C., ... & Reisser, J. (2014). Plastic pollution

 

in the world's oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PloS one, 9(12),

 

e111913.

 

Gaard, G. (2011). Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism and Re-Placing Species in a Material Feminist

 

Environmentalism. Feminist Formations 23(2), 26- 53. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved December

 

5, 2016, from Project MUSE database.

 

Girard, N., Lester, S., Paton-Young, A., & Saner, M. (2016). Microbeads: “Tip of the  Toxic Plastic-berg”? Regulation,

 

Alternatives, and Future Implications.

 

Grabe, S., Ward, L. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2008). The role of the media in body image concerns among women: a meta-

 

analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological bulletin, 134(3), 460.

 

Gregory, M. R. (2009). Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings—entanglement, ingestion,

 

smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of

 

London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 2013-2025.

 

Haboush, A., Warren, C. S., & Benuto, L. (2012). Beauty, ethnicity, and age: Does internalization of mainstream media

 

ideals influence attitudes towards older adults? Sex Roles, 66(9-10), 668-676.

​

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-0110102-6.

​

Hunkar, D. (2008, December 04). Top 10 Global Personal Care Products Makers. Seeking Alpa. Retrieve From

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/109135-top-10 global-personal-care-products-makers.

 

Lockard, C. (2007). Societies, Networks, and Transitions: Volume I: A Global History (Vol. 1). Cengage Learning.

 

Mazur, A. (1986). US trends in feminine beauty and overadaptation. Journal of Sex Research, 22(3), 281-303.

 

Napper, I. E., Bakir, A., Rowland, S. J., & Thompson, R. C. (2015). Characterisation, quantity and sorptive properties of

 

microplastics extracted from cosmetics. Marine pollution bulletin, 99(1), 178-185.

 

PlasticsEurope. (2015). EU plastics industry economic forecast for 2014 and 2015.  Retrieved from

 

http://www.plasticseurope.org/information-centre/press-  releases/press-releases-2015/eu-plastics-industry-

 

economic-forecast-for-2014- and-2015.aspx

 

Pudaruth, S., Juwaheer, T. D., & Seewoo, Y. D. (2015). Gender-based differences in understanding the purchasing

 

patterns of eco-friendly cosmetics and beauty care products in Mauritius: a study of female customers. Social

 

Responsibility Journal, 11(1), 179-198.

 

Schlosberg, D. (2009). Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature. Oxford University Press.

 

Shim, E. K., Barnette, D., Hughes, K., & Greenway, H. T. (2001). Microdermabrasion: a clinical and histopathologic

 

study. Dermatologic Surgery, 27(6), 524-530.

 

Tanaka, K., Takada, H., Yamashita, R., Mizukawa, K., Fukuwaka, M. A., & Watanuki, Y. (2013). Accumulation of plastic-

 

derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting marine plastics. Marine pollution bulletin, 69(1), 219-222.

 

Teuten, E. L., Saquing, J. M., Knappe, D. R., Barlaz, M. A., Jonsson, S., Björn, A., ... & Ochi, D. (2009). Transport and

 

release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

 

Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 2027-2045.

 

Thompson, R. C., Moore, C. J., vomSaal, F. S., & Swan, S. H. (2009). Plastics, the environment and human health:

 

current consensus and future trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B,

 

Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 2153–2166.

 

Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York: William Morrow and

 

Company. Inc, 348, 5.

 

Zarya, V. (2016, June 06). The Percentage Of Female CEOs In The Fortune 500 Drops To 4%. Fortune Magazine.

 

Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/06/06/women-ceos-fortune-500-2016/.

 

Zimbalist, A., & Sherman, H. J. (2014). Comparing Economic Systems: a political economic approach. Academic Press.