Environmentalism feminism and_gender

Environmentalism, Feminism, and Gender

D. Clayton Smith, WesternKentucky Universiw

Although social scientists have written much recently about environmentalism,
feminism, and gender, insufficient systematic examination of their interrelations has
been done. The lack of adequate research on links among these three concepts limits
their usefulness for both grassroots mobilization efforts and general theory development.
The present exploratory study surveys a college student sample ( N = 393) clarifying the
relationships between liberal environmentalism, gender, and feminism. Relationship be-
tween feminism and attitudes toward human use of the environment and between gender
and environmental regulation are found suppressed by a relationship between feminism
and environmentalism.Although tentative, these findings suggest new directions for the
study of ecofeminism.

Interest in the relationships among gender, feminism, and environmentalism
is at an all-time high, yet research examining the interconnections of these three
concepts is split into two distinct intellectual traditions. One body of work, de-
veloped within feminist philosophy, details the theoretical relationship between
feminism and environmentalismbut has done little research concerning individ-
ual understanding and acceptance of this link. The other research tradition, em-
ployed by environmental social scientists, addresses the relationship between
gender and environmentalismbut has habitually slighted the association between
feminism and environmentalism. This exploratory study strives to bridge the gap
between these research streams by attending to the interrelationships among en-
vironmentalism, gender, and feminism.
The first of the two intellectual traditions, called ecological feminism or
ecofeminism, is a philosophy that connects the patriarchal domination of women
with the patriarchal domination of nature (Merchant 1992; Warren 1990). Since
the original conceptualization of ecofeminism in the 1970s, major emphasis has
been placed on delineating the interconnections between these two forms of
domination. To this en4 feminists have created several variants of ecofeminism,
each with its own perspective on how and why these dominations occur and what
measures are necessary to achieve a more feminist and environmentally oriented
society (Lahar 1991; Merchant 1992; Sturgeon 1997). Ecofeminists believe that
by describing these ecofeminist variants they provide a better understanding of

SociologicalInquiry, Vol. 71, No. 3, Summer 2001, 314-34
02001 by the University of Texas Press, PO. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819

ENVIRONMENTALISM, FEMINISM, AND GENDER 3 15

the current forms of domination and a foundation on which individuals can build
a deeper environmental and feminist ethic (Davion 1994).
Connecting ecofeminist critiques to political action has been another major
emphasis for ecofeminists (Sturgeon 1997). For instance, some ecofeminists
have attempted to use ecofeminism to account for social movement participation
(Bantjes and Trussler 1999; Lahar 1991; Peterson and Merchant 1986; Somma
and Tolleson-Rinehart 1997; Sturgeon 1997). The idea that ecofeminism aids in
movement mobilization, however, is not accepted universally. Many activists and
scholars argue that the union of environmentalism and feminism actually serves
to weaken both movements and to continue patriarchal domination (Biehl 1991;
Cameron 1989; King 1981). These scholars note that environmental activists, es-
pecially female activists, fear the public’s perception of feminist and ecofeminist
labels (Jacobson 1979, 1981; Merchant 1992).’ Other activists argue that waiting
for ecofeminist scholars to elaborate theoretical positions can inhibit social
movement action (Alldred and Dennison 2000).
From a social movement perspective, the success of ecofeminist perspec-
tives in social movement mobilization hinges, in part, on whether actors make a
connection between their attitudes toward the environment and their attitudes to-
ward women and women’s roles in society. If individuals do perceive a connec-
tion between environmentalism and feminism, the use of ecofeminist rhetoric
and symbols by social movement organizations should work to align potential
participant’s frames with those of the social movement organization and increase
movement mobilization (Eyerman and Jamison 1991; Snow, Rochford, Worden,
Benford 1986). Unfortunately, while ecofeminist scholars have worked to under-
stand and document their paradigms historically, experientially, symbolically,
and theoretically, their research has not empirically linked individuals’ environ-
mental attitudes with their attitudes toward feminism.
The other main research tradition, the gender differences literature, devel-
oped from environmental social scientists, attempts to discover the social bases
for environmental concern. The gender differences literature consists of a body
of empirical research concerning the relationship between gender and environ-
mental beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. While the gender differences literature
complements the ecofeminist tradition by focusing on empirical relationships,
the research in this tradition examining general environmental concern among
American adults has not consistently supported a gender difference.2
Looking at the studies of gender differences on general environmental con-
cern in America, three studies of general environmental attitudes have found
men more environmentally concerned than women (Arcury 1990; Arcury,
Scollay, and Johnson 1987; MacDonald and Hara 1994; McEvoy 1972), while a
number of other researchers conclude that at least modest support exists for the
hypothesis that women are more concerned than men (Blocker and Eckberg

316 D. CLAYTON SMITH

1989, 1997; Borden and Schettino 1979; Cornwell 1988; Flynn, Slovic, and
Mertz 1994; Gifford, Hay, and Boros 1982; Hamilton 1985; Hausbeck, Milbrath,
and Enright 1992; Lowe, Pinhey, and Grimes 1980; Lowe and Pinhey 1982;
McStay and Dunlap 1983; Mitchell 1979; Ozanne, Humphrey, and Smith 1999;
Schahn and Holzer 1990; Shapiro and Mahajan 1986; Steger and Witt 1988;
Stern, Dietz, and Kalof 1993). However, the finding of no relationship between
gender and environmental attitudes is nearly as prevalent in the literature as the
fhding of a gender difference. In the first review of the literature concerning
gender differences in environmentalism,Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) tentatively
conclude gender is not associated with general environmental concern. Since
their initial review of the literature, several other studies have also shown no sig-
nificant gender differences regarding environmental concern among American
adults (Arcury and Christianson 1993; Austin and Woolever 1994; Blum 1987;
Dunlap and Mertig 1997; Kanagy, Humphrey, and Firebaugh 1994; McCallum
1991; Mohai 1991; Scott and Willits 1993; Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart 1997;
Stern, Dietz, and Guagnano 1995; Thompson and Gasteiger 1985).
Moreover, in their attempts to understand the seemingly fickle relationship
between gender and environmentalism, environmental social scientists have ne-
glected the study of the relationships between feminism and environmentalism.
To date, only one published study has examined this link.3 In their study using
items from the American National Election Study of 1992, Somma and Tolleson-
Rinehart (1997) find that feminism, not sex, was the significant influence on
American environmental attitudes. While these results tentatively support the use
of ecofeminism as a tool for movement mobilization, the small number of items
measuring feminism and environmental concern and the low reliability (a = .49)
of the environmentalism scale encourage further inquiries (Somma and Tolleson-
Rinehart 1997, p. 164).
To summarize, feminist scholars have striven to delineate the relationship
between gender, feminism, and the environment at a theoretical level; however,
their work sheds little empirical light on whether individuals perceive a relation-
ship between attitudes toward feminism and attitudes toward environmentalism.
Over the same period environmental researchers have failed to find a consistent
relationship between gender and general environmentalism. Moreover, little re-
search has been done to empirically examine interconnections between gender,
environmentalism, and feminism. This is, in part, due to the fact that environ-
mental social scientists have been preoccupied with the relationship between
gender and environmentalism. The researchers working within the gender differ-
ences tradition have consistently failed to note that being female is not a suffi-
cient condition for holding environmental, feminist, or ecofeminist value
orientations. Although women are probably more likely to have ecofeminist be-
liefs and attitudes (i.e., more likely to link environmental and female domination)


because they are more likely to perceive sexual discrimination, social scientists
should expect no one-to-one correspondence to exist between gender and envi-
ronmentalism, just as no one-to-one correspondence exists between gender and
feminism (Smith 1993; S o m a and Tolleson-Rinehart 1997). Instead of focusing
on the essentialist relationship between gender and environmental concern, envi-
ronmental social scientists need to spend more time examining the interrelation-
ships among environmentalism, feminism, and gender if they want to advance
their understanding of the social bases of environment concern and explore the
effectiveness of ecofeminism (Mellor 1997; Sturgeon 1997, p. 179).
Methods
Data for this exploratory study were collected via a self-administered ques-
tionnaire. The survey was administered to a convenience sample consisting of
three introductory social psychology classes, a social problems class, and one
class on sex roles at a large state university. These sources provided 393 usable
responses with 254 respondents (64.6%) being female and 139 (35.9%) being
male.4
Instead of attempting to create a new index to measure ecofeminism as an
ideology, the current exploratory research explored the interrelationships among
gender and existing measures of environmentalism and feminism. The survey in-
strument included six indices of environmentalism and one index of attitudes to-
ward feminism. Each of these indices were constructed through factor analysis
by standardizing and summing the items relevant to each scale weighted by their
factor score coefficients.
As previously noted, scholars have developed many variants of ecofemi-
nism. Scholars have often grouped these different variants of feminism and en-
vironmentalism into four main paradigms (liberal, Marxist, culturalhadical, and
socialist), although some theorists question the continued usefulness of this cat-
egorization (Jaggar and Rothenberg 1984; Merchant 1992; Ozanne and
Humphrey 1994; Sturgeon 1997; Warren 1987). While each paradigm is a viable
ecofeminist perspective worthy of study, this study focuses on the liberal
~aradigm.~
The liberal paradigm stems from liberal political theory, which takes an
atomistic view of society and nature (Merchant 1992). Liberal theorists assume
that humans are rational agents pursuing their own interests under capitalism-
the best form of government for such activity. While women and men do differ
biologically, they do not differ in rationality, and any differences between the
sexes are due to educational and economic inequalities created by the current pa-
triarchal framework of American society. Likewise, liberal theorists hypothesize
environmental degradation is caused by existing societal arrangements. In the
liberal paradigm the solution to both these problems lies in better education, law,

3 18 D. CLAYTON SMITH

and research. Such activity allows humans to monitor and manage environmen-
tal pollution and degradation while also allowing women to “transcend the social
stigma of their biology and join men in the cultural project of environmental
conservation” (Merchant 1992, p. 189). Liberal feminists hypothesize that if they
eliminate these inequalities through education and legislation, gender differ-
ences, especially those involving social mobility and power, will disappear
(Warren 1987).
The measures of liberal environmentalism included the New Environmental/
Human Exemptionalist Paradigm (NEP/HEP) measures and three scales of en-
vironmental concern (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978; Van Liere and Dunlap 1981).
Previous research questioned whether the NEP/HEP scale was unidimensional
(Albrecht, Bultena, Hoiberg, and Nowak 1982; Geller and Lasley 1985; Noe
and Snow 1990; Smith 1991). In this study the NEP/HEP items were divided
into three subdimensions suggested by previous factor analyses of the data
(Albrecht et al. 1982; Smith 1992). These factors were labeled Limits to
Growth, Humanity and Nature, and Balance of Nature. On each of these di-
mensions a high score indicated an agreement with that subdimension of the
NEP/HEP.
Three environmental concern scales originally developed by Van Liere and
Dunlap (1981) were also used as dependent variables. Van Liere and Dunlap’s
analysis led them to conclude that environmental concern in the United States re-
ferred mainly to concern about pollution and natural resource depletion. Van
Liere and Dunlap’s original Natural Resources scale was included along with
modified versions of the Pollution Control and Environmental Regulations
scales.6These three scales were recoded so that a high score on any of these en-
vironmental concern scales suggests higher levels of environmental concern.
To measure feminism a ten-item version of the FEM scale was used
(Kirkpatrick 1936; Smith, Ferree, and Miller 1975).7This scale, one of the old-
est in existence, was reworked in the 1970s and again in the 1990s (Basow and
Campanile 1990; Branscombe and Deaux 1991; Dempewolff 1974; Singleton
and Christiansen 1977). Researchers using the FEM scale perceived it as pri-
marily tapping attitudes toward gendered roles and anti-feminine stereotypes
(Fassinger 1994; Singleton and Christiansen 1977). The data were coded so that
a high score on the FEM scale suggested a more feminist attitude toward gender
roles.
In the analysis gender was coded 0 for male and 1 for female. A positive
correlation between gender and any of the environmental indices meant women
were more environmentally concerned on that index,
Finally, other independent variables suggested by previous literature were
also included as control variables. Self-reported political ideology was in-
cluded to examine the possibility that the relationship between feminism and


environmentalism was in reality a relationship between political ideology and
environmentalism (Butte1 and Flinn 1976; Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart
1997; Van Liere and Dunlap 1980). In this study political ideology was mea-
sured using one item with six response categories running from very conserv-
ative (1) to very liberal (6). The number of days the respondent watched
television news broadcasts in the preceding week was also included. This mea-
sure of information access had previously shown promise in examinations of
gender differences in environmental concern (Arcury et al. 1987; Ostman and
Parker 1987). The variable was measured by a five-point scale running from
none (0) to every day (4).
Two obvious control variables omitted were age and education. According to
Blaikie (1 992), age consistently displayed the strongest association with environ-
mental concern. Indeed, in their study of environmental concern over the past
twenty years, Kanagy et al. (1994) found that while period effects increased envi-
ronmental concern among all birth cohorts during the 1980s, younger cohorts were
more environmentally concerned than their elders were. Due to the college student
sample on which this study relies, the variability of both age and education was
deemed too small to provide useful information. A proxy of these variables, class
standing in school, was included in the models. Class standing was measured on a
six-point scale running from nondegree student (1) to graduate student (6).
To examine the relationship between environmentalism, feminism, and gen-
der, factor score scales were created for the environmental and feminist indices.
Next, a bivariate correlation matrix was calculated for all the variables in the
analysis. Then the relationships among gender, the FEM scale, and each of the
six environmental indices were modeled using multiple regression. After these
three variable relationships were estimated, control variables were added to each
of the models. Finally, the sample was divided by gender, and the environmental
indices were regressed upon the FEM scale and the control variables to test for
the possibility that the observed relationships among gender, feminism, and en-
vironmentalism are artifacts of political ideology.
Results
The list-wise correlations between gender, feminism, the environmental in-
dices, and the other variables being modeled are presented in Table 1. As in pre-
vious research, gender is not significantly correlated with any measure of
environmentalism used in this study. However, feminism, as measured by the
FEM scale, is positively correlated with four of the six environmental indices.
This finding is especially interesting given that gender and feminism are moder-
ately positively correlated, indicating that women are more likely to be feminist.*
Examination of the items comprising the environmental indices suggests
two reasons the feminism measure relates to certain environmental measures and

Table 1
List-Wise Correlations of Dependent and IndependentVariables

Limits to Humanity Balance of Natural Env.
Growth andNature Nature Resources Pollution Regs Feminism Class Political
Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Gender Scale Rank Ideology

Humanity and Nature Scale .30***
Balance of Nature Scale .70*** .36***
Natural Resources Scale .43*** .41*** SO***
Pollution Scale .38*** .45*** .46*** .59***
Env. Regs Scale .44*** .40*** .49*** ,62*** .70***
Gender .05 .05 .oo .03 .OO -.04
Feminism Scale .ll .26*** .09 .30*** .36*** .30*** .43***
Class Rank -.14* .03 -.15** -.04 -.02 -.12* -.07 .oo
Political Ideology .18** .23*** .17** .07 .17** .21*** .13* .22*** --.12*
TV News Watching Per Week -.07 .02 -.12* .03 -.05 -.15** - . l o -.11 .20*** -.14*

*p < .05;**p < .01; *** p < .001; all tests of significance were two-tailed. N = 291.

ENVIRONMENTALISM, FEMINISM, AND GENDER 321

not others. Ecofeminism’s emphasis on the dominance of patriarchy over women
and the environment is reflected in the correlation between the feminism mea-
sure and the Humanity and Nature scale that consists of questions concerning
human use of the environment. Neither the Limits to Growth nor the Balance of
Nature scales focuses specifically on human use of the environment, which may
partially explain why those indices are not correlated with feminism.
In addition, liberal ecofeminism argues that political action and government
intervention are key to ending environmental degradation. Because most of the
items comprising the Natural Resources, Pollution, and Environmental
Regulations indices focus on political action and government intervention, un-
derstanding why these environmental measures correlate with the FEM scale is
easy. Again, the Limits to Growth and the Balance of Nature indices involve nei-
ther an action orientation nor a concern about human use of the environment,
which helps explain their insignificant relationship to the feminism measure.
Looking at the correlation matrix, few of the control variables suggested by
previous research are more than weakly correlated with some of the environ-
mental indices. The exception is self-reported political ideology, which is posi-
tively correlated with most forms of environmentalism examined and with the
feminism scale.
In summary, the list-wise correlations show that gender is not directly re-
lated to any environmental index, while attitudes toward feminism are signifi-
cantly and directly related to environmentalism when government policy and
human use of the environment are involved. However, the question remains
about whether the relationship between the feminism and environmentalism in-
dices is caused by underlying relationships with other variables, such as political
ideology.
Beta coefficients and coefficients of determination for the relationship be-
tween environmentalism, feminism, and gender are presented in Table 2.
Looking across the environmental indices, the relationship between feminism
and environmentalism did not significantly change when gender was controlled.
When feminism was controlled, both main and interactional gender effects were
discovered on the environmental concern scales. In the main effects, men were
statistically more likely to be environmentally concerned than were women on
the Pollution and the Environmental Regulations indices. Significant interaction
effects (described in the footnotes to Table 2) between gender and feminism on
the Pollution and Environmental Regulations scales suggest that being both fe-
male and feminist increases environmental concern regarding those environmen-
tal measures to levels greater than or equal to male environmental concern.
Why is gender significant only on these environmental scales and not on
the others when feminism is controlled? If men were more environmentally
concerned than were women on all the environmental indices controlling for

Table 2
Betas and Coefficients of Determination for NEP/HEP Dimensions and Environmental Concern Scales
Regressed on Gender and the Feminism Index"

Limits Humanity Balance
to and of Natural
Growth Nature Nature Resources Pollution Env. Regs
Scale Scale Scale Scale Scaleb Scale"

Gender p .05 - .04 - .03 -.lo -.19*** -.17**
FEM Scale p .11* .28*** .ll .35*** .45*** .33***
R2 .02 0.7 0.1 .10 .17 .09
F 3.70* 14.21*** 1.80** 20.66*** 37.18*** 16.53***
N 3 72 372 372 377 377 327

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
"Additional regression models tested for an interaction between gender and feminism. Significant interaction terms for the Pollution and
Environmental Regulations scales are discussed in subsequent footnotes.
addition to the main effects, a significant interaction of .27 (p < .05) between the FEM scale and Gender was discovered, indicating
feminism has a greater effect for women with regard to the Pollution scale.
"In addition to the main effects, significant interaction of .37 (p < .01) between the FEM scale and Gender was discovered, indicating fem-
inism has a greater effect for women with regard to the Environmental Regulations scale.


feminism, one could argue that such a relationship was the effect of the zero-
order correlation between gender and feminism. Because being female is corre-
lated with holding liberal feminist attitudes and being a liberal feminist is
correlated with almost every environmental measure, controlling for liberal fem-
inism would constrain the relationship between women and the environment and
make men appear more environmentally concerned. Because men are not more
environmentally concerned on all the environmental indices once feminism is
controlled, gender must be related to specific environmental concerns rather than
environmentalism overall.
As mentioned earlier, one possibility is that the environmental concern
scales focus on direct political action and government regulation, while the
NEP/HEP dimensions focus on more general environmental beliefs. Therefore,
the results obtained in Table 2 display a suppression effect. Women have been
found less likely to favor direct political action (Mohai 1991; Shapiro and
Mahajan 1986; Welch 1977; Welch and Secret 1981).9However, women are also
more likely to hold liberal feminist attitudes, and liberal feminists favor political
action and government intervention, canceling the direct effect (Shapiro and
Mahajan 1986). The hypothesized connection between women and feminism on
environmentalism is also supported by the significant interaction terms present
for both the Pollution scale and the Environmental Regulations scale. In both
cases a woman with a liberal feminist viewpoint is more likely to score higher
on these environmental scales than either a woman or a liberal feminist would
separately.
When control variables are added to the models, the observed relationships
persist (see Table 3). Feminism remains positively related to environmentalism
even when gender, class rank, political ideology, and amount of TV news
watched are controlled. In fact, feminism is the best predictor of environmental-
ism in all of the regression models in which it is significant. The gender effects
also continue to be present for the environmental concern scales when feminism
and the other variables are controlled.
It is mildly surprising that the inclusion of political ideology did not affect
the relationship between feminism and environmentalism. Feminism and envi-
ronmentalism are often considered as subsets of liberal political orientation, and
referring to Table 1, these items are significantly correlated (Somma and
Tolleson-Rinehart 1997). However, controlling for the other variables, feminism
and self-reported political ideology maintain significant independent effects on
environmentalism, demonstrating that while feminism and political ideology are
similar in their influence on environmental attitudes and are correlated with one
another, neither variable is entirely inclusive of the other.
In a further test to examine for the possibility of three-way interactions
among gender, feminism, and political ideology, the respondents were divided by

Table 3
Betas and Coefficients of Determination for NEP/HEP Dimensions and Environmental Concern Scales
Regressed on Gender and the FEM Scale with Control Variables"

to and of Natural
Scale Scale Scale Scale Scaleb Scale"

Gender p .04 -.05 -.04 -.11* -.21*** - .20**
FEM Scale p .ll .28*** .11 .37*** .44*** .35***
Class Rank f3 -.11 .00 -.13* -.lo - .05 -.11*
Political Ideology p .12* .17** .11* - .02 .12* .13*
TV News p - .03 .06 - .06 .04 .01 -.I0
R2 .06 .12 .06 .12 .19 .16
F 4.01** 9.20*** 4.23*** 8.93*** 16.55*** 11.58***
N 345 345 345 350 35 1 308

*P < .05; **p < -01; ***p < .001.
"Additional regression models tested for an interaction between gender and feminism. Significant interaction terms for the Pollution and
Environmental Regulations scales are discussed in subsequent footnotes.
addition to the main effects, a significant interaction of .28 (p < .Ol) between the FEM scale and Gender was discovered indicating fem-
inism has a greater effect for women with regard to the Pollution scale.
"In addition to the main effects, a significant interaction of .35 (p < .01) between the FEM scale and Gender was discovered indicating fem-
inism has a greater effect for women with regard to the Environmental Regulations scale.


gender, and the environmental indices were regressed upon the feminism scale
and the control variables. The results of this analysis, presented in Table 4, show
that controlling for the other variables in the model, women’s attitudes toward
feminism continue to mirror the pattern of feminism found in the previous ta-
bles, while men’s attitudes toward feminism are significantly related only to the
Humanity and Nature dimension of the NEP/HEP, the Natural Resources scale,
and the Pollution scale.
Table 4 reminds us of Blaikie’s (1992) observation that ecological world
views contain a complex set of views and dimensions. Again, it appears that the
relationship between feminism and political action is at the heart of the relation- ‘
ship between feminism and the environmental concern scales for both men and
women in this sample. However, the relationship of the Humanity and Nature di-
mension of the NEP/HEP and feminism cannot be explained by support for gov-
ernment intervention. Instead, as previously mentioned, the Humanity and
Nature scale focuses on attitudes toward human use of the environment, which is
of main concern to ecofeminists.
The items on the Humanity and Nature index argue against human mastery
of nature while the other NEP/HEP scales are concerned with beliefs of ecolog-
ical balance and limits to growth. The data suggest that individuals who do not
believe in human mastery over nature are more likely to have challenged the
dominant world view. If an individual is socialized to hold a set of beliefs, atti-
tudes, and/or values that challenge a particular facet of the traditional world view
(here, attitudes toward society’s use of the environment), the individual is more
likely to be receptive to other challenges to the traditional world view as well
(for instance, attitudes toward women’s roles in society), especially when both
sets of beliefs are themselves embedded in a larger, more complex ecofeminist
world view. Conversely, males socialized to prefer feminist ideals also would be
more likely to accept a discourse concerning domination of the environment.
Additional support for the relationship between gender, feminism, and po-
litical action is demonstrated by the significant interaction effects for the
Pollution scale and the Environmental Regulations scale. By creating separate
models for men and women a significant interaction effect between feminism
and political ideology is found, but only for women. The separate models also
add credence to the earlier discussion of feminism as a politicizing force for
women.
Finally, in looking at the beta coefficients one notices that the strongest
predictor of environmentalism is not the same for men and women. For men
self-reported political ideology is usually the most important predictor of envi-
ronmentalism. For women feminism is always the most important predictor
while self-reported political ideology is rarely a significant predictor of environ-
mentalism.

Table 4
Betas and Coefficients of Determination for NEP/HEP Dimensions and Environmental Concern Scales Split by Sex and
Regressed on Gender and the FEM Scale with Control Variables"

to and of Natural
Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Femaleb Male Female"

FEM Scale p .01 -.15* .29*** .24*** .13 .10 .23** .40*** .21* .49*** .08 .42***
Class Rank p .OO -.16* .1 I -.07 -.13 -.16* .01 -.17** .01 -.08 .03 -.17**
Political Ideology p .I3 .10 .29*** .10 .23* .03 .13 -.14* .22* .06 .23* .05
TV News p -.03 -.04 -.04 .09 -.04 -.09 .I0 - .02 .02 -.02 -.lo -.13*
R2 .02 .08 .2 1 .09 .09 .05 .09 .17 .ll .26 .08 .24
F .53 4.54** 7.96*** 5.24*** 3.03* 3.03* 2.92* 11.17*** 3.67** 19.59*** 2.22 15.20***
N 123 222 123 223 123 223 124 226 125 226 112 197

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < ,001.
"Additional regression models tested for an interaction between political ideology and feminism. Significant interaction terms for women on the Pollution
and the Environmental Regulations scales are discussed in subsequent footnotes.
p
addition to the main effects, a significant interaction of .17 ( < ,001) between the FEM scale and Political Ideology was discovered, indicating that fem-
ih
inism has a greater effect for liberals and vice versa wt regard to women on the Pollution scale.
p
'In addition to the main effects, a significant interaction of .08 ( < .05) between the FEM scale and Political Ideology was discovered, indicating that fem-
inism has a greater effect for liberals and vice versa with regard to women on the Environmental Regulations scale.


Conclusion
This research examined the relationship between attitudes toward the envi-
ronment, attitudes toward women, and gender. The findings of this exploratory
college student survey, a significant positive relationship between feminism and
environmentalism and a relationship between gender and politically active envi-
ronmentalism mediated by feminism, highlight the complexity of the relation-
ships between gender, feminism, and environmentalism. Moreover, these
findings have implications for the future of ecofeminist activism and for envi-
ronmental social scientists working on gender differences.
First, as discussed earlier, feminist scholars hypothesize a relationship be-
tween feminism and environmentalism; however, there has been little in the way
of empirical evidence to support their theories. While the current research is ex-
ploratory, the findings of the current study are consistent with those of S o m a
and Tolleson-Rinhart’s (1997) work. These two studies, taken together, support
the view that individuals make a connection between feminism and environmen-
talism. To a certain extent, this finding supports the hypothesis that ecofeminism
may aid in social movement mobilization; however, further research is required.
Still, given the finding that liberal environmentalism is related to liberal femi-
nism and to gender through liberal feminism, the use of liberal ecofeminist ide-
ology as a mobilization tool tentatively appears not to harm feminist and
environmental causes.
As for environmental social scientists, they have seldom studied the con-
nection of feminism to environmentalism, preferring to focus instead on the re-
lationship between gender and environmentalism. This oversight appears to
parallel ongoing debates with social movements research between grievance and
resource mobilization theorists. Ecofeminist ideology is inherently based on
grievance (i.e., concern). While environmental sociology must consider some
grievances, environmental research has been drawn toward a resource mobiliza-
tion perspective that favors using demographic and structural factors to explain
attitudes and behaviors. This emphasis is perhaps rooted in the relative difficulty
of collecting reliable, valid, and theoretically interesting attitudinal measures
compared with the relative ease of demographic data that are, for the most part,
assumed to be reliable, valid, and interesting. It is hoped that the present findings
will move environmental research away from demographic studies of environ-
mentalism and toward more complex sociological approaches.
While the present research has detailed interesting findings concerning en-
vironmentalism, feminism, and gender, it should be noted that these results are
preliminary. The convenience sample of college students surveyed by this study,
while useful in establishing a tentative relationship, is not representative of any
population other than itself. In addition, only the liberal environmental and


liberal feminist paradigms have been measured in this study; little is known
about other variants of environmentalism and feminism because no measures of
these paradigms exist. Future research should attempt to verify the proposed re-
lationships between other variants of environmentalism and feminism using a
more representative sample. Also, the relationship among variants of environ-
mentalism and feminism and other facets of social equity (e.g., race and class)
that challenge the traditional dominant world views should be examined. Future
scholarship in this area must begin to consider these relationships if this research
stream is to progress.

APPENDIX
Environmental Indices

Limits to Growth Scale (a = 30)
We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.
0 The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources.
0 There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand.
To maintain a healthy economy, we have to develop a “steady state” economy where industrial
growth is controlled.
Humanity and Nature Scale (a = .79)
Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature. (Reverse-coded)
Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. (Reverse-coded)
0 Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans. (Reverse-coded)
Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can make it to suit their needs.
(Reverse-coded)
Balance of Nature Scale ( a = .?4)
The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
When humans interfere with nature, there are often disastrous consequences.
Humans must live in harmony in nature in order to survive.
0 Mankind is severely abusing the environment.
Natural Resources Scale (a = .70)
Government must take stronger steps to conserve our nation’s resources.
0 There has been too much emphasis on conserving natural resources and not enough on utilizing
them in recent years. (Reverse-coded)
Where natural resources are privately owned, society should have no control over what the owner
does with them. (Reverse-coded)
0 Natural resources must be preserved for the future, even if people must do without.
0 We must take stronger measures to conserve our nation’s resources.
Pollution Scale (a = .75)
0 Pollution laws have gotten too strict in recent years. (Reverse-coded)
0 We should think of jobs first and pollution second. (Reverse-coded)
0 Anti-pollution laws should be enforced more strongly.
0 If an industry cannot control its pollution, it should be shut down.
0 Pollution control measures have created unfair burdens on industry. (Reverse-coded)


Environmental Regulations Scale (a= .85)
Unlike the rest of the indices included on the questionnaire, the following items were measured on a
six-category Likert format, from strongly favor to strongly oppose with no neutral category. The pol-
icy items employed were:
0 Banning nonreturnable containers
0 Restricting heavy industry in the state
Stiff h e s for littering
0 Restricting production of large cars
0 Setting aside land as wilderness areas
0 Higher taxes on gasoline
0 Heavy penalties for industrial pollution
Regulations on land use
0 Establishing more recycling centers
0 Prohibiting billboards on highways
Regulation of water use
Revised FEM Scale (a = 34)
0 Women have the right to participate along with men in every sphere of activity.
0 As head of the household, the father should have final authority over his children. (Reverse-
coded)
0 Men and women should be paid the same for the same work regardless of whether or not they
have a family to support.
It is absurd to regard obedience as a wifely virtue.
0 When women are appointed to police forces, they should be given the same duties as men.
0 It is all right for women to work, but men should be the basic breadwinners. (Reverse-coded)
0 A woman should not expect to go the same places or have the same freedom of action as a man.
(Reverse-coded)
0 Parental responsibility for the discipline of children should be divided equally between husband
and wife.
0 Men should contribute to housework, but it is primarily a woman’s responsibility. (Reverse-
coded)
Women are not capable of holding political offices that involve great responsibility. (Reverse-
coded)

ENDNOTES

‘For example, one Citizen’s Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes publication on women and
toxics organizing refers to the female leaders discussed as “women activists in the environmentaljus-
tice movement” instead of ecofeminists,although a major theme of the publication was ways of deal-
ing with the “constant put-downs f o men-whether they were friends or foes.” (Gibbs 1989, p. 38;
rm
Zeff, Love, and Stults 1989, p. 1).
’While it is the case that there is no consistent sex difference in general environmentalconcern,
it should be noted that a recent meta-analysis suggests that women are more environmentally con-
cerned than men where health and safety issues are involved (Davidson and Freudenburg 1996).
3The survey research reported in this paper was collected in 1991. At that time no data set ex-
isted that examined gender, feminism, and environmentalism. In the year after this study was


completed, the American National Election Study (ANES) of 1992 included items that could be used
to measure gender, environmentalism,and feminism. Unbeknownst to each other, both Somma and
Tolleson-Rinehart and the author first presented their results in 1993; Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart
were able to publish their results of their study using ANES data first.
41t is recognized that a sample of this type is not representative of the population as a whole or
of the domain of university students specifically. However, given the exploratory nature of this paper,
the sampling from classes in which students are likely to have heterogeneous goals and backgrounds,
such as introductory sociology courses, is one way to obtain diverse student opinions for testing the
central hypothesis that a relationship exists between feminism and environmentalism. To determine
if certain classes, such as the sex roles class, were significantly different from the rest of the sample,
class means were examined. While the sex roles class did have the highest mean score on the FEM
scale, analysis demonstrated that the sex roles class mean was not significantly different from the
overall mean.
5 .
It is certain that a review of the ecofeministliteraturewould show that liberal ecofeminism is nei-
ther the most widely discussed variant of ecofeminism nor the most interesting world view to ecofemi-
nist scholars. The liberal paradigm is used because all existing attitude scales used to examine
environmentalism and feminism are measures of the liberal world view. Few, if any, feminists
and ecofeminists have attempted to examine Marxist, cultural/radical, and/or socialist feminism or
environmentalism quantitatively. An examination of the UnCoverWeb database (available at
http://uncweb.carl.org/) the SocioAbs database (available through Firstsearch) failed to identify
and
any quantitative study of Marxist, radical, cultural, or socialist feminism. Up to the publication of this
article, the researcherknows of only one study that quantitatively examineddifferenttypes of feminism,
but only in the context of validating a feminism scale (Poff and Michalos 1988). As for environmental-
ism, Kowalewski (1996) quantitativelyexaminesdeep ecology,which may fall under the heading of rad-
ical environmentalism, in his recent study on the effects of social structure on environmental attitudes.
6Previous factor and reliability analyses of Van Liere and Dunlap’s Environmental Concern
scales led to the removal of one double-barreled item from the Pollution Control scale and one item
from the Environmental Regulations scale (Smith 1991). For more information about the items in-
cluded on the indices of environmentalism and feminism, please refer to the appendix to this article.
’To remove dated and gender-biased language, the FEM scale was revised from twenty items
down to ten. The author wishes to thank Vincent C. Fem for his work on this revision. Without
Vincent’s previous work revising question wording and order on the scale, this research would not
have been possible.
‘If the FEM scale were trichotomized into three equal parts (nonliberal feminist, middle
ground, and liberal feminist), 46.8% of the women would fall into the liberal feminist category com-
pared to just 8.7% of the men.
’Additional empirical evidence can be found in Steger and Win’s (1988) study of Canadian and
American environmental concern among members of the general public and environmental activists.
This study found only 21% of Canadian and 28% of American environmental activists sampled were
female.

REFERENCES

Albrecht, Don, Gordon Bultena, Eric Hoiberg, and Peter Now&. 1982. “The New Environmental
Paradigm Scale.” Journal o Environmental Education 13:3943.
f
Alldred, Pam, and Sarah Dennison. 2000. “Eco-activism and Feminism: Do Eco-warriors and
Goddesses Need It?” Feminist Review 64: 12&27.


Arcury, Thomas A. 1990. “Environmental Attitude and Environmental Knowledge.” Human
Organization 49(4):30&304.
Arcury, Thomas A,, and Eric H. Christianson. 1993. “Rural-Urban Differences i Environmental
n
Knowledge and Actions.” Journal o Environmental Education 25(1): 19-25.
f
Arcury, Thomas A., Susan J. Scollay, and Timothy I? Johnson. 1987. “Sex Differences in
Environmental Concern and Knowledge: The Case of Acid Rain.” S x Roles 16(9/10):
e
463-72.
Austin, D. Mark, and Cynthia Woolever. 1994. “Economic and Environmental Concerns as
Influences on Growth Attitudes: A Research Note.” Sociological Spectrum 14:87-99.
Bantjes, Rod, and Tanya Trussler. 1999. “Feminism and the Grass Roots: Women and Environ-
mentalism in Nova Scotia, 198&1983.” Canadian Review o Sociology and Anthropology
f
36(2): 179-97.
Basow, Susan A., and Florence Campanile. 1990. “Attitudes toward Prostitution as a Function of
Attitudes toward Feminism in College Students: An Exploratory Study.” Psychology o Women
f
Quarterly 14:13541.
Biehl, Janet. 1991. Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics. Boston, MA: South End Press.
Blaikie, Norman W. H. 1992. “The Nature and Origins of Ecological World Views: An Australian
Study.” Social Science Quarterly 73(1):14445.
Blocker, T. Jean, and Douglas Lee Eckberg. 1997. “Gender and Environmentalism: Results from the
1993 General Social Survey.” Social Science Quarterly 78(4):841-58.
. 1989. “Environmental Issues as Women’s Issues: General Concerns and Local Hazards.”
Social Science Quarterly 70(3):586-93.
Blum, Abraham. 1987. “Students’ Knowledge and Beliefs Concerning Environmental Issues in Four
Countries.” Journal o Environmental Education 18(3):7-13.
f
Borden, Richard J., and Andrew I? Schettino. 1979. “Determinants of Environmentally Responsible
Behavior.” Journal o Environmental Education 10(4):35-39.
f
Branscombe, Nyla R., and Kay Deaux. 1991. “Feminist Attitude Accessibility and Behavioral
Intentions.” Psychology o Women Quarterly 15:411-18.
f
Buttel, Frederick H., and William L. Flinn. 1976. “Environmental Politics: the Structuring of Partisan
and Ideological Cleavages in Mass Environmental Attitudes.” The Sociological Quarterly
17:477-90.
Cameron, Anne. 1989. “First Mother and the Rainbow Children.” Pp. 54-66 in Healing the Wounds:
The Promise o Ecofeminism. edited by Judith Plant. Philadelphia, PA: New Society.
f
Cornwell, Martha L. 1988. Gender Gap: Male/Female Differences in Environmental Concern. State
University of New York at Buffalo: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
Davidson, Debra J., and William R. Freudenburg. 1996. “Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns:
A Review and Analysis of Available Research.” Environment and Behavior 28(3):302-39.
Davion, Victoria. 1994. “Is Ecofeminism Feminist?” Pp. 8-28 in Ecological Feminism, edited by
Karen Warren. New York Routeledge.
Dempewolff, J. A. 1974. “Development and Validation of a Feminism Scale.” Psychological Reports
34:651-57.
Dunlap, Riley E., and Angela G. Mertig. 1997. “The Nature and Social Bases of Public Concern for
the Environment: Cross-NationalComparisons.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the
Rural Sociological Society. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Dunlap, Riley E., and Kent D. Van Liere. 1978. “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’: A Proposed
Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results.” Journal o Environmental Education
f
9(4):1&19.
Eyerman, Ron, and Andrew Jamison. 1991. Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach. University
Park, PA The Pennsylvania State University Press.


Fassinger, Ruth E. 1994. “Development and Testing of the Attitudes toward Feminism and the
Women’s Movement (FWM) Scale.” Psychology o Women Quarterly 18:389402.
f
Flynn, James, Paul Slovic, and C. K. Mertz. 1994. “Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental
Health Risks.” RiskAnalysis 14(6):1101-8.
Geller, Jack M., and Paul Lasley. 1985. “The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: A
Reexamination.”Journal o Environmental Education 17(1):9-12.
f
Gibbs, Lois Marie. 1989. “Some Thoughts on Women Who Move from Being Local Grassroots
Leaders to Full-Time Organizers.” Pp. 37-41 in Empowering Ourselves: Women and Toxics
Organizing, edited by R.L. Zeff, M. Love, and K. Stults. Arlington, VA Citizens’
Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste.
Gifford, Robert, Robert Hay, and Karen Boros. 1982. “Individual Differences in Environmental
Attitudes.” Journal o Environmental Education 14(2): 19-23.
f
Hamilton, Lawrence C. 1985. “Concern about Toxic Wastes: Three Demographic Predictors.”
Sociological Perspectives 28(4):463-86.
Hausbeck, Kathryn W., Lester W. Milbrath, and Sean M. Enright. 1992. “Environmental Knowledge,
Awareness, and Concern among 11th-Grade Students: New York State.” Journal o f
Environmental Education 24( 1):27-34.
Jacobson, Marsha. 1981. “You Say Potato and I Say Potahto: Attitudes toward Feminism as a
Function of Its Subject-Selected Label.” Sex Roles 7(4):349-54.
. 1979. “A Rose by Any Other Name: Attitudes toward Feminism as a Function of Its Label.”
Sex Roles 5(3):365-71.
Jaggar, Alison M., and Paula S. Rothenberg. 1984. “Introduction: Feminist Theory and Feminist
Practice.” Pp. 1-10 in Feminist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts of the Relations
Between Women and Men, edited by Alison M. Jaggar and Paula S. Rothenberg. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Kanagy, Conrad L., Craig R. Humphrey, and Glenn Firebaugh. 1994. “Surging Environmentalism:
Changing Public Opinion or Changing Publics?“ Social Science Quarterly 75(4):804-19.
King, Ynestra. 1981. “Feminism and the Revolt of Nature.” Heresies 4:12-16.
Kirkpatrick, Clifford. 1936. “The Construction of a Belief-Pattern Scale for Measuring Attitudes to-
ward Feminism.” Journal o Social Psychology 7:42 1-37.
f
Kowalewski, David. 1996. “The Social Structuring of Postindustrial Conflict: Citizen Positions on
Environmental Dimensions.” Mid-American Review o Sociology 19(1-2):33-55.
f
Lahar, Stephanie. 1991. “Ecofeminist Theory and Grassroots Politics.” Hypatia 6( 1 ) : 2 8 4 .
Lowe, George D., and Thomas K. Pinhey. 1982. “Rural-Urban Differences in Support for
Environmental Protection.” Rural Sociology 47(1):114-28.
Lowe, George D., Thomas K. Pinhey, and Michael D. Grimes. 1980. “Public Support for
Environmental Protection: New Evidence from National Surveys.” Pacific Sociological Review
23(4):423-45.
MacDonald, William L., and Naoto Hara. 1994. “Gender Differences in Environmental Concern
among College Students.” Sex Roles 3 1(5/6):369-74.
McCallum, Lynda G. 1991. Gender Diferences in an Aggrieved Population Confronted with a Waste-
to-Energy Plant. Unpublished master’s thesis. Pennsylvania State University.
McEvoy, James. 1972. “The American Concern with Environment.” Pp. 21&36 in Social Behaviol;
Natural Resources and the Environment, edited by William R. Burch, Neil H. Cheek, and Lee
Taylor. New York, Ny: Harper and Row.
McStay, Jan R., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1983. “Male-Female Differences in Concern for Environmental
Quality.” International Journal o Women k Studies 6:291-301.
f
Mellor, Mary. 1997. “Gender and the Environment.” Pp. 195-201 in The International Handbook o f
Environmental Sociology, edited by Michael Redclift and Graham Woodgate. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.


Merchant, Carolyn. 1992. Radical Ecology: The Searchfor a Livable World.New York Routledge.
Mitchell, Robert C. 1979. “Silent SpringEolid Majorities.” Public Opinion 2:16-20, 55.
Mohai, Paul. 1991. “Men, Women, and the Environment: An Examination of the Gender Gap in
Environmental Concern and Activism.” Society and Natuml Resources 5:1-19.
Noe, Francis P , and Rob Snow. 1990. “The New Environmental Paradigm and Further Scale
.
Analysis.” Journal o Environmental Education 21(4):20-26.
f
Ostman, Ronald E., and Jill L. Parker. 1987. “Impact of Education, Age, Newspapers, and Television
on Environmental Knowledge, Concerns, and Behaviors.” Journal of Environmental Education
19(1):3-9.
Ozanne, Lucie K., and Craig R. Humphrey. 1994. “Gender and Environmentalism: Competing
Ecofeminist Paradigms.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological
Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Ozanne, Lucie K., Craig R. Humphrey, and Paul M. Smith. 1999. “Gender, Environmentalism, and
Interest in Forest Certification: Mohai’s Paradox Revisited.” Society & Natural Resources
12~613-22.
Peterson, Abby, and Carolyn Merchant. 1986. “ ‘Peace with the Earth:’ Women and the Environmental
Movement in Sweden.” Womenb Studies International Forum 9(5):465-79.
Poff, Deborah C., and Alex C. Michalos. 1988. “Feminism and the Quality of Life.” Social Indicators
Research 20:445-72.
Schahn, Joachim, and Erwin Holzer. 1990. “Studies of Individual Environmental Concern: The Role
of Knowledge, Gender, and Background Variables.” Environment and Behavior 22(6):767-86.
Scott, David, and Fern K. Willits. 1993. “Environmental Attitudes and Behavior: A Pennsylvania
Survey.” Environment and Behavior 26(2):239-60.
Shapiro, Robert Y., and Harpreet Mahajan. 1986. “Gender Differences in Policy Preferences: A
Summary of Trends from the 1960s to the 1980s.” Public Opinion Quarterly 50:42-61.
Singleton, Royce, and John B. Christiansen. 1977. “The Construct Validation of a Short Form
Attitudes toward Feminism Scale.” Sociology and Social Research 61:294-303.
Smith, D. Clayton. 1993. “Ecofeminism: Myth or Reality?” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings
of the Rural Sociological Society, Orlando, FL.
. 1992. “Functional Constraints Theory, Needs Theory and Environmental Attitudes.” Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Pittsburgh, PA.
. 1991. Theoretical and Methodological Issues Concerning Environmental Paradigms and
Value Shifr. Unpublished master’s thesis, Pennsylvania State University.
Smith, Eliot R., Myra M. Ferree, and Frederick D. Miller. 1975. “A Short Scale of Attitudes toward
Feminism.” Representative Research in Social Psychology 6:5 1-56.
Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. “Frame
Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.”American Sociological
Review 5 1 : 4 6 4 81.
Somma, Mark, and Sue Tolleson-Rinehart. 1997. “Tracking the Elusive Green Women: Sex,
Environmentalism, and Feminism in the United States and Europe.” Political Research
Quarter& 50(1):153-69.
Steger, Mary Ann E., and Stephanie L. Witt. 1988. “Gender Differences in Environmental
Orientations: A Comparison of Publics and Activists in Canada and the U.S.” Western Political
Quarter& 42(4):62749.
Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz, and Gregory A. Guagnano. 1995. “The New Ecological Paradigm in
Social-Psychological Context.” Environment and Behavior 27(6):723-43.
Stem, Paul C., Thomas Dietz, and Linda Kalof. 1993. “Value Orientations, Gender, and
Environmental Concern.” Environment and Behavior; 25(3):32248.
Sturgeon, Noel. 1997. Ecofeminist Natures: Race, Gender; Feminist TheoT, and Political Action.
New York Routledge.


Thompson, John C., and Edgar L. Gasteiger. 1985. “Environmental Attitude Survey of University
Students: 1971 vs. 1981.” Journal of Environmental Education 17(1):13-22.
Van Liere, Kent D., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1981. “Environmental Concern: Does It Make a Difference
How It’s Measured?” Environment and Behavior 13:651-76.
. 1980. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses,
Explanations, and Empirical Evidence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44: 181-97.
Warren, Karen .. I 1990. “The Promise and Power of Ecofeminism.” Environmental Ethics 12:125-46.
. 1987. “Feminism and Ecology: Making Connections.” Environmental Ethics 9:3-20.
Welch, Susan. 1977. “Women as Political Animals? A Test of Some Explanations for Male-Female
Political Participation Differences.” American Journal of Political Science 2 1:711-30.
Welch, Susan, and Philip Secret. 1981. “Sex, Race, and Political Participation.” The Western Political
Quarterly 34:5-16.
Zeff, Robbin L., Marsha Love, and Karen Stults, eds. 1989. Empowering Ourselves: Women and
Toxics Organizing. Arlington, VA: Citizens’ Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, Inc.

Environmentalism feminism and_gender

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (9)

Ähnlich wie Environmentalism feminism and_gender

Ähnlich wie Environmentalism feminism and_gender (20)

Environmentalism feminism and_gender