Critiquing Patriarchy’s extractive mindset through a feminist lens

By Alex Hale

You cannot talk about conservation without acknowledging the climate crisis. And you cannot talk about the climate crisis without confronting patriarchy. Patriarchal masculinities are ideas that position men as superior and preference traits like dominance, competition, and control. The consequences are clear when looking at how patriarchal ideations influence climate action and land management.

Conservation programs often mirror this patriarchal thinking. If we take a step back and look, patriarchy shapes our approach to nature. A strong example is when looking at the practices of violence against flora and fauna and how they can arise from patriarchal masculinities. Conservation efforts often focus on population levels of species, particularly species deemed as ‘pests’ or ‘unproductive’. This can lead to the mass killings of species in the pursuit of control over ecosystems at population level. As such, violence towards animals is seen as both necessary and acceptable. Language matters too: terms like “invasive species” carry hostile connotations that normalise violence. Even monetising nature reduces ecosystems to utility, undermining ethical engagement. Additionally, trophy hunting disregards individual animal welfare in the name of dominance and violence all for what? A prize? Through this act, violence towards animals can become normalised, and compassion can be sidelined.

The consequences of patriarchal ideations are evident when examining the gendered impacts of climate change and land management through a feminist lens. In the context of farming, masculine qualities are celebrated; being hardworking, prevailing over harsh land to provide for others and sustaining intergenerational businesses. However, the implications of climate change mean that “good farming” is no longer synonymous just with productivity, but also with ever changing strategies and sustainability. For many, farming fluctuations threatens not just income but their identity as well. Reports show increased mental health issues, higher suicide rates and substance abuse amongst male farmers. On a high school geography camp in the Scenic Rim, I heard a farmer recount his neighbour’s suicide during drought. He told me this story was not unique; it repeated too often amongst farmers. Although there are many factors that influence mental health, patriarchal ideals of independence and control can trap men in isolation, particularly when experiencing the consequences of an unstable climate.

Although this story shows how patriarchy silences men, the effects of climate change are not gender neutral. Women disproportionately shoulder climate burdens: they face higher risks of displacement, death, gender-based violence, and financial stress in areas heavily effected by climate change. As such, I believe climate activism is inseparable from gender equity. Patriarchy also skews how we value environmental care and responsibility. Dr Brough’s research at Utah State University shows that eco-friendly behaviours are often perceived as “feminine,” regardless of who practices them. Even simple actions, like carrying a reusable tote bag or buying recycled products were perceived as feminine by participants in the study. This, to me highlights the multilayered ways patriarchy influences climate action: not only does it created a gendered skew in the implications, but it also attaches gendered stereotypes to sustainability and indirectly places the burden of responsibility on women. The irony in all this is, is that men dominate decision-making in political, scientific and financial areas for climate change. Globally, over 90% of heads of governments and corporations are men.  The very system that positions women as most responsible for day-to-day climate responsibility is one in which they have the least voice and authority.

History offers painful reminders that in patriarchal societies, women’s leadership is undervalued and their expertise overlooked. Eunice Newton Foote, the first person to theorise the warming effects of carbon dioxide, published her findings in 1856, but her paper was presented by a man. On top of that, three years later, John Tyndall published similar work and is often credited as the father of climate science. Foote’s sidelining is part of a wider pattern where women’s scientific findings have been often erased or under acknowledged. Take Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray diffraction work was essential in discovering the structure of DNA. Yet, the Noble Prize in 1962 was credited to three men: Watson, Crick and Milkins NOT Franklin. Although she has been recognised now for her contributions with an award being established in her name, it is a narrative to familiar… women being acknowledged for their achievements only decades to late.

The climate crisis is not a single issue; it is multi-layered, deeply personal, and profoundly human. Ignoring this perpetuates exclusion, systemic inequality, and failure to address climate impacts effectively. It demands a humanitarian approach. Yet patriarchy prizes power, profit, and control above care, connection, and community. How can a society built under such values fight climate change when those values oppose everything needed to rebuild? Healing the planet requires more than carbon targets; it requires transforming how we relate to each other, and how we relate to the Earth itself. Feminist approaches stand in direct contrast to patriarchal ones. Where patriarchy clings to competition, ego, and control, feminism seeks inclusion, and collective change… not dominance. Climate change itself is a direct outcome of patriarchal obsession: domination of the planet, extraction of finite resources, and the pursuit of comfort and convenience for billions at unsustainable costs.

The Chipko movement, shows how women have engaged with the environment with care and connection. It began in The Himalayan region of Uttarakhand n the 1970’s and quickly spread throughout India. The word chipko means 'to cling to' and accurately describes how women would hug trees to prevent them from being logged (amongst other forms of non violent protesting). Although I am embarrassed to admit, even I dismissed this act of compassion as overly emotional or even naïve. But the movement proved transformative: it created policy changes, including a 15-year ban on commercial felling in the Uttarakhand Himalayas, which restricted the use of forest land for development. What once seemed symbolic became a catalyst for systemic change.

Ultimately, addressing climate change demands more than scientific solutions or carbon targets. It requires challenging patriarchal logics, embracing gender justice, and reimagining our relationship with one another and the Earth itself. Ecofeminism offers a path forward… one that values care, connection, and collaboration.

Go check out…

Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson and Dr. Katharine K. Wilkinson All We Can Save & Podcast Mothers of Invention, hosted by Mary Robinson and Maeve Higgins.

References

World Health Organization. (2010). Gender, climate change and health (Discussion paper). World Health Organization. https://sdg.iisd.org/news/who-publishes-draft-discussion-paper-on-gender-climate-change-and-health/

Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E. B., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw044

Seager, J., Bossert, L., Dutta, A., & Crompton, T. (2024). Mapping the patriarchy in conservation. npj Biodiversity, 3(1), Article 72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-024-00072-4

Downey, H., & Clune, T. (2023). Constructions of gender in contemporary Australian family farming: A rural financial counsellor perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 102, Article 103086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103086