Women’s Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation
Have you ever considered a connection between gender and diversity in our society? According to Shiva, there are many similarities between gender and diversity. In a patriarchal system, men are the dominant figure, or the figure that makes all the decisions and runs the production of food. Men not only see themselves as being superior to women, but also as being superior nature. Thus, they exploit nature by reducing diversity and creating monocultures in which only one specified crop is grown. This crop may then create a larger output and thus a larger income, but in order to increase its output, the diversity of other plant species had to be reduced. Women, on the other hand, recognize the need for diversity. They perform a variety of task in their everyday lives that often go unnoticed, let alone paid. Hence women, themselves, are not specialized to a single function, but rather are diverse and perform many different functions. For this reason, women see the connections between the various parts of a system, and the added benefit of having a diverse number of ways to move between the parts of that system.
Industrialized countries have adopted the monoculture means of production because technology has increased the efficiency of harvesting one type of crop in a given location. The people in Third World countries, however, still depend on their own self-sufficiency to maintain the system. Since women often perform the agricultural practices in these countries, they value their conservation of diversity so that they can maintain the ecological systems that they depend on for survival.
Because women do perform such a variety of tasks, from housework to farming, they often are not considered productive members of society since a distinct title for their role in society cannot be given. Also, they do not get paid wages for their labours, or if they do the wage is not a significant amount. Men tend to be more specialized, thus fragmenting our society into distinct parts to match their specializations. For example, men may view rice as only important for its market value as a food. Women do not fragment sectors, but rather recognize the various benefits of a product; rice is not just food for humans, but also provides straw that can then be used to create roofs for houses and provide animals with feed. Even a single plant has a diverse number of functions that it can fulfill.
Furthermore, corporations, in their need for control and increased power, have created genetically modified organisms on which they can put patents. These patents do not allow farmers to own the seed, only to grow it. Thus, corporations take the biodiversity being preserved by the custodianship of women in Third World countries through the collection and re-use of seeds, and claim ownership by altering one gene in that seed. This notion of owning a modified gene, and therefore the seed that houses that gene, represents another way in which people have found to dominate other life forms.
Equality has increased in many societies around the world. Women’s rights have been acknowledged, and the equity regarding wages and career positions has increased. However, certain task such as the running of the household remain distinctly a “woman’s task”. After completing a day in the workforce, women often face a second shift when they go home. This second shift involves the cooking, cleaning, preparation of meals, and shopping. All of these tasks are completed without a wage, and therefore are not considered part of that woman’s productivity associated with the market. Though in some households such tasks are now being divided between the spouses, women are still the main household occupants to carry out such tasks.
Easton T. Classic edition sources: environmental studies. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009. pp. 209-12.
Related link...
Valente M. Latin America: while women pull double shift, state looks the other way. [Online]. Avail from: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47733 [2009]
