The Myth of Mother Nature

To give a glimpse of business and craft, here is a LinkedIn article I wrote in March, which is relevant again, today, on the 22nd of April, for International Earth Day.

---

On the occasion of International Women’s Day (8th March), I have been contemplating what it means to be a woman advocating for a sustainable world.

Firstly, I am a stereotype - studies have shown that women are increasingly shifting towards what’s considered “left-wing” topics. Bothersome feminism and “doomsday” narratives of climate change are shoved together in a political box and stowed neatly away from right-winged believers.

Secondly, this space is sexist.

I am part of a movement that is desperately crying out for change, in the name of “Mother Earth”. Have we ever asked ourselves why the earth is feminine? What it means for the way we promote sustainability?

Just the fact that it has been conceived as feminine, and has been inflicted so much harm is deeply troubling.

I came across an interesting article the other day that states: The conflated feminine identity of Mother Nature exposes the play of these hegemonic enterprises that concurrently tyrannizes nature and woman. They are expected to be always available to men and quench their desires. (Subbi, & Balakrishnan, 2018)

When men first attributed female traits to nature, they created yet another playground for them to abuse as a subjucated, passive “other”. The earth was seen as something that needs to be dominated, and remain an ever-abiding, caring, loving mother, that would always give endlessly.

Where there was “fertile” land, machines were deployed to strip its riches for the oil-dripped fingers of capitalism. Men only fear other men. When terrible storms are unleashed, they are compared to a woman’s hysterics, a wrath that doesn’t elicit true urgency and fear from men who continue to control, seize, and choke with greedy hands.

“The glorification of the reproductive worth of woman and nature leads to evident demonization of the female identity.”

(Subbi, & Balakrishnan, 2018)

Once the land has been pillaged, raped and stripped dry, it is discarded, and criticized for no longer being of any use. Its value is directly tied to a productivity that is seen as only being unlocked thanks to a man’s intervention.

These are the exact struggles which face women across the world today. By locking us in to this narrative of a passive, endlessly caring woman, the world justifies its degradation of both the land and women.

—

Let’s try a word exercise.

“Nature is logical, independent, assertive, self-sufficient.”

“Nature is intuitive, beautiful, caring, magical.”

Both are true. But my theory is, if men decided to gender nature as masculine, it would not only be more respected, but all of the alarming urgencies raining down upon us now, would be more feared by “The Man” (corporations). If modern men saw nature for its rationality, its self-sufficience, and its rage, nature would be a partner for flourishing business.

Instead, Nature has been a tool that can be controlled into submission for Man’s desires. Or, as the Romantics of the 1800s said so eloquently, a vehicle for Man’s highest aspiration: the Sublime.

During a period where men travelled more, and saw the world through carriage and ship windows, nature spoke to them as a romantic lover, a muse, through which artistic inspiration was unlocked. The art of travel poetry and the famous Romantic style flourished through these writings of nature.

James Buzzard (1913) noted: “The picturesque retained the assumptions of gender given to it by its founders, who imagined a male art of seeing that could correct and complete what a feminized landscape held forth.”

Correct, and complete what a feminized landscape held forth. That is exactly how the world continues to treat Nature and its women. We are continually corrected through beauty standards, and our words bound to silence. Nature is modified and crushed as man designs his dreams upon her.

“[T]he sublime is specifically a male achievement gained through women as female objects or through female Nature, and so is closed off to women writers” (14). (Fay, 1998)

Though Nature is female, it is closed off to women during this period. For it is the men who hunt and fish, while the women are told to stay indoors knitting - without any intellectual stimulation of course, for that would make her ugly to man.

—

Now, in our modern day, this narrative is being held against us.

Sustainability and ESG positions in companies remain heavily skewered towards women, while pathways to power, such as finance and strategic roles that lead to executive positions, remain unattainable. (Beaufort, Chaïd 2026) This increases the risk of thematic confinement in the spirit of “let’s leave the Nature-stuff to the girls”, while executives continue to bulldoze through forests. By continuing to not take women and nature seriously, both will remain in a corner of annual reports, in the shape of pretty statistics and pledges.

In conclusion, Nature does not have a gender. Feminism and climate change do not have a political leaning. Every single person is directly concerned by the downfall of our society and the Earth we live with. We must desist our continued harm, starting with our language, and materializing through our action. Keep moving forwards, and put your money where your mouth is. Treat your women as humans and your Earth as sovereign.

References

Arsha Subbi, & Dr.K.Balakrishnan: Questioning the Gender of Nature: Analyzing the Pervading Sexism in Concepts Related to Nature. https://www.xisdxjxsu.asia/V17I6-28.pdf

James Buzard: The Beaten Track: European Tourism, Literature and Ways to Culture, 1800-1918, 1993, p.16

Fay, Elizabeth A.  A Feminist Introduction to Romanticism.  Malden, Massachusetts:  Blackwell, 1998.

Vivianne de Beaufort, Hichâm Ben Chaïd: Gender Balance in Corporate Boards and Promotion of ESG Topics: Illusion or Correlation?. 02 March 2026. https://www.ecgi.global/publications/blog/gender-balance-in-corporate-boards-and-promotion-of-esg-topics-illusion-or