Karpenko K.I. Hagengruber Ruth. Ecofeminist Standpoints of Economic Growth// Гендер. Екологія. Здоров’я: матеріали V Міжнародної науково-практичної конференції (Харків, 20–21 квітня 2017 р.). – Харків: ХНМУ, 2017. – 372 с. –  C. 15-18

HAGENGRUBER RUTH. ECOFEMINIST STANDPOINTS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH
The most correlative analysis of environmental economics comes from the social version of ecofeminism insisting that the destruction and exploitation of nature by men has its roots in the domination of women by men. In this sense, ecofeminist analysis enhances methodological foundations of environmental economics. Whereas many environmentalists identify industrialization and new technologies as appropriate tools for economic growth, the representatives of ecofeminist approach believe that the proliferation of technology should be balanced and more attention must be paid to pollution and natural resource preservation. They look forward to self-sufficient, decentralized relations of production, where men and women work together in reciprocity with external nature, no longer alienated or diminished by a gendered division of labour and international accumulation [1, 5, and 7]. To accomplish these objectives, ecofeminist and philosophical standpoints of Val Plumwood, Ariel Salleh, Maria Mies and others will be utilized to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of technological development to human and nature. Ecofeminist philosophy is dialogical in nature, as a kind of remark, response, reaction or comment on already formulated postulates, axioms, theorems and conclusions. Despite the criticism ecofeminism is far from being just an echo. 
In the book “Feminist and the Master of Nature” (1993) V. Plumwood developed five key features of the logic of colonization. The first touches the backgrounding qualities.  In society women’s domestic labor (child rearing, housework, cooking etc) has traditionally held no monetary value placed on it, rather it is sentimentalized.  Here women are like nature. Radical exclusion is the second feature. In traditional patriarchal society we have woman and man and we also have humans and animals, both are seen as separate, as different as having nothing in common. Incorporation means that subordinate groups are always defined in terms of lack, lack of valued traits, as non-rational and with lack of reason, like humans treatment of nature. The fourth feature is homogenization. Subordinate groups often are defined by their lack of difference among the members of the subgroup – all looking the same, thinking the same, acting the same. People say that all animals are the same but of course we understand there are different species within that group with different needs and concerns. Instrumentalism   is the fifth feature, where the subordinated women and nature are valued only as a means to an end. 
Let’s try to refract these comments into the context of a modern environmental economics, which examines in what ways industrialization and new technologies can continue without causing any harm to nature or with the least damage possible. In strictly economic terms, people – it is a means of production, and gender equality is a more effective competition on the labor market. 
Women have made huge progress in the workplace, but still get lower pay and far fewer top jobs than men. Why? Because in the context of traditional backgrounding qualities the monetary value of their jobs is underestimated.
Numerous modern studies have shown that the higher the level of women’s participation, the better the economic results at the level of both the company and the country, and the world. Of course, it is important to understand the cause and effect relationship: the mechanical performance does not improve the women inclusion on boards of directors and simultaneous resolving of the environmental problems. The intelligent policy of human capital management leads to the fact that the posts are appointed by the most worthy candidates. In turn, the presence of women in the governing bodies of companies and states usually means that at least some elements of such a policy in the organization are present.
“Denying women full participation in the global economy is costly. McKinsey & Co. has now calculated by just how much. Full gender equality would add 26 percent, or $28 trillion, to global gross domestic product in 2025, according to a  new report by the consulting firm’s research and economics arm.
While capturing that potential may not be realistic in the short term, boosting women’s equality at the same rate as the fastest-improving nation in a region - bringing Bangladesh to the level of Singapore, for instance - would increase annual GDP by $12 trillion in 2025, the study said” [Colby L.].
Eliminating the remaining gap between male and female employment rates could boost GDP in America by a total of 9%, in the euro zone by 13% and in Japan by as much as 16% [Closing the gap]. 
When women have equal opportunities (not formally, but in fact), it increases the number of trained workers in the economy and increasing competition for key positions. Competition in the labor market, in turn, means better value for money and quality of work, and thus gives the employer the opportunity to invest, create jobs, and create further economic growth. In this context, ecofeminist analysis highlights eco-critical concerns towards sustainable development and preserving natural resources and ecosystems. Ecofeminists reject the mainstream assumption that economic growth will automatically bring a reduction in gender inequality
Here, it is important to refer to Maria Mies’ (Mies & Shiva, 1993) attitude to technological development. She indicates that the development of technology in a capitalist patriarchal society is not meant to make human beings happy but to allow continuing accumulation of profit. Industrialization and technological development lead to exploitation of marginalized classes in human society. She also focuses on biotechnologies that, from her point of view, are designed to manipulate and appropriate women’s ability to reproduce, so reducing their human dignity. M. Mies suggested that the merits and demerits of a technology depend on its application, its accessibility for all people and its effect on social relations [Mies & Shiva, 1993].  These findings can be accepted without question. Today they are still relevant. 
At the same time, claiming equality as being achieved simply by being allowed membership within the dominant group is methodologically wrong. According to environmental sociologist John Barry (1999), the original form of ecofeminism dates back to “Vindication of the Rights of Women” written by Mary Wollstonecraft and published in 1792 [See: 2]. But M. Wollstonecraft advocated that equality could be achieved on the basis that women are no less rational than men, therefore placing women in opposition to animals. Ecofeminists insist that rather we must seek emancipation by denying patriarchal dominance. We must question the terms in which emancipation has been framed.
Ecofeminism takes care not to sentimentalize nature. Ecofeminist relationship to nature is an ethics of mutuality, of interdependence and respects of the interests and needs of the ‘other’. Besides, we don’t need simply reverse the dualism, as rationality is bad and nature is good. While revaluing this bond is important, we need to revalue relationships between men and women and between men and nature. An equal potential for men is to adopt nature-friendly practices and values.
References 
1. Bauhardt, C. Degrowth and Ecofeminism: Perspectives for Economic Analysis and Political Engagement / http://www.degrowth.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/3347 
2. Barry, J. (1999). Environment and social theory. London: Rutledge.
3. Closing the gap Women have made huge progress in the workplace, but still get lower pay and far fewer top jobs than men. Barbara Beck asks why / http://www.economist.com/node/21539928
4. Colby L. How Do You Boost GDP by $28 Trillion? Gender Equality Would Do It, McKinsey Says / http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-24/mckinsey-says-gender-equality-would-boost-gdp-by-28-trillion     
5.  Farrell  P. Opinion: 7 reasons women will lead the new world order / http://www.marketwatch.com/story/7-reasons-women-will-lead-the-new-world-order-2014-08-29
6. Mies, Maria, and Vandana Shiva. Ecofeminism. Halifax, N.S. : Fernwood Publications; 1993. 
7. Plumwood V. (1993) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, London: Routledge.