Ecofeminism

Katelyn Temple
Professor Nina Perez
WST 3015
April 14, 2010

Erin Brockovich: An Ecofeminist Barbie?

The film, Erin Brockovich, is the dramatic and true story of the largest class action lawsuit in American history. This movie is set in Hinkley, California, which was almost overrun by the corporation PG&E. Erin Brockovich contains important reoccurring themes. These themes include unemployment, single parent families, and the environment. The main character in Erin Brockovich, of course, is Erin herself. Erin possesses many stereotypes, which are depicted throughout the film

Erin is an ecofeminist. This may just be my opinion though. I wonder how feminist feel about Erin, her efforts and her accomplishments. Erin is an active participant in ecofeminism. She did not pursue these efforts because she proclaimed to be a feminist. She did not pursue these efforts for the monetary gain. She pursued these efforts because she, as a mother, a woman and a resident of a local community, was concerned for the well being of the citizens of Hinkley. Erin’s efforts are hindered because she is treated as a stereotype. She is seen as a large breasted, blonde when in fact she is a divorced, strong, independent, hard working mother. Erin uses these stereotypes to her advantage throughout the movie. She was intelligent enough to know her sexuality would benefit her search. This is why I previously wondered how feminist would view Erin.

While working for the law firm of Ed Masry, Erin discovered PG&E was in the process of quietly buying land where they had been secretly dumping hexavalent chromium on. Erin suspects the poison was knowingly dumped into the local community leading to the illnesses of dozens of people. This suspicion leads her to seek out water records. Erin blatantly uses her sexuality at this time to obtain the records. As our text states, “…environmental justice draw[s] on concepts of civil rights, under which all citizens have a right to a healthy living…” (541). Erin pursued her challenge not because it was easy, but because it was just. This town was portrayed in the movie to be lower class and Caucasian. There was no racial, sexist or political venture at stake. It was just easier for PG&E to dump the toxic waste and then buy the land they had contaminated.

As Sandra Steingraber states in her article Rose Moon, “...certain persistent toxic substances impair intellectual capacity, change behavior…and compromise reproductive capacity” (551). If nature is a natural thing, then so is death. If human beings create situations or devices that cause disease and death, then humans are taking on the role of God. Death should be a natural thing and in this situation, there is nothing natural about how these people are being condemned for not questioning the big business next door. Their civil rights were shattered when this big business was allowed to corrupt their lives, inside and out.

This purpose of this movie is a political one. I cannot address if the purpose is also a feminist one, but it certainly accomplishes this task. The private and the public are being forced to merge because of the actions of Erin Brockovich. No matter whom the woman Erin Brockovich is, her strides benefited countless numbers of people in Hinkley and her story impressed the world when it was made into a major motion picture. But most importantly, this story opened the eyes to people about the subject of ecofeminism and how every person can play a role in this system.

(words: 567)

Works Cited:

Kirk, Gwyn, and Margo Okazawa-Rey. Women and the Enviroment. Women's Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. 5th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2010. 535-548. Print.

Steingraber, Sandra. Rose Moon. Women's Lives: Multicultural Perspectives 5 (2010): 549-557. Print.