As I explained in a recent blog post, the outdoors isn’t as separate from culture as we typically like to think. And, because human beings are inseparable from the culture that helps shape our understanding of the world, our cultural expectations of society often carry over to spaces that are understood to be free from those rigid categories.
Though, as I’ve said before, culture is everywhere. Culture is the lens through which we see and understand everything. In my last post I spoke about some of the assumptions we make about how we should dress, behave, and interact outside. But now, I’d like to dive deeper into the politics of land, specifically, the gender bias in our federal definition of Wilderness.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 section 2c states:
(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
This federal definition excludes women and non-binary folks almost entirely. Some might argue that a legal definition from more than fifty years ago will almost always be in some way problematic. It’s the nature of progress, as we continue to move toward more equitable access and experiences we recognize what normalized language and processes were detrimental and restrictive.
But if we think about 1964, there was a huge cultural shift occurring, the Civil Rights Movement, the Second Wave of Feminism, and the Sexual Revolution were challenging the traditional, conservative perspective on American culture. Environmentalism ran parallel to these social movements. And therein lies the problem, again nature and culture were separated.
Of course today we still fight these battles. Intersectional feminism demands acknowledgment of the ways each of these social movements overlap. Intersectionality requires recognizing that no person is any one category, but many things at once. I am a student, and an educator. I am an employee, and a volunteer. I am white, and a woman. I am college educated, and the first in my family to go to college. Each of these parts of myself interacts with other aspects of my identity. No part of my experience can be isolated and directly connected to one aspect of who I am.
Intersectionality requires acknowledging the systematic ways marginalized identities experience oppression and exclusion, or privilege and power in particular ways. Now, we can look back at that moment in history to see how groups resisted a cultural norm that denied their experience and humanity. We can recognize the ways cultural identity and environment were separated, denying the ways the two interact.
Those writing what would become the federal definition of Wilderness blatantly ignored the calls of millions of Americans who were demanding change. Their motivations were rooted in legitimizing white colonialism in North America, not ensuring public access to public spaces.
Today we face a similar cultural shift. In particular we are battling for more equitable and inclusive public lands. We demand that public lands be that, truly public. And yet, the definition of the pinnacle of our public lands system, the most prized and revered spaces are still legally, and culturally exclusive.
By retaining a legal definition that is exclusive to a particular identity we deny space for others.
We know that women and non-binary folks go outside. Look no further than organizations like Women Who Hike, Indigenous Women Hike, Hike Like A Woman, Fat Girls Hiking, Hike It Baby, Out There Adventures, the Venture Out Project among countless others that create community and opportunity for those who are excluded from this definition.
Public lands are public. This definition in no way outlines an explicit exclusion of women or non-binary people from the outdoors. It does, however, implicitly suggest that Wilderness is only for men. This is the problem.
This federal definition is passively asserting that the ideas we have perpetuated in popular culture of the Paul Bunyan-like characters, those emulating Theodore Roosevelt, Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett, even John Muir, are the only types of people that belong outside. It creates an exclusive culture in which women, the queer community, people of color, differently-abled folks, among others, are not supposed to be in these places. It signals that Wilderness is not yours, but theirs.
With this definition, and our cultural perceptions, we come to understand the outdoors as a place for only the hypermasculine, the tough, rugged, resilient type. This ignores the fact that women and non-binary folks can also be tough and rugged. It ignores the reality that gender is a performance of identity, one that is fluid and changing, a reflection of culture.
But of course Wilderness is yours, and theirs. Public lands are for everyone. We must continue to probe the foundations of outdoor culture to find and acknowledge the ways that exclusion has been normalized so that we can break down these barriers.
I closed with this sentiment in my last post, but I’ll echo Ruby McConnell again in the belief that all outdoor experiences are unique and totally valid.