Thanks to Deirdre, Amanda and Azille for inviting me to this conference-Gender and the Anthropocene. This is my first time in South Africa, a country that has always loomed large in my political imagination. Like a lot of Australians, when I was young, I spent a lot of time thinking about race relations in South Africa, rather than looking at race relations in my own country! (I was obsessed by campaigns to secure Nelson Mandela's release.) While my PhD focused on South African and Australian literature, I have not really spent much time writing or thinking about South Africa since then, so I am very much looking forward to being better informed by listening, learning and participating at this conference. Most of my research over the last few years has been focused on projects that are beyond what Sandra Swart describes as the 'holy trinity of gender, race and class'-and focused more on gender, race and species, so in this talk I'll be invoking that research and the fields of both Animal Studies and ecofeminist thinking, both of which are highly relevant to questions about how to live in the Anthropocene. Jan Zalasiewicz, member of the Anthropocene Working Group, describes the Anthropocene thus: Our research suggests changes to the Earth have resulted in strata that are distinctive and rich in geological detail through including such things as artificial radionuclides, plastics, fly ash, metals such as aluminium, pesticides and concrete. (University of Leicester, 2017) Measured by elements and objects in geological strata, the Anthropocene names the destructive nature of human impact on the planet. As a name or a label, the Anthropocene also measures other impacts of the epistemological kind. Noel Castree (2014: 230) observes that the term's usefulness lies in its being 'a politically savvy way of presenting to non-scientists the sheer magnitude of global biophysical change'. It was a way for scientists to get traction and attention for the effects of human induced planetary change. As a way of 'sharpening the focus' (Castree, 2014: 230) on human responsibility for planetary damage, one would have to conclude that it's been a success, with its proliferation across the sciences, humanities, media and popular culture. When my teenage daughter heard the term she described it as 'cool' because it seems to point the finger back at 'us' as future dinosaurs and meteorites all rolled into one. When Castree calls Crutzen and Stoermer 'politically savvy' for coining the term, he is implying that they knew precisely what the term would do-it was designed to provoke, shock us into action. But the problem with shock is that it is not a reliable platform for political projects. The reaction and disorientation that comes with shock has to be followed up with some sort of reassurance, hope and a plan for action. We know this as feminist and critical race teachers. I'm thinking of times when I've introduced students to the idea that racism and sexism are structures: not just events, not just 'bad speech' but a habitus too. It's n...