That's very inefficient and against human nature. After dealing with several individuals of a certain group, they will get assigned a rating, and any further interaction will either be welcome or undesirable, but if unavoidable, will be judged individually, still with a bias.
Everyone has cognitive biases, yes; this podcast, which I direct you to specifically [1] has made me realise more readily the biases I have and allows me to attempt to correct for them. Just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.
That looks interesting. I am painfully aware of how much dumber and slower I am than other people, profiling is what I choose to do because it's easier. Stone me if you want, I don't have long to live anyway.
That’s terrible to hear jotm, I hope you have people to talk to and if not my email is in my profile. Maybe there is some esoteric treatment worth a punt... still worth hunting around for a second opinion and emailing a few universities.
What a joyous, enlightened age we live in, where sexism is dead and there's peace and love for all.
That's the genius of the extreme left. Before, there was a universal principle-based definition of sexism. By re-defining the term {sexism} so that it's only something that one particular gender does to another, they've eliminated by redefinition almost 50% of all {sexism}, converting whole categories of bigotry based on in-born characteristics into virtuousness.
It's probably a complicated philosophical question as to whether someone who litters is an idiot. I mean they're saving themselves effort at the expense of other people ("That makes me smart" to quote the president). Immoral probably fits better in these cases.
These are like the chocolate/wine/coffee-are-good-for-you studies. They make people feel good and want to share them. Studies saying that men are better at certain things would not evoke the same pride and sharing urge in this cultural moment, at least among the desired demographic.
I really am puzzled by articles denigrating men. If I were an alien from another planet I would wonder why men even exist if I were to read all such articles (Yes I know men are only good for reproduction).
Sure there are a lot of bad/evil/despicable men out there as there are a lot of women (you can downvote me, but it doesn't change reality). Let's take a recent example, it is a known fact that Trump doesn't respect women that much; yet the reason he won the presidency is perpetuated by the media as, he won because of the disenchanted 'white men'. Excuse me? 42% of women voted for him, this isn't a trivial percentage like a statistical error. Why isn't there any spotlight on this?
This whole men vs women debate is just utter ridiculous (in most respects); call a spade a spade and don't resort to dog whistle tactics.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here? Do you doubt their findings? I think everyone (esp us men) should be aware of the effects ̶p̶̶a̶̶t̶̶r̶̶i̶̶a̶̶r̶̶c̶̶h̶̶y̶ social constructs around masculinity can have on your behavior.
Swaggering across the crosswalk, in such a way as to inconvenience others is considered manly. I know, because some random stranger in Cincinnati actually tried to give me lessons on that, specifically with regards to manliness. I hate those idiots.
What do you plan to do about it? I am not asking to provoke, but I have some friends who fall into this category as well. How do we change the mindset? I live in a place where it isn't the case, but I grew up in GA and saw it everywhere. What would it take to convince folks that taking care of the place we live isn't ladylike or manly, but rather necessary for our health and survival?
Simple. Have a society that values things working correctly. The nicer parts of Stuttgart used to be like this. Jaywalk? People look at you like you're scum. See trash? You didn't ever see a single scrap of trash, other than around those stalk-like cigarette butt receptacles. In fact, when I visited in 2000, every outdoor trash receptacle in Stuttgart was completely airtight by law. I had the strange (for me) experience of walking through a major urban area without once smelling trash.
Here in SF, in some parts of the city, you have to keep an eye out to avoid human feces.
My love of “green living” stems from a love of nature. I’ve always loved going on walks in the “non developed” places. For one, the air is always fresher. For two, the plants and wildlife are often beautiful. I don’t see how being able to appreciate what “is” should make someone less masculine. It’s like these people have never met a mountaineer capable of living off the land and his own two hands. Not much could be manlier. (It’s also faminine, too, according to the article.) What an utterly silly concept.
Last I knew, survival training was standard in the training of the armed forces across all countries. You’re welcome to call the Navy Seals feminine, but I wouldn’t.
Most of the "green behavior" in the article is more about class signaling than about actually preserving the environment. Recycling[1], bag reuse[2], and similar behaviors in general don't actually make a significant difference. They might even be more hurtful than helpful.
As for the bags at least, that's absolutely not what that article says.
In fact, that article doesn't take into account the littering of plastic bags. But sure, I'll grant that if you're the type to reuse bags, you probably aren't the type to litter the plastic ones in the first place.
> Men who feel secure in their manhood are more comfortable going green.
This is so obvious in retrospect I am ashamed for not noticing it sooner. Men's insecurity about their own masculinity/sexuality causes so many problems it's downright depressing.
It's about society. I'm speaking about the majority of western civilization _currently_.
Men seem less concerned with improvements/collateral damage and more concerned with success/creating/succeeding. Women are raised more social and won't throw everyone under the bus to achieve their goals.
What is the first thing a man says to another? "What do you do for a living?" it's about success and ranks.
What's the first thing a woman says? "Hi! Where do you live/Hows your day" It's about community.
Both of these mindsets are firmly ingrained in us from childhood.
Be careful about these observations - they got a guy fired from Google. Apparently even if they are factual observations they aren't allowed. Of course Men and Women are different; but admitting so - perhaps as part of a explanation for non-equal outcomes brings trouble.
It's OK to note differences between groups; you just have to make sure you're saying positive things about the lower-status group, not the higher-status group. It's a part of victimhood culture.
It's how I perceived the things that happened. Perhaps he takes his case to court and we can see what the court says about the ability to fire him over what he said.
Google fired him for making a manifesto about gender differences, political differences and Google's own echo chamber issue. That's not a lie.
>Google fired him for making a manifesto about gender differences, political differences and Google's own echo chamber issue. That's not a lie.
Google fired him for creating a PR nightmare because he wrote a shitty manifesto that misrepresented a few cherry-picked Wikipedia articles. Google has been nothing but conservative lately, this whole "They fired him because they're liberal!" thing is absolutely incorrect.
According to article, putting manly logo on eco product made men more likely to be eco.
It does not sounded to be lack of care on the men side, but worry about social stigma and bad feeling from doing something gender inappropriate. Put in dark colors and voila, men care.
It is not about men being bad. We don't need to force that stereotype into every single discussion.
>It's about society... Men seem less concerned with improvements/collateral damage and more concerned with success/creating/succeeding.
Men are the ones who are inventing and implementing all of the big society level improvements in carbon footprint. Who invented the LED light bulb? Who are the ones on the cranes installing energy efficient bulbs in streetlights all across the country? Who is installing all those solar panels on roofs? What's the gender ratio of engineers at Tesla inventing the next generation of low carbon vehicles?
Men are doing a great job of reducing the population's carbon footprint. They just aren't doing it in the way women are.
I observed this unscientifically in the 90s and marketers have known this for equally as long. Surprised it hasn't been studied before now.
I would say it extends to certain types of men equating responsibility with feminism. It was an unfortunate social construct and one that I see fading.
I think it also has to do with a certain masculine energy, or exuberance, or desire to act. It's feminine to worry about consequences. It's masculine to damn the torpedoes. There's a real need for action – any action – and that usually means giving little consideration to anything outside the actor himself.
Maybe. But people have to want to receive the message, too.
Protecting the environment is liberal and unmanly, unless you're a Republican in a Rocky Mountain state.
Magically, over there environmentalism is a Republican value, too. Funny how Republicans don't worry about liberal and unmanly when an issue hits them, personally.
The problem with so many Republicans is that they can't conceive of being on the other side of the coin until it smacks them over the head.
Although Teddy Roosevelt was a Democrat, he remains probably the most "manly" example of environmental conservation. The message is not inherently un-tailorable to the hard-working everyman: we've become reluctant to do so under the pretense that one day, he'll magically stop being something marketing departments secretly despise.
These folks hold the relation "environmentalism == feminine == unacceptable" in their minds.
You could try to reinforce "environmentalism != feminine", and that's certainly easier. But there is still a great deal of wrongness in "feminine == unacceptable" and you choose to ignore it, even perpetuate it, by changing your tune to appease fragile men.
I can't speak for littering or recycling, but it seems quite obvious to me that men will leave a larger carbon footprint. If nothing else, men are physically larger. They consume more food, they wear larger clothing, etc.
Women may be content to drive that Prius themselves, but they tend to want to sleep with men whose cars measure their mileage in gallons per mile rather than miles per gallon. Further, men are often the ones with the kinds of jobs or household tasks which require carrying heavy loads, so they're the ones who drive the trucks. The article talks about green marketing towards men. That's wholly unnecessary and probably wasteful. Somehow you gotta convince women that they want to fuck guys who drive pre-owned Civic hybrids.
>I can't speak for littering or recycling, but it seems quite obvious to me that men will leave a larger carbon footprint. If nothing else, men are physically larger. They consume more food, they wear larger clothing, etc.
I don't have hard data to back it up, but in my observation, women, on average, consume much more clothing and shoes than men do. Add to that makeup and other personal care products, and I don't think your point is as solid you think it is.
This has been obvious for a long time, and is probably the exact reason why the green movement has been associated with liberals as well.
Conservatism and masculinity are deeply intertwined (I don't want to say "patriarchy" because I'll offend people) but without a doubt, this past election and the messaging used exposes a deep ideological hang-up in conservatives regarding gender roles and masculinity.
But I've noticed a way to completely and totally side-step this problem.
Sustainability does not challenge a man's masculinity.
The permaculture movement and similar concepts do not challenge masculinity, either.
I've found that the same conservative men in my life (I'm from Georgia here in the South) who scoff at the 'green', sneer at a local restaurant which offers "recycle and compost, but no trash can" as being effeminate millennial nonsense, can see great conservative value in living a sustainable rural lifestyle. Farming, self-sufficiency, the repair not replace movement, permaculture, all of this can be very palatable or even engaging and exciting to a conservative.
Caveat: This does not work on fundamentalist Christians who believe that God has created the planet for them to use and is handling things top down. I've met a number of Christian conservatives who disagree with green/sustainable on purely religious grounds that God simply wouldn't let things get out of hand.
But sustainable, permanent culture jives with prepper-culture rather deeply, so can be made to seem masculine when the end result is the same: reduce, reuse, recycle. When it becomes less "stop liberal global warming" and more "protect your family by preparing them to sustainably survive for as long as possible" it plays to conservative desires very well.
Do you think if environmentalism were rebranded as Patriotic or Nationalist that men previously averse to environmentalism would become environmentalists and vice versa, current environmentalists who may lean left might rebel and become eco-careless?
Let's take a nationalistic country like Brazil. Do you think macho Brazilians would become more receptive to environmentalism if it were associated more vigorously with manliness, for example? I'm curious what you think the result would be.
I wish more people acted like you - looking for a compatible frame, rather than getting mad at the other side. For my part I feel there is something about “keep government off my back” that would resonate with “civil liberties”.
It’s ironic, in a sad way, that the liberal intelligencia, that very group of people who dedicated their lives to studying the use of language, rethorics, logic, psychology, history of philosophy, journalism, could not come together and form a cohesive argument in a way that speaks to the values of their opponents.
There is research about reframing arguments for a given topic in terms of values that are highly important to a given political ideology[1]. In short, there are priors of deeply-held values that can reliably predict a political stance. With this you can potentially convince those opposed to an action on grounds of some aspect of it (be it perceived masculinity of actor, or religious reasons) to reconsider the action from a familiar perspective by reframing the argument in terms of the audience's most deeply-respected values (e.g. purity, masculinity, patriotism).
One of the things that sucks about the battle against global warming is that it is the world's largest collective action problem. In order to realistically stop it we have to cooperate on a massive scale. And there is a massive amount of evidence that we are not going to cooperate effectively on this.
So anyone past a certain point on the individualist/collectivist spectrum might see their non-cooperation toward global warming as pure virtue signalling, without any realistic chance of their individual action having a measurable effect on the world.
Individualism is a conservative/masculine virtue to a greater degree than collectivism. So it is easy to see why someone may prefer to choose a non-cooperative stance on global warming as a pure virtue signalling move.
Some branches of Christianity believe strongly identify with a tight social hierarchy. God->Man->Woman. Married women are to submit to their husbands. Unmarried women are subjects of their fathers.
That’s why traditionally Kings were always coronated by bishops and linked to the church. There was an implicit endorsement by god. Today, churches with these types of philosophies are a key part of republican get out the vote movements. That’s why politicians kowtow to people like Falwell.
The conservative movement was engineered in its current state to meet the needs of western resource owners, who wanted to maximize their return on resource extraction and socially conservative folks who were hesitant about the scope of social change.
That, and the excesses of the environmental movement created this weird environment we have today. The gun culture people I grew up with were deeply concerned about waterfowl and loss of wildlife habitat, as they felt a duty to be stewards to it. Now, that’s devolved into this sort of gun porn.
The example that came to mind for me is rolling coal. It's about as flagrantly defiant a rejection of environmentalism as I can think of. I don't doubt that many men view driving hybrid cars or eating less meat as unappealing because they see it as effeminate.
Most recycling efforts actually waste resources. Whereas it will always be economically wise to recycle aluminum, it is often unwise to recycle paper and it is always a waste of resources to recycle plastic. So why do it? As a practice, it helps indicate membership in a particular community. In that sense, it is like a secular halal/kosher practice:
Those are religious practices that help establish the legitimacy of one's belonging. Whereas Christianity is based on faith, Judaism is based on practice, and Islam is a bit of a mix.
What if you are secular but you want to indicate the legitimacy of your belonging to a particular sub-culture? Practices such as recycling are useful in that regard. Note that recycling took off during the 1960s, an era that saw both widespread interest in spiritual matters yet also a turning away from traditional religions.
Although halal/kosher behavior is always certified by men, the actual details of implementing it in a house are often left to women. It is up to Jewish women to make sure that all the food they buy is kosher.
So in that sense, recycling follows an ancient pattern, already set by some of the world's biggest world religions.
As a female, I think this article didn't take into consideration that we buy a lot of shit! Clothes, make up, body care items, etc... I swear we produce more trash than men for the sake of vanity!
So yeah, maybe women do recycle more but I think we produce a lot more trash than your average manly man who wears the same shirt 3x a week and doesn't need to apply hand lotions every half hour.
The article mentions the larger carbon footprint of men. It is alos mentioned in the study:
> One of the obstacles identified by prior research is that compared to women, men are less likely to be eco-friendly in their attitudes, choices, and behaviors (Davidson and Freudenburg 1996; Lee and Holden 1999). Women display greater concern and willingness to take action to help the environment, and this effect is robust across age groups and countries (Cottrell 2003; Dietz, Kalof, and Stern 2002; Levin 1990; Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich 2000). In contrast, men litter more (Kallgren, Reno, and Cialdini 2000), recycle less (Zelezny et al. 2000), have a larger overall carbon footprint (Reaty and Carlsson-Kanyama 2010), and feel less guilty about living a nongreen lifestyle (Tiller 2014)
That implies that women's consumption is also either less or has a smaller impact
I didn't flag it, but I'm not bothered that others did. It's producing some very low-quality discussion from people who very clearly did not read the article.
Out of curiosity, why was this article flagged? It was #3 on the front page, and now it's gone. I get that it's not the most HN-type article in the world, but neither is the current #3 (Airbus discontinuing a plane if it doesn't land a deal).
Startups that care about marketing of green products, or about marketing in general, might find this discussion to be interesting.
I've come to the conclusion that our stupid biological impulse to rub our genitals together will be the ultimate limiter on how far our species can go. We're just monkeys wearing pants, desperate to take them off and fling poo, procreate or rip someone's face off.
We need a Brave New World type future where babies are grown in a lab, neutered and handed a month long prescription of soma.
Manipulating men by challenging their masculinity is one of the oldest tricks in the book. The British used it to divide India - the "martial races" were rustic, manly warriors, the "non-martial races" (read: the ones who opposed British imperialism) were effete, urbane bookworms. The Romans and Greeks likely built up stereotypes about archery as unmanly at least in part to encourage their citizens to volunteer for the brutal, thankless job of being infantrymen. One of the ways medieval christian Europe vilified Jewish men was to claim they were so feminine they menstruated monthly, and therefore were inhuman monsters (medieval christian europe was also really sexist, btw).
That environmentalism may accidentally be pressing those same buttons is quite unfortunate, but not unexpected to me. We see things like rolling coal as a deliberate attempt by some men to "combat" what they perceive as non-masculine green living, and there did seem to be an attempt to spin the fracking debate into a gendered issue. Ideally we'd have grown past this as a society, but I guess people are going to be people whatever the age.
I personally have always been pretty comfortable violating gender norms on these types of issues. The idea of not doing things I enjoyed just because it was supposed to be "for girls" always struck me as absurd. Or conversely, doing things I hated (getting dirty, playing football, drinking beer) just because that's what men do and you want to be manly don't you?
"Hey bro, let's get dirty bro and shotgun some beers bro."
That is such a weird way for people to think about masculinity.
If masculinity is something that should resist manipulation, then it cannot be defined behaviorally. Such a definition would mean that you must adhere to certain behaviors in order to be described as masculine.
Masculinity for me is attitudinal. Resistance to anxiety. Physical strength. Intelligence. Mastery over emotions. Perseverence. A willingness to fight to the death if necessary to preserve something held inviolable. Circumspectness. The ability to smile and keep moving even when in pain and under pressure. Respect for those who are not strong enough to demand it. Hard work. A desire to improve one's station in life, or that of his children.
I feel that this paints a more dynamic, more useful picture of masculinity than "football, dirt, beer." And I should be explicit: I recognize that some people do see those activities as masculine. I'm not disagreeing at all with your assessment there. I just don't think they capture the essence of masculinity, nor have those things historically been the definition of masculinity throughout human history.
The "green" behaviors in this study are oddly specific. At least four of the six experiments appear to be heavily biased towards grocery shopping, and one involves contributing to a nonprofit (WTF).
You have to feel a little sorry for the four male authors. They spent countless hours scouring twenty-plus-year-old research to cite sources and claim these articles say that men don't care about the environment. One seventeen-year-old paper is cited as saying that men "leave a smaller carbon footprint," but all it actually suggests is that out of four specific European countries, single-man households in Greece and Sweden use more energy (in statistically significant amounts) than single-women households in those two countries.
In Study 4, I don't see how anyone could draw a "green" association with a lamp, battery, or backpack. All of these products have tradeoffs.
In Study 5, note that the female cohort in declined in "green"-ness for the manly packaging. This suggests to me that the control was probably somewhat feminine, and people are more likely to prefer products that correspond to their gender norms -- whether or not those products have an underlying pro-environmental utility.
> Although only mem [sic] had been recruited to participate in [Study 4], 14 participants reported their gender as female and were therefore excluded.
WTF kind of methodology is that?
Finally, I note that the archetype of a manly conservationist is strong in the USA. Teddy Roosevelt. John Muir. Ralph Waldo Emerson. Ansel Adams. These people did more than carrying a disposable shopping bag to Whole Foods, and selecting the "green" backpack.
> In Study 4, I don't see how anyone could draw a "green" association with a lamp, battery, or backpack. All of these products have tradeoffs.
If one lamp uses a high wattage halogen bulb, for example, and another uses LEDs with equivalent lumens, then it is pretty easy to associate "green" with the later. Similar for a one-use battery vs. a rechargeable battery. Similar for a backpack made out of non-sustainable or non-recyclable materials vs. one made from sustainable and recyclable materials.
It sounds like you might be thinking they were asked to choose between a lamp, battery, or backpack, but as described in the article they were asked to choose a lamp, battery AND backpack, with both green and non-green versions of each of these items available:
article> In one study, we threatened the masculinity of male participants by showing them a pink gift card with a floral design and asking them to imagine using the card to purchase three products (lamp, backpack, and batteries). Compared to men shown a standard gift card, threatened men were more likely to choose the non-green rather than green version of each item
Nah. I actually read that part twice because I was so mystified by the absurdity of it.
Light bulbs are not obvious. CFLs are efficient but produced with toxic mercury; LED bulbs are efficient but produced with plastics, semiconductors, and sometimes phosphor; and incandescent bulbs are inefficient but simpler to make, with fewer harmful materials.
If the choice is between a CFL and an incandescent, it's unclear whether the mercury in the CFL is justified by its higher efficiency. LEDs are the most efficient of the three by far, but production and disposal may ultimately be worse for the environment than is the case with incandescents.
I fail to see how any backpack can be a "green" choice. I have an Ortlieb waterproof bag made almost entirely out of synthetic materials. It has lasted more than 10 years. I could have bought one wax-impregnated hemp canvas bag per year instead. However, this bag has through-hiked the Appalachian Trail on a friend's back, ridden through several countries atop my motorcycle, and made its way through many other outdoor situations that would have proven too trying for a "green" bag. Ultimately those outdoor experiences have helped to solidify multiple people's appreciation for nature, probably resulting in a greater net contribution to conservation than a bag made by some hippie somewhere.
For batteries, you would have to consider lifespan, production, disposal, energy density, power density, propensity to leak, etc.
See where I'm coming from? For the reasons I mentioned above, it seems to me that they just took a subjective stance on largely arbitrary shopping choices. Note that they don't go into depth about the structure of their experiments, the isolation of variables (eg, maybe men are more frugal and "green" choices cost more, so how do we control for that) nor about the math behind their analysis, which tells me that they either (A) had some kind of length limit for their publication, or (B) didn't feel those details were flattering.
I think you may be overlooking that in general when a consumer is considering whether or not to go for the "green" product, that consumer is probably not considering things like battery power density, or whether or not the mercury in a CFL is worse for the environment than the energy savings benefit the environment.
Most consumers decide if a product is green or not based on whether or not it is marketed as such, plus some common sense. Whether or not that actually works for identifying the greener product is not really relevant to the research in the article. All that matters is that test subjects (presumably average consumers) believe that the choice presented as greener was greener.
> Note that they don't go into depth about the structure of their experiments, the isolation of variables (eg, maybe men are more frugal and "green" choices cost more, so how do we control for that) nor about the math behind their analysis, which tells me that they either (A) had some kind of length limit for their publication, or (B) didn't feel those details were flattering.
Or maybe that is in the peer reviewed journal article that the research was published in? The submitted article is in a popular science magazine for the general public, where such details are in general omitted.
I don't think it's so clear that most people are ignorant about what they are buying. I hope we can agree that at least some men are not. In today's world, people are commonly talking about dangerous substances in common products, so I would be surprised if I'm the only one who pays attention. BPA, styrofoam, mercury, artificial preservatives, GMOs, bovine hormones...there are many successful mass market products that are marketed as being free of these.
I also think a lot of what the studies measure, if they measure anything at all, is virtue signaling. A countertheory might be that virtue signaling is a feminine behavior, and that when a man feels emasculated he tends to reject feminine behaviors like buying "green" backpacks (whatever those are).
This is the second time you are insinuating that I either didn't read, or didn't understand, the literature. Not only did I read the article, I also read both versions of the paper and some or all of several of their cited papers. The link you just posted was available in a different comment, and I have access to severak journals through an institutional license.
I would appreciate if you would stop making ad hominem responses. If you have disagree with something I said, tell or show me what and why. Don't assert that I can't read, or that I'm reading the wrong thing. Such assertions are logically useless and they run counter to HN's guidelines (see footer).
If I'm wrong, show me where in the text of the paper you just linked. And if not, accept it: they aren't rigorous in explaining their experiments and their methods for isolating variables.
86 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 134 ms ] threadI hope it's true statistically, because I'll call bullshit on that any day.
> men may shun eco-friendly behavior because of what it conveys about their masculinity
Instead of inventing roundabout descriptions, let's just call them what they are: close minded idiots.
What a joyous, enlightened age we live in, where sexism is dead and there's peace and love for all.
Everyone does this, whether they admit it or not.
[1] https://youarenotsosmart.com/podcast/
What a joyous, enlightened age we live in, where sexism is dead and there's peace and love for all.
That's the genius of the extreme left. Before, there was a universal principle-based definition of sexism. By re-defining the term {sexism} so that it's only something that one particular gender does to another, they've eliminated by redefinition almost 50% of all {sexism}, converting whole categories of bigotry based on in-born characteristics into virtuousness.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-jo-martin/study-companies...
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600812/female-coders-are-...
http://amp.timeinc.net/time/money/4430721/compromise-women-m...
https://venturebeat.com/2015/01/27/study-girls-outperform-bo...
I really am puzzled by articles denigrating men. If I were an alien from another planet I would wonder why men even exist if I were to read all such articles (Yes I know men are only good for reproduction).
Sure there are a lot of bad/evil/despicable men out there as there are a lot of women (you can downvote me, but it doesn't change reality). Let's take a recent example, it is a known fact that Trump doesn't respect women that much; yet the reason he won the presidency is perpetuated by the media as, he won because of the disenchanted 'white men'. Excuse me? 42% of women voted for him, this isn't a trivial percentage like a statistical error. Why isn't there any spotlight on this?
This whole men vs women debate is just utter ridiculous (in most respects); call a spade a spade and don't resort to dog whistle tactics.
closes eyes, breathes deeply
inhales smog
...the nasty 'Nnati.
Here in SF, in some parts of the city, you have to keep an eye out to avoid human feces.
Last I knew, survival training was standard in the training of the armed forces across all countries. You’re welcome to call the Navy Seals feminine, but I wouldn’t.
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-reign-...
2: https://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/reusable-bags-only-su...
In fact, that article doesn't take into account the littering of plastic bags. But sure, I'll grant that if you're the type to reuse bags, you probably aren't the type to litter the plastic ones in the first place.
This is so obvious in retrospect I am ashamed for not noticing it sooner. Men's insecurity about their own masculinity/sexuality causes so many problems it's downright depressing.
Men seem less concerned with improvements/collateral damage and more concerned with success/creating/succeeding. Women are raised more social and won't throw everyone under the bus to achieve their goals.
What is the first thing a man says to another? "What do you do for a living?" it's about success and ranks.
What's the first thing a woman says? "Hi! Where do you live/Hows your day" It's about community.
Both of these mindsets are firmly ingrained in us from childhood.
Google fired him for making a manifesto about gender differences, political differences and Google's own echo chamber issue. That's not a lie.
Google fired him for creating a PR nightmare because he wrote a shitty manifesto that misrepresented a few cherry-picked Wikipedia articles. Google has been nothing but conservative lately, this whole "They fired him because they're liberal!" thing is absolutely incorrect.
It does not sounded to be lack of care on the men side, but worry about social stigma and bad feeling from doing something gender inappropriate. Put in dark colors and voila, men care.
It is not about men being bad. We don't need to force that stereotype into every single discussion.
Men are the ones who are inventing and implementing all of the big society level improvements in carbon footprint. Who invented the LED light bulb? Who are the ones on the cranes installing energy efficient bulbs in streetlights all across the country? Who is installing all those solar panels on roofs? What's the gender ratio of engineers at Tesla inventing the next generation of low carbon vehicles?
Men are doing a great job of reducing the population's carbon footprint. They just aren't doing it in the way women are.
I would say it extends to certain types of men equating responsibility with feminism. It was an unfortunate social construct and one that I see fading.
Protecting the environment is liberal and unmanly, unless you're a Republican in a Rocky Mountain state.
Magically, over there environmentalism is a Republican value, too. Funny how Republicans don't worry about liberal and unmanly when an issue hits them, personally.
The problem with so many Republicans is that they can't conceive of being on the other side of the coin until it smacks them over the head.
You could try to reinforce "environmentalism != feminine", and that's certainly easier. But there is still a great deal of wrongness in "feminine == unacceptable" and you choose to ignore it, even perpetuate it, by changing your tune to appease fragile men.
Women may be content to drive that Prius themselves, but they tend to want to sleep with men whose cars measure their mileage in gallons per mile rather than miles per gallon. Further, men are often the ones with the kinds of jobs or household tasks which require carrying heavy loads, so they're the ones who drive the trucks. The article talks about green marketing towards men. That's wholly unnecessary and probably wasteful. Somehow you gotta convince women that they want to fuck guys who drive pre-owned Civic hybrids.
It's appropriately gray now :)
I don't have hard data to back it up, but in my observation, women, on average, consume much more clothing and shoes than men do. Add to that makeup and other personal care products, and I don't think your point is as solid you think it is.
Conservatism and masculinity are deeply intertwined (I don't want to say "patriarchy" because I'll offend people) but without a doubt, this past election and the messaging used exposes a deep ideological hang-up in conservatives regarding gender roles and masculinity.
But I've noticed a way to completely and totally side-step this problem.
Sustainability does not challenge a man's masculinity.
The permaculture movement and similar concepts do not challenge masculinity, either.
I've found that the same conservative men in my life (I'm from Georgia here in the South) who scoff at the 'green', sneer at a local restaurant which offers "recycle and compost, but no trash can" as being effeminate millennial nonsense, can see great conservative value in living a sustainable rural lifestyle. Farming, self-sufficiency, the repair not replace movement, permaculture, all of this can be very palatable or even engaging and exciting to a conservative.
Caveat: This does not work on fundamentalist Christians who believe that God has created the planet for them to use and is handling things top down. I've met a number of Christian conservatives who disagree with green/sustainable on purely religious grounds that God simply wouldn't let things get out of hand.
But sustainable, permanent culture jives with prepper-culture rather deeply, so can be made to seem masculine when the end result is the same: reduce, reuse, recycle. When it becomes less "stop liberal global warming" and more "protect your family by preparing them to sustainably survive for as long as possible" it plays to conservative desires very well.
Let's take a nationalistic country like Brazil. Do you think macho Brazilians would become more receptive to environmentalism if it were associated more vigorously with manliness, for example? I'm curious what you think the result would be.
It’s ironic, in a sad way, that the liberal intelligencia, that very group of people who dedicated their lives to studying the use of language, rethorics, logic, psychology, history of philosophy, journalism, could not come together and form a cohesive argument in a way that speaks to the values of their opponents.
A great example would be Cassie Jaye and her film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160425143307.h...
https://www.ted.com/talks/robb_willer_how_to_have_better_pol...
So anyone past a certain point on the individualist/collectivist spectrum might see their non-cooperation toward global warming as pure virtue signalling, without any realistic chance of their individual action having a measurable effect on the world.
Individualism is a conservative/masculine virtue to a greater degree than collectivism. So it is easy to see why someone may prefer to choose a non-cooperative stance on global warming as a pure virtue signalling move.
Why do you say conservatism is intertwined with masculinity but not femininity? Does one make sense without the other?
That’s why traditionally Kings were always coronated by bishops and linked to the church. There was an implicit endorsement by god. Today, churches with these types of philosophies are a key part of republican get out the vote movements. That’s why politicians kowtow to people like Falwell.
That, and the excesses of the environmental movement created this weird environment we have today. The gun culture people I grew up with were deeply concerned about waterfowl and loss of wildlife habitat, as they felt a duty to be stewards to it. Now, that’s devolved into this sort of gun porn.
Write an internal letter that generalizes female traits to explain a negative like the lack of female engineers and you get fired from Google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Islamic_and_Jewi...
Those are religious practices that help establish the legitimacy of one's belonging. Whereas Christianity is based on faith, Judaism is based on practice, and Islam is a bit of a mix.
What if you are secular but you want to indicate the legitimacy of your belonging to a particular sub-culture? Practices such as recycling are useful in that regard. Note that recycling took off during the 1960s, an era that saw both widespread interest in spiritual matters yet also a turning away from traditional religions.
Although halal/kosher behavior is always certified by men, the actual details of implementing it in a house are often left to women. It is up to Jewish women to make sure that all the food they buy is kosher.
So in that sense, recycling follows an ancient pattern, already set by some of the world's biggest world religions.
So yeah, maybe women do recycle more but I think we produce a lot more trash than your average manly man who wears the same shirt 3x a week and doesn't need to apply hand lotions every half hour.
> One of the obstacles identified by prior research is that compared to women, men are less likely to be eco-friendly in their attitudes, choices, and behaviors (Davidson and Freudenburg 1996; Lee and Holden 1999). Women display greater concern and willingness to take action to help the environment, and this effect is robust across age groups and countries (Cottrell 2003; Dietz, Kalof, and Stern 2002; Levin 1990; Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich 2000). In contrast, men litter more (Kallgren, Reno, and Cialdini 2000), recycle less (Zelezny et al. 2000), have a larger overall carbon footprint (Reaty and Carlsson-Kanyama 2010), and feel less guilty about living a nongreen lifestyle (Tiller 2014)
That implies that women's consumption is also either less or has a smaller impact
Startups that care about marketing of green products, or about marketing in general, might find this discussion to be interesting.
We need a Brave New World type future where babies are grown in a lab, neutered and handed a month long prescription of soma.
That environmentalism may accidentally be pressing those same buttons is quite unfortunate, but not unexpected to me. We see things like rolling coal as a deliberate attempt by some men to "combat" what they perceive as non-masculine green living, and there did seem to be an attempt to spin the fracking debate into a gendered issue. Ideally we'd have grown past this as a society, but I guess people are going to be people whatever the age.
I personally have always been pretty comfortable violating gender norms on these types of issues. The idea of not doing things I enjoyed just because it was supposed to be "for girls" always struck me as absurd. Or conversely, doing things I hated (getting dirty, playing football, drinking beer) just because that's what men do and you want to be manly don't you?
That is such a weird way for people to think about masculinity.
If masculinity is something that should resist manipulation, then it cannot be defined behaviorally. Such a definition would mean that you must adhere to certain behaviors in order to be described as masculine.
Masculinity for me is attitudinal. Resistance to anxiety. Physical strength. Intelligence. Mastery over emotions. Perseverence. A willingness to fight to the death if necessary to preserve something held inviolable. Circumspectness. The ability to smile and keep moving even when in pain and under pressure. Respect for those who are not strong enough to demand it. Hard work. A desire to improve one's station in life, or that of his children.
I feel that this paints a more dynamic, more useful picture of masculinity than "football, dirt, beer." And I should be explicit: I recognize that some people do see those activities as masculine. I'm not disagreeing at all with your assessment there. I just don't think they capture the essence of masculinity, nor have those things historically been the definition of masculinity throughout human history.
You have to feel a little sorry for the four male authors. They spent countless hours scouring twenty-plus-year-old research to cite sources and claim these articles say that men don't care about the environment. One seventeen-year-old paper is cited as saying that men "leave a smaller carbon footprint," but all it actually suggests is that out of four specific European countries, single-man households in Greece and Sweden use more energy (in statistically significant amounts) than single-women households in those two countries.
In Study 4, I don't see how anyone could draw a "green" association with a lamp, battery, or backpack. All of these products have tradeoffs.
In Study 5, note that the female cohort in declined in "green"-ness for the manly packaging. This suggests to me that the control was probably somewhat feminine, and people are more likely to prefer products that correspond to their gender norms -- whether or not those products have an underlying pro-environmental utility.
> Although only mem [sic] had been recruited to participate in [Study 4], 14 participants reported their gender as female and were therefore excluded.
WTF kind of methodology is that?
Finally, I note that the archetype of a manly conservationist is strong in the USA. Teddy Roosevelt. John Muir. Ralph Waldo Emerson. Ansel Adams. These people did more than carrying a disposable shopping bag to Whole Foods, and selecting the "green" backpack.
If one lamp uses a high wattage halogen bulb, for example, and another uses LEDs with equivalent lumens, then it is pretty easy to associate "green" with the later. Similar for a one-use battery vs. a rechargeable battery. Similar for a backpack made out of non-sustainable or non-recyclable materials vs. one made from sustainable and recyclable materials.
It sounds like you might be thinking they were asked to choose between a lamp, battery, or backpack, but as described in the article they were asked to choose a lamp, battery AND backpack, with both green and non-green versions of each of these items available:
article> In one study, we threatened the masculinity of male participants by showing them a pink gift card with a floral design and asking them to imagine using the card to purchase three products (lamp, backpack, and batteries). Compared to men shown a standard gift card, threatened men were more likely to choose the non-green rather than green version of each item
Light bulbs are not obvious. CFLs are efficient but produced with toxic mercury; LED bulbs are efficient but produced with plastics, semiconductors, and sometimes phosphor; and incandescent bulbs are inefficient but simpler to make, with fewer harmful materials.
If the choice is between a CFL and an incandescent, it's unclear whether the mercury in the CFL is justified by its higher efficiency. LEDs are the most efficient of the three by far, but production and disposal may ultimately be worse for the environment than is the case with incandescents.
I fail to see how any backpack can be a "green" choice. I have an Ortlieb waterproof bag made almost entirely out of synthetic materials. It has lasted more than 10 years. I could have bought one wax-impregnated hemp canvas bag per year instead. However, this bag has through-hiked the Appalachian Trail on a friend's back, ridden through several countries atop my motorcycle, and made its way through many other outdoor situations that would have proven too trying for a "green" bag. Ultimately those outdoor experiences have helped to solidify multiple people's appreciation for nature, probably resulting in a greater net contribution to conservation than a bag made by some hippie somewhere.
For batteries, you would have to consider lifespan, production, disposal, energy density, power density, propensity to leak, etc.
See where I'm coming from? For the reasons I mentioned above, it seems to me that they just took a subjective stance on largely arbitrary shopping choices. Note that they don't go into depth about the structure of their experiments, the isolation of variables (eg, maybe men are more frugal and "green" choices cost more, so how do we control for that) nor about the math behind their analysis, which tells me that they either (A) had some kind of length limit for their publication, or (B) didn't feel those details were flattering.
Most consumers decide if a product is green or not based on whether or not it is marketed as such, plus some common sense. Whether or not that actually works for identifying the greener product is not really relevant to the research in the article. All that matters is that test subjects (presumably average consumers) believe that the choice presented as greener was greener.
> Note that they don't go into depth about the structure of their experiments, the isolation of variables (eg, maybe men are more frugal and "green" choices cost more, so how do we control for that) nor about the math behind their analysis, which tells me that they either (A) had some kind of length limit for their publication, or (B) didn't feel those details were flattering.
Or maybe that is in the peer reviewed journal article that the research was published in? The submitted article is in a popular science magazine for the general public, where such details are in general omitted.
The journal article is not in a free journal, but here's a copy Googling turned up: https://huntsman.usu.edu/directory/documents/BroughEtAl_JCR2...
I also think a lot of what the studies measure, if they measure anything at all, is virtue signaling. A countertheory might be that virtue signaling is a feminine behavior, and that when a man feels emasculated he tends to reject feminine behaviors like buying "green" backpacks (whatever those are).
This is the second time you are insinuating that I either didn't read, or didn't understand, the literature. Not only did I read the article, I also read both versions of the paper and some or all of several of their cited papers. The link you just posted was available in a different comment, and I have access to severak journals through an institutional license.
I would appreciate if you would stop making ad hominem responses. If you have disagree with something I said, tell or show me what and why. Don't assert that I can't read, or that I'm reading the wrong thing. Such assertions are logically useless and they run counter to HN's guidelines (see footer).
If I'm wrong, show me where in the text of the paper you just linked. And if not, accept it: they aren't rigorous in explaining their experiments and their methods for isolating variables.
"Woman resist entrepreneurial behavior as un-feminist"