Men Resist Green Behavior as Un-Manly

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.

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?

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.

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.

Marketing problem. They're not doing anything wrong by resisting the message; we're not selling the message correctly.

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.

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.

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:

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.

The underlying paper, as available from the authors: https://huntsman.usu.edu/directory/documents/BroughEtAl_JCR2...

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.

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.

It may not be the case for all men but I'd say that the article is accurate when it comes to me.

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.

> Compared to men, women litter less, recycle more, and leave a smaller carbon footprint.

I 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.

> 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.

This article was hilarious. I hope they do the other side next:

"Woman resist entrepreneurial behavior as un-feminist"

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.

Write an article that generalizes male traits to explain a negative like eco-conscious behavior and it's an SA article worthy of front-page HN.

Write an internal letter that generalizes female traits to explain a negative like the lack of female engineers and you get fired from Google.

This article is now flagged? Is it normal to flag items from Scientific American?

So it should probably be titled: "Sexually Insecure Men..."