
Men Resist Green Behavior as Un-Manly - xbryanx
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-resist-green-behavior-as-un-manly/
======
criley2
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.

~~~
DenisM
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.

~~~
uoaei
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).

[1]
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160425143307.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160425143307.htm)

~~~
gnicholas
See also Prof Robb Willer, whose research at Stanford shows similar results.

[https://www.ted.com/talks/robb_willer_how_to_have_better_pol...](https://www.ted.com/talks/robb_willer_how_to_have_better_political_conversations)

------
j9461701
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?

~~~
totalZero
"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.

------
totalZero
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.

~~~
tzs
> 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

~~~
totalZero
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.

~~~
tzs
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.

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...](https://huntsman.usu.edu/directory/documents/BroughEtAl_JCR2016_FINAL_-
_Oxford_Press.pdf)

~~~
totalZero
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.

------
gnicholas
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.

~~~
xnxn
Gender-related topics are extremely contentious on HN.

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

~~~
bsder
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.

~~~
ashleyn
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.

------
ictoan
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.

~~~
Quanttek
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

------
Xeoncross
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.

~~~
redorb
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.

~~~
PrimHelios
That's not even close to what happened. Neither side did what you said, your
post is a complete bold-faced lie.

~~~
redorb
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.

~~~
PrimHelios
>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.

------
lkrubner
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Islamic_and_Jewish_dietary_laws)

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.

------
striking
The underlying paper, as available from the authors:
[https://huntsman.usu.edu/directory/documents/BroughEtAl_JCR2...](https://huntsman.usu.edu/directory/documents/BroughEtAl_JCR2016_FINAL_-
_Oxford_Press.pdf)

------
Buldak
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.

~~~
totalZero
What makes you describe rolling coal as masculine, as opposed to just being
boorish and stupid?

------
ianai
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.

~~~
Nav_Panel
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.

1: [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-
reign-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-reign-of-
recycling.html?_r=0)

2: [https://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/reusable-bags-only-
su...](https://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/reusable-bags-only-superior-to-
plastic-if-you-reuse-them-a-lot/)

~~~
cjwhite
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.

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

~~~
m1sta_
How can taking responsibility for the protection of your surroundings be
considered unmanly?

~~~
stcredzero
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.

~~~
totalZero
Ah...

 _closes eyes, breathes deeply_

 _inhales smog_

...the nasty 'Nnati.

------
everdev
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.

~~~
girzel
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.

------
jotm
> 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.

~~~
booleandilemma
I feel like I’m always seeing studies that assert women are somehow “better”
than men. Has anyone else noticed this trend?

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-jo-martin/study-
companies...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-jo-martin/study-companies-
with-stro_b_9079720.html)

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600812/female-coders-
are-...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600812/female-coders-are-more-
competent-than-males-according-to-a-new-study/amp/)

[http://amp.timeinc.net/time/money/4430721/compromise-
women-m...](http://amp.timeinc.net/time/money/4430721/compromise-women-men-
decision)

[https://venturebeat.com/2015/01/27/study-girls-outperform-
bo...](https://venturebeat.com/2015/01/27/study-girls-outperform-boys-in-math-
and-science-all-over-the-world/amp/)

~~~
ashwinaj
Yes.

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.

------
24gttghh
> 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.

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

"Woman resist entrepreneurial behavior as un-feminist"

------
barnfire
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.

------
crusso
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.

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

~~~
Gargoyle
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.

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

~~~
Gargoyle
A better summary of the information in the article would be: "Market to your
audience."

