This year, Rachel Carson would have turned 100. Had she lived, the "mother of the environmental movement" might have been pleased with how popular environmental causes have become. On the other hand, she might not have liked current shades of green.
Don't lose sight of the forest.
Photo: iStockphoto
The great lesson of Silent Spring, Carson's brilliant critique of the pesticide industry, is that technology requires wisdom more than faith. In recent years, however, discussion about global warming has focused almost exclusively on high-tech hopes, as President Bush's much-repeated remarks from last year's State of the Union address make clear: "America is addicted to oil. The best way to break this addiction is through technology."
Yet our addiction isn't to oil but to consumption, so this view confuses food with appetite. By contrast, Janet Welsh Brown of the World Resources Institute describes a more internal task, writing that "the greatest accomplishment of the environmental movement" is a "revolution in awareness and understanding." And four decades ago, Carson wrote that "we're challenged as mankind has never been challenged before to prove maturity and our mastery, not of nature, but of ourselves."
The distinctions between these views reveal a more general difference not often associated with the environmental debate: gender. Surveys -- from sources including the Yale School of Forestry, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Institute for Women's Policy Research, and American National Election Studies -- consistently show that women feel a stronger connection to the environment than men do:
- Women are up to 15 percent more likely than men to rate the environment a high priority.
- Women comprise up to two-thirds of voters who cast their ballots around environmental issues.
- Women are more likely than men to volunteer for and give money to environmental causes, especially related to public health.
- Women report both more support for environmental activists and more concern that government isn't doing enough.
- Women support increased government spending for the environment, while men favor spending cuts.
Polls also show that about 68 percent of American consumers have gone green, preferring health-conscious and environmentally responsible products. Since 90 percent of women identify themselves as the primary shoppers for their households, and women sign 80 percent of all personal checks, it's safe to say that women are leading a quiet revolution in green consumerism.
These trends suggest more than simply stronger support for the environment -- they reveal a completely different attitude about it. Prevailing masculine views see environmentalism in terms of energy independence, as a political or military tactic. In the speech quoted above, President Bush pointed to alternative fuels such as hydrogen as a way for America to wean itself off foreign oil. A few years earlier, the CIA called the environment "the national-security issue of the early 21st century" and "the core foreign-policy challenge from which most others will ultimately emanate."
Journalist Thomas L. Friedman is more emphatic. In a recent cover story for The New York Times Magazine, he wrote that America should redefine green to make it more "muscular" and transform its characterization by opponents as "sissy," "girlie-man," and "vaguely French." Elsewhere, he has summed it up this way: "Green isn't some 'wussy' tree-hugging thing. Green is patriotic. Green is strategic. Green is the new red, white, and blue." Wussy being derogatory slang for "especially unmanly," consider Friedman's view to be the opposite. Call it "manly green."
In Manliness, his recent lament on the loss of masculinity in American culture, Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield lists the titular qualities as aggression and risk-taking and encourages their return in society and affairs of state. "Manly men defend their turf, just as other male mammals do," he writes. By dealing with the environmental crisis as an isolationist security issue, manly green seeks environmentalism without sustainability. Manly green separates; womanly green unites. The "unmanly" view embraces not independence but interdependence.
Environmentalist Vandana Shiva is a leading voice for this inclusive attitude. In Earth Democracy, she writes, "How can we as members of the earth community reinvent security to ensure the survival of all species and the survival and future of diverse cultures?" Gro Harlem Brundtland, the first woman prime minister of Norway and the chair of the commission that created the most popular definition of sustainability ("meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs"), emphasizes that the U.S. has an unprecedented responsibility and opportunity to become better global citizens by providing a different model of development. "We must now fully recognize how interdependent we all have become. Only by working together, not against each other, can we have a vision of a better-managed world."
As code for isolationism, "energy independence" is unsustainable, and Carson would not have approved. In 1953, she wrote a letter to The Washington Post that seems even more relevant today: "It is one of the ironies of our time that while concentrating on the defense of our country against enemies from without, we should be so heedless of those who would destroy it from within."
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Children and riot police face off in Canadian “Moms” video
Comments
View as Flat
amc89 Posted 4:25 am
31 Jul 2007
I've been noticing how the dialogue on protecting the environment has turned almost exclusively to techno fixes lately, and while I think it's an important focus, it shouldn't be seen as the only solution.
Permalink
JPGunshinan Posted 4:28 am
31 Jul 2007
We need both passion and compassion.
Permalink
willa Posted 1:13 pm
31 Jul 2007
Welcome to our world, Jim.
Permalink
Peter Donovan Posted 11:35 pm
31 Jul 2007
Carbon capture with technology is energy intensive, and largely unproven. If it should work, it would produce mountains of waste material.
The soil is the only practical reservoir for the excess carbon. By increasing the organic matter and fertility of our soils, we can capture all the excess carbon and ensure a better future for all.
One of the reasons this huge opportunity is ignored is that if it's not rocket science, or has possibilities for billable hours by investment bankers or intellectual property attorneys, we're not interested. But if we're going to solve the problem, we've got to improve the biological carbon cycle, which has become dysfunctional over more and more of the world's land area. And this is a matter of working with processes and relationships.
See managingwholes.net for details.
Permalink
SnoDragon Posted 2:02 am
01 Aug 2007
But back to gender politics and the environment. I think that because environmentalism is so tied up in energy and science (which are traditionally viewed as "masculine" fields) that we lose sight of the bigger picture: sustainability. Instead, we focus on technology, things that are apart from people and that don't require us to change our ways or our lifestyles.
Women like Vandana Shiva and Gro Harlem Brundtland, however, have been working in fields that directly affect the people: agriculture for Shiva, and until recently, world health for Brundtland (she was director of the WHO). Instead of "tackling" the issue with solutions to the symptoms, they go right to the heart of the problem.
Sort of like modern medicine, but that's another post.
Sustainability and "energy independence" are more complex than CO2 emissions. The over-simplified way global warming is presented means that people forget that some greenhouse gas is what keeps us alive, and that there are other greenhouse gases than CO2.
I think that the slightly militaristic bent on the environment comes from those who would bend it to their advantage. Bush, for instance, while hyping "energy independence" also wanted to drill in ANWAR. And I would not call him an environmentalist, nor a representative of our times.
I think it all comes down to balance: "masculine" and "feminine" qualities are in us all. So it makes sense to keep both in balance in an effort to keep the planet in balance as well.
Permalink
Steve Erickson Posted 9:43 am
01 Aug 2007
Rachel Carson
Janet Welsh Brown (World Resources Institute)
Vandana Shiva
Gro Harlem Brundtland (prime minister of Norway)
All greenies and pretty well known as such - give or take a bit of Whale hunting by Norway.
The male hominids relied on in support of this thesis are:
Bush
Thomas L. Friedman (mainstream journalist)
Harvey Mansfield (Harvard professor)
All brownies and pretty well known as such.
In other words, the authors rely on well known female greenies to establish that there is an explicitly female perspective and that this is dominant amongst all or most females. To show that males have an altogether different perspective, they rely on well known male brownies to establish what the supposed "male" perspective is.
Its an interesting thesis, and they should see if there is evidence consistently supporting it, rather than what they've done here. Exploration of equally well known comparable male greenies, perhaps? Of female brownies?
My personal bias regarding attempts to show that everything can be explained in terms of gender is that its BS. And that's why Golda Meir was not gentle and peaceful, Margaret Thatcher was a semi-fascist, and you would not want Julie MacDonald to come out of her recent retirement from government service to head EPA.
Permalink
usandthem Posted 2:14 am
05 Aug 2007
I like hearing that it is energy interdependence and not independence that will make the difference in global warming issues.
As for president bush making any statement in the positive about the environment,BS.Bush has no concern for the environment any more than how much oil he and his cronies can get out of it.Don't make the mistake that as a male bush represents the male population of this country or the world.
As you may have noticed,many woman worldwide have come into leadership roles as well as representative roles in government.I believe that this is a good thing,but as one person has stated,women can get in touch with their "male" side too.There are some tough,pragmatic power seekers out there that are in politics now.I think of Hilary Clinton for one.She is a true politician to me.Get the power and use it for your own benefit.
Permalink
Jaginstep Posted 8:43 am
05 Aug 2007
My point is let men be masculine and women be feminine all while exercising Passion and Compassion.
Fortunately that DOES NOT mean always having "balance" as I see it stated in this blog thread. My experience is that we generate much less creativity and inspiration when we are constantly trying to conform to "balance". Innocent young children intermingling with one another are magnificent to witness the passion/ compassion - male / female argument I am attempting to make.
In the end we just gotta' work together for the common good.
Cheers
Permalink
pianoyoga Posted 2:56 am
06 Aug 2007
People who think it's all about money, or all about oil, or all about any one thing are caught up in this mode of thought. Yoga and meditation, a variety of concerns, communion with other plants and animals, sex, childcare, eldercare, making music, dancing, shared meals - if you're not getting these, half your brain is in prison.
A person who's swimming in life feels he or she is part of the ocean - it's a natural sense of the sacred felt by mothers and fathers of newborns. This kind of person (man or woman) can best make sense of the various needs of our time. We need to birth a new culture.
peace-- stephen
Permalink
newnoah Posted 8:37 am
07 Aug 2007
There are very few women leading in trying to awaken America to the dangers of runaway climate change or how poorer Third World countries are now being priced out of oil; demand destruction ravages Africa while the vast majority of women here are front and center in buying the most extravagantly wasteful lifestyles ever.
The better half of the population seem to have an almost genetic predisposition against even thinking about potential catastrophe. Blonde, Oprah and Madonna have better things to do it seems than consider whether our present cumulative actions will win us the Supreme Darwin Award for self-extinction. http://www.countercurrents.org/henderson300507.htm
Bill
Permalink
saturnavenger Posted 2:27 pm
09 Aug 2007
Permalink
willa Posted 10:35 am
13 Aug 2007
So, women do all the shopping? Um, wait, was that a filthy two-stroke engine I just heard? As if men don't do their share of buying environmentally horrible "toys". If women buy more stuff, it's only because still, in the 21st century, women are relegated to the repetitive, boring, "unimportant" tasks of caring for families, while men content themselves with a little light weedwhacking on the weekends. Make no mistake, women still do the domestic heavy lifting, but it isn't necessarily their environmental sensitivities or lack thereof driving the buying. They are just buying for more than just themselves.
And if women don't concern themselves with the big issues...well, do you think that's because women are not heard when they try? Do you think that might be because assertive women are still punished in the workplace, while assertive men are rewarded? Of course women think and act locally, when society punishes them for doing otherwise!
I can't make anyone read the studies, but if you'd read the news, fercrissake, you'd see that it's just been shown that the same agressive leadership--the very same words!--coming out of the mouths of male vs. female participants created completely opposite sentiments, the man being viewed as a good leader and the women being viewed as rude.
Oh, and kids on the playground are not unspoiled little paradigms of the naturally masculine/feminine. When little boys attack little girls (or their ideas) on the playground or in the classroom, THAT'S NOT NATURAL! That's a sign that little boys have already seen that successful men are bullies, and little girls have already seen that successful women negotiate.
Permalink
htaylor Posted 5:33 am
16 Aug 2007
Do masculine terms give environmental issues more credibility? It does seem that green issues have been elevated since we have tied our message to a more security-centric version. In the long run it might hurt us with a few women but does it get us on the agenda? I think so. I mention this great article and try to explore that in my blog on NRDC's site http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/htaylor/why_i_do_what_i ...
Permalink
themichellesmith Posted 4:25 am
20 Aug 2007
Environmentalism is a national security issue - in the short term to end war for oil and in the long run because the security of the earth's environment IS national security. Still we do need to influence everyone we can and we do that by meeting people where they are. So if we need to macho up the message for the more gender-masculine identified portion of the population and technology and security are the message they'll hear, then keep it up. Every body gets a chance to evolve! Plus there is great technology out there to help us. Just watch Who Killed the Electric Car!
Permalink
themichellesmith Posted 4:27 am
20 Aug 2007
Having said that, technological smoke and mirrors like hydrogen fuel cells are not solutions. They're just intentional obstacles to truly sustainable solutions because a) they're only being developed so oil and auto companies can continue to control energy supplies and b) at least in the case of hydrogen fuel cells, they're not really a viable product but they can put out a bunch of press releases about them and look like something is being developed - something very difficult and enviros are simply unreasonable to expect things to happen quicker.
Permalink
yamisamre Posted 6:40 pm
18 Sep 2007
However, the whole "manliness" that we supposedly should put behind environmentalism is sophomoric. In employing vocabulary such as "wussy", "girlieman", and "vaguely French," Thomas Friedman exposes his immaturity and lack of depth. Harvey Mansfield is also a fool. Aggression and risk-taking are hardly qualities one need lament the loss of. "Manly men" also reads decidedly idiotic. But then again, this is published in a magazine titled "Manliness," so what can one expect?
Despite the fact that environmentalist actions matter much more than the motive behind them (such as being motivated to be environmentally conscious, because it is portrayed as "manly" by society), environmentalism came about due to the impending danger to all the living organisms on the earth, not because of a masculine need to assert the jock mentality, and we would be fools to let the latter cloud or intellect or judgment.
Permalink
Amfora Posted 3:47 am
21 Feb 2008
Permalink