Women also make up the majority of members in animal and wildlife advocacy groups.  

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.

I agree with the author's viewpoint that it is better to be inclusive when tackling environmental problems. (Notice that, as a man, I naturally chose the word "tackling" instead of "addressing".) My point (another male phrase) is that inclusive should include agressive male attitudes as well as cooperative attitudes. I've worked with mostly women my whole career, and find that I have tried to hide aspects of my personality because they can make some women uncomfortable. That's a lot of energy that could have beeen directed at making our lives better.

We need both passion and compassion.

"I've worked with mostly women my whole career, and find that I have tried to hide aspects of my personality because they can make some women uncomfortable. That's a lot of energy that could have beeen directed at making our lives better."

Welcome to our world, Jim.

I agree, Peter. Rocket science is definitely not the answer. It might be part of the solution, but the whole solution (like people, and women in particular) is much more complex.

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.

The female hominids relied on in support of this thesis are:
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.

 Thank you snodragon for stating that balance has to be part of the plan. Let's not get into this gender bias thingee and lose energy battling who is the better.I am 60 years old and a male who grew up in the 60's and have worked very hard to see the feminine point of view and to tap into my feminine side.
 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.

Hear, hear Jim (jpgunshinan)! I echo your sentiments. Many of the forty something males had femininity shoved down their throats by very well meaning parents only to find themselves grappling with identity issues in their twenties. Just like our opposites had to come to their understanding of "doing it all". Career, kids, who needs a man anyway etc. Those issues have effected our judgement calls on issues like those that we're discussing here. There is NO doubt that we are wired differently therefore "approach"/ "attack" these issues differently.

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

Should be required reading for understanding the gender divide.  Leonard Shlain (MD neurologist, SF Bay area) says that yin/yang, male/female roles,  linear/multidimensional thinking, and left/right brain are all related.  Apparently, written language, tracking letters and words through a sentence reinforces left-brain thought and makes our culture more "male" and single-minded instead of broad and ecological.  (Al Gore really likes this book, by the way).

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

Bush doesn't care a bit about the environment, but the democrats seem to be too busy lashing about other issues (Iraq) and haven't done diddly for the environment. These days, they are more focused on bashing Bush. They are being beaten big time by the Green Party on this, as they should be. I'm tired of both democrats and republicans providing nothing more than lip service to the environment during election years.

Just, wow.  I thought I'd come back and see if anyone ever had anything more to say about this, and I see that the environmental movement really is still chock-full of men who just don't get how to coexist with the other half of the species.

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.

More and more men are defining manhood for themselves and rejecting imperial definitions of manliness.  The institutions of Empire benefit from a narrow definition of manliness that reinforces the perception of separateness from other members of earth community.  The values of earth community do look more feminine simply because they are more egalitarian and express the desire for participatory democracy of all members.  
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!  

In some ways this article brings to mind another problem in the environmental movement (and the feminist movement too for that matter).  That is, arguing amongst each other about who's a real environmentalist (or feminist) and who is not.  Pointing fingers at another's work and tearing it down because it's not enviro enough (or feminist enough.
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.

I fail to see how this [the distinction between man and woman] matters. Not only is it divisive, it is completely irrelevant. Who cares if women are more participatory than men? The problem is the environment. The thoughts and motives behind environmentalism do not matter as much as the actions, in any case.

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.