"[I felt like] there was a real opportunity to protect the environment by appealing to the issues that women care about"

So you write a book about shopping? wow, way to perpetuate stereotypes. Why is the gendered perspective necessary?

Glad you mentioned the 'cushion in people's budget' idea though. I think this is one of the most effective way that we have to target non-traditional green consumers.

Thanks for your comment about my idea. The book doesn't promote shopping. Big Green Purse promotes using consumer clout (which sometimes means spending money, and sometimes not spending any money at all) to reduce our environmental footprint - at home, at work, among industry. As for the "gendered perspective," it simply has to do with the way men and women process information. No value judgements here, and no stereotypes intended. Read the work of Carol Gilligan at Harvard, Deborah Tannen at Georgetown, and any other number of researchers. Men and women value different kinds of information, process the same information differently, and communicate what they mutually value in very different ways. Simply from an organizing perspective, doesn't it make sense to understand the most effective ways to reach target audiences to inspire social change? Sometimes we organize along socio-economic lines, or other demographics: a campaign about safe energy appeals to college students and senior citizens for very different reasons, and a good campaign figures out how to talk to both. It's the same with men and women. We'd be smart to take this into consideration as we map out our strategies for educating and mobilizing as many people as possible to protect the planet.

Think about it? The reason people entertain stereotypes is most of them are based in fact. WOMEN DO like to shop more, and the author supported that statistically. Yet you try and berate it with the term "stereotype".

"Easy To-Do's" may appeal to Diane's readers.  That's a good thing.

But let's remind American women to pressure American elected leaders that women all over the world need access to education, and choice of family size.  Let's remind American women that today's freedoms are not a given, but the result of women's rights movement.  

Let's remind women that living sustainably may mean requesting that our elected officials respect women rights to reproductive choice and uncensored education.  

Globally, sustainability may mean that American health professionals can offer education about family planning, uncensored by our own leadership.

Consume less.  Think more before you buy.  Think more, in order to use fewer products.  Be less vain.  Limit family size.  Limit what we do. Limit the growth of "consumerism," and try to grow in spiritual wisdom and knowledge.

How are we going to adapt to a less-is-more philosophy, just as the growing population in other countries is adopting our models of excessive consumerism, waste, and energy needs?!

Ultimately, what appears Easy-To-Do, is anything but.

Hopefully you will read this Diane, I'm really interested in this issue and would like to see what you have to say about it.

I am not familiar with those studies, but I assume they are psychology/marketing studies which look at how things work. These areas don't tend to focus on the 'why' which is what sociologists do.

Feminist theory is pretty clear about how and why certain gender roles (i.e. women = shopping) happen. These roles are created by our consumerist society and perpetuated with every product and advertisement that targets a certain gender group. I believe that your book (just like ads for cleaning products that feature happy housewives) helps establish the gendered assumption that women are expected to like clothes and shopping more than men. That the main point of my criticism.

This in itself is in no way as problematic as commercials that portray men in corporate board rooms and women buying cooking products, but I feel that as progressive advocates, we should be careful about working with our progressive allies rather than against. I find your book's premise to be just as problematic as a enviro orgs that purchases materials from non-unionized companies. It elevates environmentalism above all other issues and makes us look like tree-hugging cookoos that only care about the polar bears (therefore perpetuating the stereotype of environmentalists being apathetic about all other societal ills).

In response to the comment about effective targeting, I agree, Diane will most likely sell more books because she effectively used present gender roles. But does that justify the advancement and continuation of these roles? I don't think it would. I don't think that the end should justify the means in progressive movements.

Sorry for ranting with theory, just wanted to share some thoughts. What do you think? Other than this small detail, thanks for working to make it easier for people to be sustainable.