Who comes up with this foolishness?
If the planet can’t handle my “manliness,” then good ol’ Earth better pull on its big-girl panties and get its act together, although one suspects Mother Earth’s not the one with the fragile constitution.
The Washington Post story posits that women are more “eco-friendly” than men. “They generally use less fuel and energy. They eat less meat. They’re more concerned about climate change,” the article reports.
“Stereotypical feminine behavior and attitudes are more in parallel with taking care of the environment,” James Wilkie, a business professor at the University of Notre Dame. “Male traits tend to conflict with this idea of maintaining a nice environment for other people.”
That’s odd because hunters and anglers, who are predominantly men, play major roles in conservation, if for no other reason than it doesn’t bode well for the future of either activity if the species you’re after has been exterminated.
For decades groups like Ducks Unlimited , the National Wild Turkey Federation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Trout Unlimited have worked successfully to conserve wildlife and outdoor habitat.
In reality it’s many modern journalists and other cultural elites who can’t handle manliness. Few things are more embarrassing than watching a grown man shriek at the sight of a six-inch long snake or demonstrate his inability to even begin to set up a simple tent.
No wonder so many encase themselves in urban jungles devoid of wildlife and wilderness.
Of course, that’s how we in large areas of the West have ended up with sizeable segments of society that curl into defenseless balls when even small calamities strike, are repulsed by the mere idea of an animal being killed yet traipse regularly to the supermarket for hamburger and steak, and are afraid to so much as look at a gun crosswise for fear it will, of its own volition, go on a murderous rampage.
Methinks it’s not manliness that’s at risk for hurting the planet, but the planet itself, by its nature an often unforgiving place, that scares those with a low threshold for masculinity.
(Top: Headline and graphic from Aug. 31, 2016, issue of Washington Post.)
The Cotton Boll Conspiracy 
Amen.
I love me some good old gender stereotyping.
My very unmanly husband has just set off to the supermarket (unmanly chore), walking (unmanly, not driving), to buy organic veg, no meat (vegetarian, unmanly) and later has a coffee date (unmanly, no alcohol) with a mate. His mate also doesn’t drive, cycles, walks, uses public transport. Two environmental unmanly men.
I’d hate to say it boils down to “Women: good; Men: Bad” because that’s too simplistic, but there does seem to be a skew more toward “Masculine: Bad; Feminine: Good.”
Of course, I have the feeling your husband is plenty masculine. Anybody who walks to the store, for example, is probably in pretty good shape, and he’s very adept at home repair, to list two examples.
That’s the problem with stereotyping – it usually misses the mark by a long way.
I think you nailed it. Spot on. I’d only add that the NRA is also conservation sensitive but heh, everyone knows we”re knuckle dragging cave men that need to get in touch with our girlie side.
Brings to mind the great Saturday Night Live “pump-you-up” spoof: “Don’t be a girly mon, mon.”