Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A study published in Journal of Consumer Research suggests men are shying away from “green” behaviours because men think they are “unmanly”.
Is Eco-Friendly Unmanly? The Green-Feminine Stereotype and Its Effect on Sustainable Consumption
Why are men less likely than women to embrace environmentally friendly products and behaviors? Whereas prior research attributes this gender gap in sustainable consumption to personality differences between the sexes, we propose that it may also partially stem from a prevalent association between green behavior and femininity, and a corresponding stereotype (held by both men and women) that green consumers are more feminine. Building on prior findings that men tend to be more concerned than women with gender identity maintenance, we argue that this green-feminine stereotype may motivate men to avoid green behaviors in order to preserve a macho image. A series of seven studies provides evidence that the concepts of greenness and femininity are cognitively linked and shows that, accordingly, consumers who engage in green behaviors are stereotyped by others as more feminine and even perceive themselves as more feminine. Further, men’s willingness to engage in green behaviors can be influenced by threatening or affirming their masculinity, as well as by using masculine rather than conventional green branding. Together, these findings bridge literatures on identity and environmental sustainability and introduce the notion that due to the green-feminine stereotype, gender identity maintenance can influence men’s likelihood of adopting green behaviours.
Read more: http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/08/02/jcr.ucw044
One can only imagine the ghastly new propaganda pieces to come, as greens attempt to engage with our “manly” side.
This could end up with as bad a comment thread as “feminist glaciology”. Mostly, I regard stereotypical behavior by either (any?) sex not a very good thing. “Macho” and “wussy” are insults for good reason.
I can almost NOT be offended but I found the study to be sexist. Women have brains too.
The results were in the Journal of Consumer Research. Who was the results aimed at? Ad agencies. Why? Women make the overwhelming of the purchases in the US. It’s just business.
Good point, Bob. Also factor in that women are generally more swayed by emotional appeals, which the article is meant to smokescreen, IMO. The whole movement to save the planet from “human pollution” has morphed into a religion where guilt is the prime mover.
I call it The Model Fellowship of Mann – Church of Omnipotent Greenhouse in Carbon
There’s another angle to this. If you don’t go along with the green’s CO2 agenda, you could be consider un-Mann-ly!
Watch the Female anchors on BBC, and you say they have Brains??
Maybe Brain-dead!
Multiple studies have found that unmarried women (of any age) are much more likely to vote for Democrats than are married women.
Women do indeed have brains, but anyone who has lived with them recognizes that they don’t always use those in the same manner as do men. (Not better, not worse, just different.)
George, I get the same reaction from watching the male anchors.
Ways to make “Green” more manly
1) Give Kermit muscles
2) create an electric Dragster that can do this
in under 3.2 seconds and achieve a speed of greater than 386 mph doing it
3) Give Kermit Muscles
Green are SJW.. just waiting for a trigger.
Need their “Safe-Space”
Enjoy the link.. truly humongous outburst from a green far-left SJW feminazi
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/peak-sjw/news-story/3c6d8bde2778c0f63036dd3ddaa0688b
Superb!
Apparently these femi-Nazi’s come out of the same mold no matter what country they come from. That woman (I’m not joking) needs to be institutionalized. She is not safe to be around.
Ms. Mungus should have simply and innocently asked the “nice” lady why she thought Mungus was a man … why did the camera lady continually keep insulting Ms. Mungus by referring to her as a he?
I thought men went green when they realised they were not going to find a real woman and were prepared to settle for something slightly kooky. Is this a terrible thing to say? I am 64 and not sure what is allowed and not allowed anymore. Apologies if I have it wrong.
Fair point… 🙂
Good post.
Green men are girly men. I knew that.
Close, but not quite. Men become feminists when they realise that they aren’t going to get laid any other way.
PLEASE…. don’t tell me that. 🙁
Hmmm…I don’t know about your theory, there, Hivemind. Though I do think you describe the pathetic false-hope that undoubtedly prompts your typical hive-bozo’s initial attraction to the “girlie-man” life-style. But, in actual practice, that way-of-life never ends up with its adherents gettin’ laid. Rather, their fate can best be observed in the comments section of the “Hotwhopper” blog, where the testosterone-phobe regulars, there, unfailingly exhibit a persistent, pathological, can’t-get-a-date social-ineptitude, but thrive, nevertheless, at that blog site as needy, little, kiss-up, useless-pecker, kept-capon onanist-pets of the blog-mistress, in whom they seem to have finally found the matriarch-figure of their dreams–a mummy-dearest disciplinarian who, nevertheless, gives her little weenie-boys a non-judgemental blog-space in which they can freely whine about their creep-out, Gaijin-wanker frustrations with pixiillated Japanese porn (please Google: “wuwt saturday satire guilty cartoon by josh”, where my two comments of May 30 and May 31, 2015 provide a definitive treatment of the Hotwhopoper blog’s jerk-off normative character).
Relax dude, I’ve been told that I was both a ‘male chauvinist pig’ and ‘not exactly masterful’ in the same sentence.
Later, I asked a subsequent lover what she understood by the term ‘male chauvinist pig’.
“Its what a woman calls a man when she isn’t getting enough of her own way” she replied, helpfully.
Been there, done that. But finally met a woman who preferred her man to be slightly rude, crude and forceful. She has been, as Willis likes to say, my ex-fiance now for over 30 years.
My ex-fiance settled for a complete nerd, but so far only for 23 years.
Not all women are psycho robots of Borg hive mind. But SJWs are.
An when they are lucky enough to get to work with a team with half of them female and brilliant with a bonus of looking good.
WOW Mike …
Don’t like the Sou much??
Mummy-Dearest???
I would have thought
Dummy-Mearest
@ Bryan A
Yr: “Don’t like Sou much?? Mummy-Dearest???”
Huh?…I’m not sure what you mean here Bryan. “Mummy-dearest” is a term of endearment that refers to a “sixties-something” (Hotwhopper’s description of herself in her own words), strong, independent modern-woman who is all warmth and big-hugs, and who never has an unkind word for anyone, and who is all devoted to being the most nicey-nicey alpha-matriarch ever, and who never fails to lay out nice plates of home-made cookies and a glasses of warm milk (figuratively speakin’, that is) for her precious little pets to nibble on, when they get the “munchies”, and who wipes the snot from their nose when they have a whiny, little, cry-baby fit, just because this, that, or another of their totally unearned trophies isn’t bigger than everyone else’s totally unearned trophy. Sort of an Earth-mother type for lefty-puke, socially-retarded, geek-ball parasites in other words. And that’s a good thing.
Perhaps, Brayn A, you have mistaken “mummy-dearest” for the term “mommy-dearest”. Well, Bryan A, let me just say that the two terms could not be more different. A “mommy-dearest” is a shrill-and-cranky, control-freak, fault-finding, nag-normative, acid-tongued, play-the-victim, totally-obnoxious hive-tool, who wears her nasty, proto-chekist mean-streak as a badge of honor. And, as is obvious to us all, Hotwhopper in no way even begins to qualify as a “mommy-dearest”. Hope everything’s sorted out now, in this potentially “sensitive” matter.
ROTFLMAOAPM
And where is the “like” button where you need it.
Zip ( censored by me )
Trigger zone
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/peak-sjw/news-story/3c6d8bde2778c0f63036dd3ddaa0688b
CAGW is definitely unmanly. As being a pants wetter is unmanly.
your’e onto something there:)
look at the wussy whining handwringing pack of awg tards here in Aus
cook
ove hugh whatsit
flimflam flannery
turkey turney
and a shitload of other sobbing nelllies from various unis all over
even the one that ran away
lewpaper from WA
wondering how feminist their mums /sisters/gfriends are were etc?
as a strong minded female who is NOT into the feminism claptrap
I wouldnt give any of them the time of day
shows how low some women will go to have a housepet I guess:-)
The hottest chicks are all non/anti-feminists, so there you have it.
Feminism starts where everything else failed, including cosmetics, biochemistry, corrective surgery, and psychotherapy.
I am in love with already!
Can we have date sometime soon?
(I am 60 years old and a Canadian, does it matter?)
:):):)
Since my recycle bin was stolen I feel very manly now.
A man is STILL much more macho driving a Ram than a Prius.
Very true dat. Driving a pious is akin to self-neutering.
I think the Journal of Consumer Research has missed the point – men are likley to be far less emotive or at least more critical of clearly emotive material. So attaching cuddly animals, crying babies, naturally dying animals to anything green is directed at which sex do you think? Appealing to a man’s feminine side has a very short half life methinks.
+1 mwh
Here are some market researchers who understand serving the planet very well;
I have doubts about the “green-feminine stereotype”. Younger females maybe. Older ones are wiser.
“Older ones are wiser.”
Not that I’ve noticed !!
Now repeat that in front of your wife.
Don’t have one 🙂
Some things are self explanatory.
Green is the new pink…
It’s just maaaaaaverlous…
You know your society is going to hell when there are 20 different varieties of garbage to sort, and many people are confused on which gender bathroom and shower to use…
Gender? Pick any, it is a socially constructed whim anyway. It has nothing to do with your sex.
If anyone bashes you for gender inequality of your team, just tell guys to start wearing pink – everyone happy.
Black, blue or grey would work, too.
My reply is that I don’t care what gender you are or were, just don’t go in the bathroom with my daughter while in possession of a dangly bit… So “got one” men’s room “none present” women’s room… and I don’t care what you do with whom in private.
BTW, most vegans seem less macho to me than most hunters, but it might be a biased sample… like comparing WWE events to WWF events…
Agree…You should only be allowed into the bathroom to which you are currently plumbed to use.
E.M.
Hunting rabbits, squirrels, phesant, Deer, Moose, Bear, etc. with a .22 or 30-06 rifle is a far greater challenge than hunting apples or corn with a rifle would ever be.
And taking down a Boar with a knife is a little more perilous than taking down a radish with a knife
You know you’re in trouble when your state passes legislation to eliminate the plastic grocery bag yet still sells Plastic Glad Trash Bags. Still plastic bags in the garbage dump either way
Nice. love the UN logo on Dr Evil.
Didn’t notice it until just now, just seemed like part of the uniform, I guess.
Does this mean that Germany’s green movement 100 years ago was feminist? And look what it led to…..
Mutti Merkel?
And the giant Kindergarten of the German Middle classes …
Perhaps men are less likely than women to believe the nonsensical Greenie crap being fostered by the lying likes of Gore, IPCC, and all the grant-seekers in the climate establishment. Is it my imagination, or are most of those leading the Greenie protest marches youngish women? Cuddly polar bears are so much more lovable than grubby coal miners.
More men than women can do advanced math.
I wonder if part of the problem is the constant push for women to consider themselves victims of well, everything. For the past few decades, females have been told from a young age that the world is set against them, that everything is unfair, that men are treated better than women, that men hate and hurt women, that everything that is bad in this world is the result of some action/choice of men. To think or believe otherwise is sexist and hateful. Recognizing and embracing one’s status as a victim is imperative to becoming a real woman, to becoming a good person. Empowerment is key to one’s wellbeing, and can only be achieved by negatively affecting men in some way. Physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, anything will do. It is not enough to accomplish something. That accomplishment must somehow be at the expense of a man, or be in spite of a man. Reality does not enter into any equation: it is sexist and offensive to recognize any actual differences between the two sexes – except for those differences that show the superiority of women.
With this ingrained mindset, it would be quite easy for women to fall into the green trap: it checks all the boxes. Man is the villain (perhaps the only time it is “acceptable” to use the masculine word), supporting the green agenda signals one’s superiority and virtue, being green is enlightened, one is empowered and taking control by subscribing to the green lifestyle…
Other reasons: like it or not, women are maternal (it is for the children!), women tend to prize social cooperation/norms/conformity/acceptance (ugh – consensus, EVERYone believes), nurturing instincts (face it, bunnies are cute), fear of ostracism as being traumatized by queen bee behavior in middle school discourages openly going against the grain (“deniers” shall be destroyed)…
One can only hope that as women increasingly reject the attempts to shove women into a monolithic bloc incapable of independent thought, belief, or action (the better to control us as leftist fodder), they will stamp out these awful lies so that future generations of women do not grow up with such crippling mindsets. Said stamping should of course be done in fabulous shoes. 🙂 Some stereotypes ARE worth embracing.
Sustainable Consumption? Where we go again, more UN wording propaganda promoting agenda 21.
More likely that more women are dreamers, pretending to live in a looking-glass world where everyone is nice, and lions cuddle up to lambs. (Like they portray in those Watchtower magazines).
Read Jane Austen. The darling of the feminists.
I challenge you to find more than one sentence in any novel pertaining to the actual real issue of how the characters that posture around in her society, actually get food on the table or clothes on their backs. Men, simply Have Incomes.
None of them seem to have them as a result of any gainful employment. They are at best Naval Captains, who are more or less licensed pirates, or slave owning businessmen in the sugar plantations of the West Indies.
And that is how generations of (middle class) women have related to the world. They haven’t changed. Merely become more vocal and demanding. They want to dictate the rules of society without ever actually having to dirty their hands with unblocking its drains.
Ergo the convenient lies are couched in terms that appeal to them. Full of fluffy nonsense wrapped in pink (or green) with a bow tried round its neck.
And you dont need to go further than Dr Freud to see who overpowering maternal presences can distort the psychology of any poor male offspring, unless moderated by the presence of a strong male role model.
Once, my father being absent, and my mother, two sisters, and grandmother all having united in condemnation of something I supposedly was, or had done, my henpecked grandfather found me morose, and isolated. He paused, and then uttered the only thing I can remember him ever saying in even the faintest criticism of anything:
“You shouldn’t always believe what Women say” he said “and you certainly shouldn’t take it to heart”.
It is taken as a given, that by and large, men are not to always be trusted. Women have presented this as strong evidence that they, by contrast, can be. This rampant implied sexism, is in fact justified by its converse. Experience suggests that while men can and are often very untrustworthy, for sheer deceit, poison and malice, it takes a woman. And the fact that this is so, is epitomised in the vernacular where a man displaying those characteristics is appellated with the vulgar name reserved for the female reproductive organs, folk memory being such as to associate that selfish organ with those particular traits of utter unashamed and totally selfish disregard for the feelings or interests of others.
My own take on this, is that it is the way people are, but in order to operate in a broader context, Men, as such, have had to develop a civilised veneer, at least, and learn to comport themselves in a way that befits interactions beyond the immediate family. Until recently, women did not.
Their emancipation has catapulted them into a public sphere, but they have brought their manners and views with them.
In time they will learn how to behave, or they will take society down. Same as Men. They wanted power, but so far they have eschewed responsibility .
There are of course, notable exceptions. But such exceptions as exists are to a man – er woman – not ‘feminists’ .
IN short, disregard everything a feminist says. Feminism is not your problem: it’s hers. Its the hankering after the wonderful power without any responsibility, that is so aptly elucidated by Jane Austen.
In many respects worthy of a headpost.
A few years ago there was a study done by some University, I can’t remember which one, but it was a major one. They determined the left brain/right brain thinking pattern in men and women. I can’t remember which one uses which side but I do know that men are from Mars and women are from Venus.
heh- i see what you did.
take your prize.
roaring laughing……..thanks Tom!!
Seriously speaking, we now have an entire intellectual “ruling class” that have been born and raised in cities; their sole exposure to “nature” is having to use an umbrella to run from hi-rise door to waiting taxi.
All they know about where food comes from is the menu in whichever restaurant is “trendy.” Since they have zero exposure to woods, fields, animals, etc. of COURSE they can easily be convinced Disney versions of the natural world are real! The Millennials are the worst of all. They’ve swallowed not only CAGW, but the PETA agenda wholesale.
And that the world started in 1979.
The urban pawns go from their air-conditioned (heated) residences to their air-conditioned (heated) vehicles, and then to their air-conditioned (heated) workplaces. Reality will hit them only if the power goes out! At that time they will be more upset that they can’t use their iPhones then that they can’t go to work.
I zink zat ze person who wrote ziz hass never overcome ze trauma of seeing ze mother’s penis.
roflmao!
I messed my screen…
def in the winning comment top 10:-)
I think that it has more to do with men consider things more logically, women more emotionally, and green behavior isn’t logical.
Machiavelli wrote the Prince, for which his name is remembered. He also wrote the Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius. I would say it is the one most worth reading.
In the Discourses, Machiavelli discusses the lessons of history, Roman history in particular. He “… describes political greatness as something which comes and goes amongst peoples, in cycles.” link
Machiavelli points out that, once a nation becomes effeminate, it is doomed. Just sayin’ …
@commieBob, not only effeminate but corrupt, what comes first?
Good question.
Machiavelli’s insight was that the strongest form of government is the republic because, in time of peril, the people will support the republic and fight to preserve it. If the people become fat, lazy, and effeminate, that makes the republic weak. If the people see that the republic operates for the benefit of the corrupt, they won’t fight very hard to preserve the republic.
If the people get sufficiently ticked off, they will work to collapse the republic down around their own ears. We’re getting close to that with a large portion of the population.
Margaret Mead described a tribe called the Arapesh who, being effeminate and pacifists, had been driven to the high hills where no other tribes wanted to live. Given that China is starting to flex its muscles, I don’t think we want to emulate the Arapesh. On the other hand, corruption could destroy the republic with no help at all from the Chinese.
What a mishmash of greenie psychobabbular junk. It’s just one more in a long line of failed attempts at “explaining” why the CAGW ideology is steadily losing ground. More than that though, there is the attempt to shame men, the implication being that because of “male pride” and perhaps a tendency for overcompensating due to their own sexual insecurities, they would rather “destroy the planet” (by not being “green”) than appear in any way feminine. Bull.
Well said.
I’m a woman and definitely not green at all. I don’t fit into their neat little stereotyped theory.
Then not from Orion?
I loved this item today;-)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environment/rolling-coal-in-diesel-trucks-to-rebel-and-provoke.html?emc=edit_th_20160905&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=56274151&_r=0
“prius repellant”
That is what a backlash looks like.
Hilarious! Millions of us are just so OVER “activists” and their blather!
It proves nothing except that the perpetrators of the prank, which could actually be dangerous in some circumstances are nothing but juvenile a-holes.
Driving a Damnprius is a excersize in “morality signalling”. What in heavem’s name is moral about promoting starvation by reducing the amount of CO2 available to produce the food so deaperately needed by the poor children of the world. These pompous morality signalers shopuldn’t worry about getting coal rolled, they should worry about spending eternity shovelling coal in an extremely hot environment.
Right Bruce, there’s nothing “cool” about jackin’ around on the highway. In a diesel smoker, a crotch rocket, a big block muscle car, or a semi truck- It leads all to often to fatality. Keep it at the track!
Oh confound it Chris. A Prius isn’t “moral signalling”. Hybrids and electrics are toys for the rich. They’ll never pay off on the investment. However, neither will a luxury car. That’s no reason to object to them, and you are certainly in no position to judge another person’s characters by how they spend their money.
In addition, there are REAL pollutants out there. While the benefit of removing tiny amounts of particulate from the air is debatable, concentrated soot is unquestionably bad for your health, especially when you blow it at the car right behind you. Removing emissions controls from diesel engines is not in any way justified, and only a self-absorbed fool would think otherwise.
Why are men shying away from watermelon types?
Personal sanity and physical safety you idiots-
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/peak-sjw/news-story/3c6d8bde2778c0f63036dd3ddaa0688b
https://archive.is/PM4do
This came up on Fox, the Gutfield show and the man referenced the ungreen consumption habits of females vs males particularly in the smallest room and there was no comments from the
ladies. I have noted the same in my household. Female consumption of fibers and chemicals far exceeds male consumption. And that even extends to driving. Not only does my wife drive further but she burns more fuel per mile and she shops. I go to the store to buy what I need, she shops. Someone more observant than expressed it as a man will pay what;s asked for what he needs while a woman will buy what’s on sale.
Max
Sweet Jesus Max, how’s that thing and things like it going to handle gender fluidity toilets? It’s a wonder it could take a dump for fear of disappearing completely.
The authors, (two of whom I have met), are very confused about the distinction between overt social symbols and basic consumer choice behavior, and how the two domains overlap. A lot of greenies do things simply for the symbolism of the act. Symbolic acts, for the sake of symbolic acts, are more an indicator of a poorly developed personality than an indicator of values, beliefs or self-identifcation. Grown-ups just don’t give a rat’s ass what other people say or think, they do what’s right for them, in alignment with their own values.
“Grown-ups just don’t give a rat’s ass what other people say or think”
Some do, some don’t. It is generally a bad idea to not care what others say and think because what they are saying and thinking is designed to remove you from the gene pool; take your food and shelter.
Democrats are acutely aware of what others are saying and thinking. Republicans also to a lesser degree and responding to different motivations.
It is possible and (IMO) wise to be aware of what others say and only occasionally be manipulated by it.
I’m fairly certain that this is just another “why aren’t we winning” explanation, just like all the other psychological evaluaitons about why this group or that group just don’t accept this popular premise. Both the “conservatism is a mental illness” and “liberalism is a mental illness” crowds are guilty here.
Ben, I respect much of what you write but could you find your way clear to not conflating Democrats with Liberals? I’m a liberal. I really think it matters to folks who don’t know what a liberal is.
Likely because men don’t spook as easily as women. Why? Because as we evolved someone had to fight off the wildlife and since men are bigger and women take care of the children that job was left to the men. Men couldn’t afford to get spooked by everything that rustled in the brush. Women could.
“Women could.”
Females exhibit the nurturing instinct and choose flight over fight. Males are territorial and will seek to drive out invaders, choosing fight over flight when threatened. Mares in foal can actually stop contractions and flee any perceived danger to give birth at a distant site.
We are more given to instinct than we might admit.
You might change your thinking on that if you read about the Ancient Women Warriors.
No ‘men’ dared to mess with them.
Jeannine Davis-Kimball , Center for the study of Eurasian Nomads
Between 1992 and 1995, collaborative American-Russian excavations at Pokrovka unearthed over 150 burials in five cemeteries. The skeletal material from the Sauromatians and Sarmatians was aged and sexed by two physical anthropologists. A wide variety of well-preserved burial artifacts were found. This excellent sample of the material culture from multiple populations allowed us to pose two interesting questions: using the artifacts as criteria, can a status (that is, the relative position of an individual in a ranked group or social system) be determined, and if so, what was the individual’s status?
Animal bones, iron knives, and clay pots were categorized as providing sustenance for the journey to the next world; because they were placed in almost all burials, they were excluded from the status categories. Other artifacts included tools, armaments, cultic, and luxury items used in everyday life, or placed in burials for use during the journey to (or for use in) the netherworld, and identified the status of their owners. The artifacts were placed in three status categories:
Hearth person: large quantities of valuable beads and spiral earrings
Priest or priestess: carved-stone and clay sacrificial altars, fossilized sea shells, carved-bone spoons, colored mineral ores (shades of red, yellow, black and white), complete bronze mirrors, and objects embellished with animal style representations
Warrior: arrowheads, quivers, swords, daggers, and amulets denoting prowess
Three major statuses were identified for the male population:
(1) Warriors whose burials contained armaments were by far the most dominant (94%). In the earlier period, burials could have from 1-40 arrowheads, mostly bronze, although one male burial contained over 200 bronze arrowheads. The later dated burials from Cemetery 1 contained 20 (a few with up to 50) iron arrowheads, and almost no bronze arrowheads. Some held a single iron sword and/or dagger.
(2) Those with no, or only one or two artifacts in their burial, constituted 3% of the total male population
(3) Most unusual were 3% of the males who were buried with a child. (Interestingly, no females were buried with a child.) More research will have to be undertaken before conclusions can be reached concerning this category of males.
The diagnostic artifacts from female burials reveal three female statuses:
(1) Hearth women, 75% of the female population, were noted for their wealth of artifacts. Glass eye beads, occasionally hundreds of jet discoid beads sewn to their clothing, gold-colored glass beads, and cobalt-colored biconical beads worn as anklets or bracelets were noteworthy. Many females wore earrings; the only type found at Pokrovka was three-spiraled bronze, covered with gold foil.
(2) Priestesses, 7% of the total female population,were found in several Pokrovka cemeteries. Cemetery 2 yielded a high status priestess aged approximately 60 years when she died. Her mortuary offerings included a stone-carved altar, a very fine bronze mirror with incised decorations composed of interlocking rosettes in the center surrounded by registers of geometric design, three fossilized sea shells, three gold plaques in the form of a Tien Shan snow leopard, and a small censer of fired clay.
(3) Warriors in Cemetery 2, 15% of the total female population, were also high ranking. The burial of one young female warrior contained 40 bronze arrowheads in a quiver and an iron dagger. Two amulets provided prowess: a large boar’s tusk drilled for suspension (which,based upon modern anthropology, may have been worn around her waist on a special cord), and a single bronze arrowhead in a leather bag around her neck. She also had two sea shells and a natural stone in the shape of a sea shell.
In comparing artifact types excavated from female burials, however, it became apparent that statuses had been over-simplistic. For example, in two priestess burials a significant number of weapons were also included, and a female with a long iron sword and four seashells in her burial was excavated from a nearby cemetery. This combination of warrior and priestess artifacts indicated that 3% of the females had been warrior-priestesses. Thus, a fourth category of females was identified.
Because we had excavated significant quantities of remarkably well-preserved mortuary offerings, we were able to use these to determine statuses of the individuals buried at Pokrovka. Using the same methodology, we subsequently researched in Russian museums from Azov in the lower Don region to Ufa, in Bashkortostan west of the Ural Mountains. There we discovered that priestesses and warrior-priestesses were an inherent part of Sauromatian and Early Sarmatian belief systems. Subsequently, we identified priestesses and warrior-priestesses among the Saka who pastured in the Altai and Tien Shan mountains. Perhaps most surprisingly, we found priestesses among the archaeological remains of sedentary populations from oases in the Taklimakan Desert in Xinjiang, China who had maintained symbiotic relationships with Saka nomads.
Much more research needs to be done to determine the specific functions of these powerful priestesses and priestess-warriors of the early Eurasian nomads.
Harking back to a recent post regarding climate counseling in Connecticut. I’m not convinced that going green makes anyone more feminine.
Females should be insulted and outraged to have their gender associated with “green” behavior:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/stuck-in-our-own-experiment-leader-trapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting.html
What exactly are “green behaviors”?
I want clean air and water, and to save the birds and bats from senseless death, and I’m a man. Are those contradictory?
Is killing birds and bats with windmills part of “Green Behaviors”?
As far as I can tell, the only “green behaviors” I see with any consistency is paying to green groups.
Whether it’s organic farming, wind/solar power, or just flat-out donations, the primary benefit of “green” actions done is paying money to groups that call themselves environmentalists.
There are a few people who try to imitate Thoreau and live off the land, but more often than not, they fail just as spectacularly as he did at Walden Pond (it’s apparent from the narrative alone that he would have died very quickly if not from the aid he got from his friends and family, and that was certainly glossed over)
TA asks, “What exactly are “green behaviors”?”
As near as I can tell, there aren’t any. I can’t see the most vocal believers and proselytizers behaving any different from me, and often treating the environment worse that I do. It’s all virtue signaling by spouting the CAGW catechism under the guise of ‘climate change.’
And I’ll leave you with a follow-on question, TA. How do “green behaviors” actually do anything at all to “save the planet”?
What exactly are “green behaviors”?
Well thank you TA for asking the question. I thought I was the only one here who wondered just what the H we were trying to talk about.
The Greenie religion conveniently conflates all environmental as well as social concerns, whether real or imagined, because the actual goal is an anti-democratic control over people’s behavior. Using their own definition of “green” I (and my wife) are probably far “greener” than a lot of them are, with the exception that we don’t buy into the hype, and we couldn’t care less what other people do. It is how we choose to live. So yeah, we laugh at solar and wind power, because it’s real value is a hyped-up fake one. “Green” products are expensive snake-oil. Our “carbon footprint” is low, but not because we give a rat’s patootie about “carbon footprints”. And so on.
I’m with you on that too. I crunch cans and cash them in because they get me “free” beer, but I’m also conserving resources for “the kids”. We (wife included) avoid products that offer “organic” at a premium price and buy local produce. We try to use as little propane and electricity as possible as we are on retirement incomes.
Our biggest fear of the future has nothing to do with climate change, because that has always occurred. It is the seizure of the minds of the undereducated, indoctrinated youth of the western societies by the purveyors of despotically enforced socialism (to put it mildly), backed by the most influential religions which govern the drone population. To our house, that is the “spectre to be vanquished”.
A few years ago there was a study done by some University, I can’t remember which one, but it was a major one. It says that since soy is loaded with estrogen, the government has been pushing men to eat it in order to tame them into submission.
Yet another reason, as if more were needed, to hate feminism.
The chic-crusty-fairy Eco-warrior girls with their utility belts et al love their blokes to be blouses and like old ladies.
Wonder when the girls will push to have the airconditioners turned off at QUT, etc-
http://www.msn.com/en-au/money/company-news/queensland-university-of-technology-commits-to-divesting-its-fossil-fuel-shares/ar-AAivCjh?li=AA54Gb&ocid=spartandhp
I’ll believe our pollies are serious the day they announce that no publicly paid official will remain air-conditioned on their watch, just like in grandma and grandad’s day, all for the sake of the grand-kiddies. Set the shining example oh great ejumacated elites and overlords, for all the recalcitrant plebs out there working in the great outdoors and in the the workshops and factories. Bah humbug!
Two words, GAUZE DIAPERS.
If greenies want to “save the world” they could start by stop using disposable diapers on their babies… and their elders… and swapping to old gauze diapers, like the old times.
What are the world sales of Gauze diapers? What is sold more, cotton handkerchiefs or disposable paper tissues?
Actually, as a multiple child mommy, I didn’t use diapers at all most of the time and by the time my children reach 1 year of age, they are aware of when they have to do it and they do it in the potty. I did use multiple potties due to children having short time between noticing and going.
Seemers rather than doers.
Jeez! that was sort of biblical.
(In a Bowery Boys sort of way)
“Why are men less likely than women to embrace environmentally friendly products and behaviors?”
Dare I say that most women are more likely to defer to authority, are more likely to be susceptible to fashionable causes, easier to work into a state of emotional concern and tend to be more concerned what others think?
I now denounce myself.
So the Jolly Green Giant was unmanly??
HO – HO – HO!
Remember the ‘It isn’t nice to fool Mother Nature’ ad when the old lady gets very angry and storm clouds form?
The term “social science” is a misnomer. There is almost no science whatever in their research and findings. They use sciencey methods to arrive at desired evidence for the latest politically correct idea.
Point in case: The paper discussed in this article uses the word “may” 33 times — in its prior assumptions, in its hypothesis, in supporting findings….everything is characterized as “may be based on…” or “may point to….”.
Imagine gravity defined as “masses may be attracted to one another in what appears to be some relationship between mass and distance — or, maybe not.”
And math! 2+2=5, doesn’t it, Mr. Smith?
Oh god, I love this so-called academic crap.
To think that 20-somethings and 30-somethngs sit around all day during the most productive years of their lives and this is the best they can come up with…is stunning.
As their professors get older, it must get harder and harder to face themselves in the mirror if this is the culmination of all your efforts. I wonder how it feels to realize you’ve prostituted your life’s work to produce a bunch of obsequious sycophants to feed an intellectually corrupt political machine that doesn’t even really care about you all that much.
…and then the nagging thought that this huge pile of climate crap may just get laughed away because mother nature just isn’t playing ball.
Great, another excuse for SJWs to hate men.
If there is any truth to the ‘genderfication’ of the global warming debate, then I would argue that the real reason men are less likely to buy into it is merely because men tend to be more rational decision makers, while women are more likely to be influenced by appeals to emotion.
And if you dismiss my theory as sexist then you must dismiss the ‘macho’ one as sexist also or resign yourself to being a hypocrite.
I often submit comments in our newspaper in opposition to our local greenies who are male. I probably upset many who think I hate the environment . But most have not applied logic to their position. They consider themselves green but oppose CO2 which is essential for green. My main disputers locally are doctors and so trained in science but cannot argue the facts and instead appeal to emotions. Women, bless them, are more emotional than we men which provides balance in the grand scheme. My daughter no doubt thinks of herself as green but I use much less ‘fossil’ fuel or products made from them.
Two local greenies recently supported carbon taxes and local renewables. Neither considered the impact on business nor what Virginia would look like with windmills on our mountains, our meadows covered with solar panels or which rivers they would dam. Emotion need not consider facts.
Max
But the greens will be the first to scream “NIMBY!!!!” when the actual plans are being made for the placements of the renewables. People just lurve this stuff in theory, but the minute it starts being real, the freak-outs begin. It is like the idiots who join the army for the perks and then act all shocked about what being a soldier entails: “I didn’t know I might actually have to go to war or into combat or SHOOT at people!”
“I didn’t know I would have to actually SEE the windmills!”
More men than women study science.
That pretty much explains the gender difference.
Hey man, the topic of this post is triggering extreme emotions within my person, and I want to know why I was not given a warning first?
Well, I suggest you go find a safe space, eat a cheese sandwich and get a massage while watching videos of puppies frolicking. This is a free speech zone. :))
You might want to refer Menicholas to Eschenbach, I heard he’s the expert when it comes to massage.
Yeah, but he has man-hands!
*shudder*
Is that a criticism of LGBT movement?!?!
Where’s my safe space. :))
The feminist party in Sweden does the opposite. They explicitly frame climate change as a gender issue. Which is perfectly logical, since a feminist party needs to portray as many issues as possible as gender-related to justify its own existence.
If you want to see the green, animal rights types, go absolutely moonbat, turn inside out blabbering off the wall nuts, just post a good looking woman hunter with a dead animal. Do it, you will have fun. Was that off topic? I don’t know.
The green blight threatens everyone’s integrity.
“Why are men less likely than women to embrace environmentally friendly products and behaviors?” – Because we’re more likely to laugh at the people pushing this crap? Just a guess.
Real men can think
I love women and think they deserve all the respect and love we can give them. If they wish to join me in my blue collar world they are more than welcome as long as they can do the job.
I am a man, I bring home the money, I fix the cars, maintain the house, kill the spiders, and keep my family safe. I was raised to be tough, not to cry, and to do a hard day’s work. It’s who I am and my wife loves me for it.
You’ll never catch me driving a Prius…
If you drive in a city where yo spend more than a certain percentage of your time in slow traffic then you should reconsider your attitude. This sort of car is ideal for that even if it is boring ugly and the epitomy of stodgy design.
Weenie and Greenie rhyme — but I refuse to go there — Eugene WR Gallun
According to Obama’s Julia, women don’t need no STEEKIN men. They just go through life completely devoid of such worrisome and troubling creatures. Today’s feminists only need Father Federal Gummint (a few also seem to require a Mother Gaia). However, if I were Julia, I’d be a little worried that DAD’s credit cards are maxed out and the whole gravy train might collapse in Weimar or Greek fashion.
This is not a new meme.
https://climateaudit.org/2008/07/22/david-king-hot-girls-and-cold-continents/
All of leftism (not just global warming) is unmanly because it is based on having others care for you and tell you what to do.
Real men (and real women, too) don’t desire to be treated like little children.
On average not a huge difference but women are more about feelings while men are more about reason and global warming alarmism is highly irrational. Fewer men can be manipulated by fear-mongering to buy into it.
Would like to see the stats. I’m sure left leaning men are far more likely than conservative women to believe Al Gore’s 100% politically funded bought-and-paid-for anti-CO2 “consensus.”
Would there be a magazine that caters for men’s interests which carries a horoscope?
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=women%27s+magazines+%2B+horoscopes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=BW3OV_u9I8nN8gfUlYKgCQ
Being green poses no threat to male identity. On the other hand, eating loads of foods stuffed with oestrogen-like compounds is hardly going to make men more masculine, is it??
Or being overtly gullible is not considered masculine enough.
Remember in the days of video tape when you would send a woman out on a Friday night to pick up pizza and a video? No matter what you specified and how many times you specified, she’d come back with a pizza that had chicken on it and a video starring someone like Tilda Swinton or Meryl Streep.
That’s when I learned that blokes have to run the big stuff in this world.
The gender thing is a misuse of statistical information in that it is actually a numerical skills thing that happens to roughly match gender. The women I know with a feel for numbers are typically unconvinced by the whole green argument. If they have engineering skills as well the feel that recycling often is resulting in inconsistent quality so many products have a premature demise from trivial faults as my camera did. A small plastic tag that held the battery compartment shut failed as it had an inclusion of a different plastic and a resulting fault line. An otherwise sound camera had to be dumped as uneconomic to repair.
The most “green” men I know (and some women) are the trappers in Northern Ontario, Canada.
Living off the grid, their carbon footprint is barely a hangnail on the earth compared to that of the latte sipping, Prius driving urbanites who think that sending money to the WWF and clicking “like” on a post by Leonard di Caprio makes them “green”.
Progressivism and Greenie-ism are basically one and the same, and an assault on masculinity is part of it. It’s just a riff on the standard, go-to talking points – climate change skepticism is attributed to sexism, racism, capitalism, etc.
These are typical smears designed to distract from the question of whether the position of skeptics might actually be valid, by quantifying that opinion as an inherent by-product of one of the social classes targeted for prosecution.
Whoops. Typo: that should be ‘targeted for PERSECUTION’.
Not that this is much of a separation anymore.
Primal cause: some people are able to think for themselves. These people are NOT easily programmed for being green. When present in a male, this self-reliance and independence is (inaccurately) associated by the ‘genderless’ with ‘male gender identity’. In females it is considered ‘strength’ – as long as it is used to support PC objectives such as the ‘de-masculinization’ of independent thinkers.
It could be due to the same reason why unmarried women are more likely to vote Democrat than are married women.
Like being more susceptible to ‘bleeding heart’ messaging?
Being Green can be a threat to gender alright-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-31601122
Just that lots of blokes don’t want to be associated with it and remain skeptical it’s the right way to go girls.
Heck, the assault on manliness comes from dozens of other angles and started about 50 yrs ago. Thinking you are manly in western society if you were born less than 60yrs ago is very relative indeed! Going green is a Johnny – come – lately assault. Men have been showing their “feminine side” too long to ever go back. Psychiatrists today treat manliness as a serious geriatric syndrome that has to be stamped out. I hope Trump is wearing military – grade armour. He may be the last chance for Western civilization to avoid being overrun by the decidedly manly rest of the world.
So being green interferes with a male’s ability to self-identify?