Claim: Some Men Downplay Climate Concerns Because of Gender Insecurity

Essay by Eric Worrall

According to the study, some men are frightened of appearing weak and feminine if they admit they are worried about climate change.

Some men may downplay climate change risks to avoid appearing feminine

by Eric W. Dolan
December 25, 2025
in Climate

New research provides evidence that men who are concerned about maintaining a traditional masculine image may be less likely to express concern about climate change. The findings suggest that acknowledging environmental problems is psychologically linked to traits such as warmth and compassion. These traits are stereotypically associated with femininity in many cultures. Consequently, men who feel pressure to prove their manhood may avoid environmentalist attitudes to protect their gender identity. The study was published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology.

Scientific consensus indicates that climate change is occurring and poses significant risks to global stability. Despite this evidence, public opinion remains divided. Surveys consistently reveal a gender gap regarding environmental attitudes. Men typically express less concern about climate change than women do. Michael P. Haselhuhn, a researcher at the University of California, Riverside, sought to understand the psychological drivers behind this disparity.

Precarious manhood theory posits that manhood is viewed socially as a status that is difficult to earn and easy to lose. Unlike womanhood, which is often treated as a biological inevitability, manhood must be proven through action. This psychological framework suggests that men experience anxiety about failing to meet societal standards of masculinity. They must constant reinforce their status and avoid behaviors that appear feminine.

Haselhuhn found a negative relationship between masculinity concerns and climate engagement. Men who placed a high importance on being a man were less likely to believe that climate change is caused by human activity. They also reported feeling less personal responsibility to reduce climate change. Furthermore, these men expressed lower levels of worry about the issue.

The study has some limitations. It relied on self-reported attitudes rather than observable behaviors. It is possible that the pressure to conform to masculine norms would be even higher in public settings where men are watched by peers. Men might be willing to express concern in an anonymous survey but reject those views in a group setting to maintain status.

Read more: https://www.psypost.org/some-men-may-downplay-climate-change-risks-to-avoid-appearing-feminine/

The abstract of the study;

Man enough to save the planet? Masculinity concerns predict attitudes toward climate change

Michael P. Haselhuhn

Highlights

  • •Concerns about maintaining manhood predict less worry about climate change in men.
  • •Those who are concerned about the climate are perceived as warm and caring.
  • •Masculinity concerns interact with warmth perceptions to predict men’s attitudes.

Abstract

Despite scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, many individuals deny that the climate is changing. Although past work has examined gender differences in climate change attitudes, less is known about how within-gender individual differences may affect climate change concern. In this paper, I study how masculinity concerns relate to climate change attitudes in men. I assert that expressing concern about climate change is associated with traditionally feminine characteristics of warmth, caring and compassion and predict that, because of this relationship, men who are more concerned about maintaining their sense of masculinity will express less concern about climate change. Across four studies, I find support for my predictions.

Read more (paywalled): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494425002555

Sadly the study is paywalled, but this entire hypothesis appears to be based on the assumption that concern about climate change is rational, and that rejecting climate alarmism requires a psychological explanation.

In my opinion the study author found what he expected to find. He expected to find a source of psychological distress which led people to embrace irrational climate skepticism. An apparent correlation between sexual insecurity and climate skepticism appeared to fit the preconceived need for an explanation for irrational behaviour.

But what if the irrational behaviour is to believe the climate alarmists? For just under 40 years we’ve been repeatedly promised imminent climate catastrophe. Why is it irrational to conclude after 40 years of fake doomsday predictions, maybe the climate crisis is fake?

From 2019;

The question then is, why do women appear more likely to believe irrational climate warnings?

Before anyone suggests the problem is women are irrational, there is a much simpler explanation.

Women in Western culture are far less likely to have a science / engineering background. Knowledge of science provides the mental toolkit to challenge wild climate claims. Having the skill to analyse and question climate claims does not automatically make someone a climate skeptic, but it provides more a path for someone to become a climate skeptics.

It is completely understandable if men or women who lack scientific knowledge defer to authority figures instead of forming their own conclusions.

How many of the sampled “insecure” men had a STEM background? Did the study author even bother to check?

From what I have seen this male bias towards STEM is purely a Western phenomenon. When I visited an IT shop in Taipei, over half the programmers were women. Somehow we are failing our women, steering girls away from STEM at an early age.

An easy test for this STEM knowledge can lead to climate skepticism theory would be to determine whether the climate skeptic gender gap was as prevalent in Eastern cultures as it is in Western cultures. At the very least STEM knowledge should be tested and considered as a factor. But author Michael Haselhuhn has a convenient inference which in his mind demonstrates that climate skeptics cling to skepticism to help cover their gender insecurity. I’m not holding my breath waiting for follow up studies which might undermine such a flawed claim.

4.5 8 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Subscribe
Notify of
39 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ResourceGuy
December 26, 2025 10:09 am

Environmental Psychology will be prominently featured in the laughing and shaking of heads looking back at these times. Unfortunately, you are living in the advocacy, publication mill driven science swamp now.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 26, 2025 11:16 am

History won’t be kind to Climate Alarmists.

gyan1
Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 26, 2025 1:31 pm

The psychology happening with this phony study is pure projection. Climate denier shaming is what keeps woke idiots from questioning obvious nonsense.

Sean Galbally
December 26, 2025 10:12 am

Climate change is real but highly unpredictable. It is also not a crisis as we adapt to it as we always have done. People who worry about it should look at the facts rather than the opinions of the many so called expert fear spreaders who have invariably been proved well wide of the mark.

Tom Halla
December 26, 2025 10:13 am

Well, safety culture is stereotypically feminine. But not being able or willing to use math and history is more generally social science biases. Or acting like a preacher.
Men and women can be damn fools, but tend to express it in different ways.

Colin Belshaw
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 26, 2025 1:37 pm

My wife is female, I assure you . . . AND she’s an Environmental Engineer.
But, at the time she was undergoing training, the facts and hypotheses were put in front of her and openly discussed, and she was NOT demonised as a result of opinions she formed – indeed, she ended up with a good degree. And now, as an experienced ENGINEER, she is more than capable of recognising total and utter stupidity regarding climate change catastrophism and the ludicrous and unachievable nonsense that is net zero. What this means is, while she was being trained . . . she was NOT being brainwashed.
If a female now is more susceptible to nonsense, that’s because they are perhaps less likely now to be scientific and engineering literate, and if men are keeping their traps shut, for a start, they are utterly pathetic and . . . also less likely to be scientific and engineering literate.

KevinM
December 26, 2025 10:14 am

Some Academics Downplay Objective Thought Because of IQ Insecurity

Mr.
Reply to  KevinM
December 26, 2025 11:25 am

and tenure insecurity.

“Going along to get along” is standard behavior in academia.

And almost compulsory behavior in climate “science”.

ResourceGuy
December 26, 2025 10:15 am

This reminds me of the student research prominently posted in news outlets 25 or so years ago that connected male affinity for stick shift cars with sexual connection with the shifter. I guess it’s more a sign of research desperation for credits than embarrassment for the quality issues of the work.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 26, 2025 11:10 am

Some bozo was claiming that rockets were tall and pointed because men were so focused on phallic symbols. The reactions were priceless.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
December 26, 2025 12:23 pm

They aren’t? I best report this to the launch crew!

hdhoese
Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 26, 2025 12:16 pm

They didn’t know much about the original stick shifts which can’t be too much worse than all the different places nowadays where they put along with the method to control the gears. New Ford Bronco had a stick shift but I was told about returns that couldn’t handle a clutch, sounds more like incompetence. Well, anyway if they can claim gravity out of entropy, who knows, maybe the Shadow knows.

Ginestra Bianconi, 2025. Gravity from entropy. Phys. Rev. D 111, 066001.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.066001
“ Future directions in this line of research involve also the investigation of the proposed entropic action under the renormalization group, and possible connections with phenomenology and experimental results.”

December 26, 2025 10:18 am

Any sources for your claims that having a STEM degree makes you more likely to be a sceptic? From my observation the opposite could be true.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
December 26, 2025 11:08 am

But isn’t.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
December 26, 2025 12:23 pm

I can only conclude that your observations were made staring into a mirror.

Paul Seward
December 26, 2025 10:23 am

I don’t trust sissies

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 26, 2025 10:38 am

The study has some limitations. Some? How about: it’s a load of bunkum?

Jeffy
December 26, 2025 10:44 am

Since 80% of all psychologists are women, I think Michael P. Haselhuhn is fighting against his own gender insecurity to be relevant.

SxyxS
Reply to  Jeffy
December 26, 2025 11:53 am

He found a way of stealth simping,
hoping he get laid inbetween two COP meetings where the taxpayer pays for his prostitutes.

And isn’t it peak orwellian that the gender that is traditionally at odds with logic since forever is dominating psycho – logic?
Or maybe they are only focused on the psycho part.
This would make sense.

FMI – watch ” The hot/crazy matrix”

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Jeffy
December 26, 2025 12:24 pm

Gender insecurity? Perhaps. Grant insecurity is another possibility.

jvcstone
December 26, 2025 10:48 am

Despite scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, many individuals deny that the climate is changing—-tells us right there where this guys head is (up his a**??) Who funds this nonsense–those are the folks that need to be brought to account.

gyan1
December 26, 2025 10:50 am

Right, not believing absurd pseudoscience is due to masculine insecurity! Did a gender studies academic produce this trash?

December 26, 2025 11:06 am

In my opinion the study author found what he expected to find.

__________________________________________________

Just maybe he made up what he wanted to claim he found.

December 26, 2025 11:14 am

From the article: “Scientific consensus indicates that climate change is occurring and poses significant risks to global stability. Despite this evidence,”

There is no scientific consensus on CO2-caused climate change, and claiming there is, does not constitute evidence of this kind of climate change.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 26, 2025 12:15 pm

Yep. Maybe Mr. Haslehuhn should investigate what proportion of the populace agrees that the climate is changing as it always has but don’t know what is causing it and aren’t really bothered by it.

gyan1
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 26, 2025 1:00 pm

“poses significant risks to global stability.”

Globalist authoritarians are the only ones facing significant risks. Trump is systematically reversing their subjugation of nation states. Hopefully pathetic European sheep will wake up and throw off the EU chains.

December 26, 2025 11:26 am

“The findings suggest that acknowledging environmental problems is psychologically linked to traits such as warmth and compassion.”

I would like to offer manly warmth and compassion to my fellow residents of NY State who will likely struggle to keep from freezing to death in the dark when the wind dies down and the batteries go dead.

“Despite scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, many individuals deny that the climate is changing.

Maybe so, but I’ve never met any of them or heard anyone make such a denial. This misdirection is a sure “tell” that the author started with the favored conclusion.

gyan1
Reply to  David Dibbell
December 26, 2025 1:03 pm

“many individuals deny that the climate is changing.

That would be alarmists who falsely believe that climate was stable before we started burning fossil fuels. They are the true climate deniers ignoring empirical data in favor of pseudoscience.

1saveenergy
December 26, 2025 11:29 am

I don’t have any Gender Insecurity,
Sometimes I identify as a wardrobe … so I can come out of the closet !!
But mainly as a Kangaroo, because I enjoy a good jump; Call me Skippy. (:-))

cartoss
December 26, 2025 11:30 am

“Expected to find” – not quite right, I think. “Hoped” or “Wanted” to find is closer.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  cartoss
December 26, 2025 12:26 pm

Or decided in advance, aka predetermined finding.

Bruce Cobb
December 26, 2025 11:52 am

Some men may have climate beliefs due to gender insecurity. Or they may just be stupid, or perhaps because it provides job security. Could be any number of reasons.

Bruce Cobb
December 26, 2025 12:17 pm

Actually, people become Climate Realists because they are interested in what is true, not what feels good emotionally, or because it’s what their friends and family believe. It requires a certain amount of intellectual curiosity as well as intestinal fortitude. Your BS detector also has to be in good working order.

Sparta Nova 4
December 26, 2025 12:21 pm

Meanwhile, the report is that reindeer population has been decimated over the past 30 years due to climate change.

2hotel9
December 26, 2025 12:31 pm

See? Tim Walz is not the only mental retard in America, California and academia in general have a plethora of ‘tards toddling about spewing stupidity.

December 26, 2025 1:10 pm

New research provides evidence that men who are concerned about maintaining a traditional masculine image may be less likely to express concern about climate change.

OR

New research provides evidence that men who are confused about their own gender may also be more likely to express concern about climate change.”

Bob
December 26, 2025 1:18 pm

It is crap like this that give the social sciences a black eye. Nobody should give a damn about how someone feels about climate change. The other side has claimed that it is the CO2 that man puts into the atmosphere that will cause catastrophic runaway global warming. It doesn’t matter how you feel about it, man or woman. The only thing that matters is can that statement be proven with proper science and observation. Your feelings are pretty much meaningless.

sherro01
December 26, 2025 1:38 pm

The real problem is shown by the author in his own words: “Scientific consensus indicates that climate change is occurring and poses significant risks to global stability. Despite this evidence, public opinion remains divided”.
In real life, this assertion of significant risks has not been demonstrated to the customary standards of scientific confidence. It cannot and should not be used to frame public policy when so many past tests have failed.
We have “soft” scientists who are like gossip women chatting about fashion and cats or gossip guys chatting about other guys’ bums. Then we have the “hard” scientists who actually measure, find and discuss errors and use recognized methods of estimating measurement uncertainty.
“Consensus” is an invalid device that is used by soft science authors lacking self-confidence. “Public opinion” has no place answer whether a scientific hypothesis is valid.
Authors like Haselhuhn have too much spare time to write poor science fiction. They should consider taking on work challenges that create new original wealth for others through the production of goods that society demands. Maybe California now has too few of these jobs to show to others to copy.  Geoff S

Verified by MonsterInsights