Let Hot Men Sell Environmentalism
by Kyeann Sayer, Nomad on 12.20.06
Last week, in an interview about eco-fashion, I was asked how it related to womens' positive body image. Given that some of our most popular fashion posts have featured busty, near-nude models, I had been mulling it over and answered that the best we can hope for in the foreseeable future is equal opportunity objectification. "Sustainable" textiles becoming mainstream means selling them in the way the public expects: preying on all of the hopes, fears and longings of consumers through image-making. Do men with Photoshop-enhanced six packs and Marky Mark-like endowment sell conventional underwear? Well, then, let them sell organic cotton and bamboo.
Today on Eco-Chick, Starre commented along similar lines when discussing the Ecobabes calendar controversy:
I’m not opposed to natural beauty being appreciated, but honestly, I’d like to see some ecohunks too- some young, shirtless guys who work hard for the Earth…I can imagine some forest rangers, environmental scientists and maybe even bloggers (wink, wink) who would look great half-naked in a calendar whose proceeds would benefit green causes. What do you think? Would you buy an EcoHunks calendar in 2008?
Yes. Yes, I would.
Most of the arguments around objectification focus on needing to uproot our patriarchal assumptions (not to mention racist and heterosexist) as we create a more eco-friendly world together. To this, I say that there is one lesson I learned from wading through cultural theory in grad school that made me a happier person in this f***** up world of ours: Jack Tripper will always be a part of me.
It makes sense to get pissed that I watched Three's Company every day after school and learned a bunch of bull**** about what it means to be straight, a woman, white, middle-class, etc. I could spend all my time trying to find my "true self," free of Jack's handsy, polluting influence. Say I did rip him, Chrissy and Janet from my psyche somehow. What would be left underneath all of the "culture"? There's no Kyeann without Three's Company -- I became who I am through interaction with it. No "revolution" or "paradigm shift" will change that. I could spend all of my time trying to be not that Kyeann, but who wants to constitute an identity out of what you're not? Tiring.
It's more fun to accept the cultural messages that have constituted us, tweak them, play with them, and watch change emerge randomly, in spontaneous mutations, as we struggle to leave the world livable using the tools available.
Man shots courtesy of: Butta Bamboo, Nigel's EcoStore, and Organic Leather ::
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- "Nude" Climate Calendar Pulled From London Museum: Should Nudity Be Used in Environmental Campaigns?
- Payless To Launch Green Footwear With Zoe & Zac and Summer Rayne Oakes
- Preview Hessnatur by Miguel Adrover's Spring 2009 Collection
- Richard Branson Backs Legal Bid to Protect Virgin Island Mangroves
Boston Mandates Green Building Standards for Public and Private Projects
|
The Hidden Cost of Your Hardwood Floor
|
i agree! women have done their turn in sexy adds. once married, @least in my age bracket (50's), women buy their husbands clothes. if you want him ecofriendly, show me some sexy men, & they don't have to be young, in the adds!!! do you want my buck or not?
Well, Kyeann and Valerie, you'd better start shopping over at Rawganique then. Buffed bods abound. :-)
As someone else who spent a lot of time in grad school deconstructing culture, I used to be all about developing a new paradigm free of objectifying anyone, etc., etc. Now, I agree: bring on the sexy men. Why? Did I sellout. No. Quite the opposite: we can 't sell the mainstream public that saving the environment is possible if we put that message out in a way that threatens who they are. Lets face it, most people when forced to choose between being "hot", "sexy" or "cool" and saving the planet are going to be self-protectionist and buy the "hot, cool, sexy" items because to to do otherwise is to risk being unloved, unliked, alone, etc. This is the message advertising has given this culture for a century. The one percent of the populace who spent time in grad school studying this aren't enough to save the planet. we have to use the messages that the public understands and not threaten their sense of belonging identity, worth, etc.
In September I left my job in a fair trade store that wasn't doing so well to start my own store focusing on environmentally friendly apparel. It is also fair trade, but unlike the fair trade stuff at the other store, it is made in environmentally friendly dye processess and organic fabrics and is decidedly NOT HIPPIE. It has been a success because the clothes "look like normal clothes". Yep, people are shocked (here in the concervative midwest) that they can dress enviromentally friendly and not look like a "pot-smoking hippie". THe fair trade store I used to work at, meanwhile, is still selling hippie clothes to the small portion of the population that can afford to spend a lot of money on clothes which are not practical in a majority of lifestyles.
Standford University just did a Huge 10 year study and found out exactly what I learned working in fair trade for two years: MOST people will buy the product that meets their needs OVER the fair trade product IF the fair trade product does not satisfy their needs. In other words: it doesn't matter how it is produced if it doesn't meet a basic need. That is right, people will buy Nikes 10 to 1 over unsupportive, funky, un-popular, low-status, fair trade sneakers beacuse the fair trade sneekers don't meet the basic needs of comfort, support, belonging, status, etc.
So, bring on the sexy men and women - let people know they can be environmental and still be cool and sexy.
My personal pick? George Clooney in an open white button-down hemp shirt, and bamboo low-rise boxers with the tag line "if he's got to wear something..."
Just one middle aged tree-huggers' fantasy!
hot