Are Women Greener Than Men?
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 01.12.08
An acquaintance recently asked if I thought that, in general, 'women were greener than men.' Her question dredged up gender stereotypes from an era when TVs were like gender politics - Black and White: 'men win the bread, buy cars and TVs, and maintain the home; while women do the kids, house keeping, budgeting and gardening.'
If one thinks of climate change as an issue driven by concern for the children, then, yes, the stereotype makes partial sense. However, which gender is more responsible for the outbreak of flat-screen TV lust is totally unclear. Gender green-ness looks to be a pretty muddy slog.
That said, we dare to look at the just-concluded Consumer Electronics Show for further insight. TreeHugger's Jeremy (man) had a balanced examination of both the product field and the show itself in "How Green was CES This Year?"
Piers Fawks (man) of the blog PSFK termed CES an "orgy of poison," while Nick Hodge (man) of the Energy and Capital blog takes a far more optimistic view in his "Green to Dominate $101 Billion Electronics Industry" post. Nick is the only CES poster we've seen who was astute enough to see that the coming FTC ruling on green product claims will be as, or more, important to consumer electronics than to carbon offsets. And Nick takes the long view - the one that matters to sustainability.
These widely discrepant views of the just-held CES remind us of Al Gore's advice to keep 'sending the puck to where the action is headed, rather than to where it has been'. See Lloyd's "Quote of the Day: Al Gore on Hockey" post for details.
CES show planners at Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) are aiming to sustainably "green" their annual conference in Las Vegas: a much easier prospect than simultaneous convincing hundreds of product designers scattered across the globe to green their designs. But, you have to start the greening process somewhere; and, what better setting to kick it off than the largest electronics trade show in the world?
Getting back to gender green-ness for bit - have a look at the mildly-annoying guest room TV video loop that the CEA people put together (YouTube link in graphic above). Every CES-associated hotel room had this video looping as soon as a guest turned on the TV. Geek-Woman does a pretty good job of getting Geek-Man to green up his act. A woman had the star role this year. Next year, lets let the man have a turn!
Women have their own problems...
17 pairs of shoes?
Look around next time your out driving. See a huge SUV (Surburban for example). I bet you $10 it's a woman driving it.
No kids without women, so without women, population drops to zero. That's about as "green" as you can be.
Men use less toilet paper and lots of men don't wash after taking a leak, ergo, water conservation.
If men like me had to cook for ourselves, I'd eat alot of sandwiches. Less stove and oven use is greener.
Best of all if women weren't around what would be the point of anything? The remaining men would kill each other in about a week. That too would be green.
I don't like to be gender biased, but I think men actually tend to be more dedicated to green living than women--once they become interested (I'm a woman).
Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with the previous poster's comment "No kids without women, so without women, population drops to zero. That's about as "green" as you can be." The poster is clearly assuming that human beings are not a part of the natural world. We may have a more significant impact on the environment, but to assume we have no place in nature is a bit irrational. By this same logic we could also assume that other high impact organisms have no place on the planet (elephants consume huge amounts of resources--perhaps they should be next to go?).
I don't like to be gender biased, but I think men actually tend to be more dedicated to green living than women--once they become interested (I'm a woman).
Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with the previous poster's comment "No kids without women, so without women, population drops to zero. That's about as "green" as you can be." The poster is clearly assuming that human beings are not a part of the natural world. We may have a more significan impact on the environment, but to assume we have no place in nature is a bit irrational. By this same logic we could also assume that other high impact organisms have no place on the planet (elephants consume huge amounts of resources--perhaps they should be next to go?).
@Margaret
1st part: agreed
2nd part: try to find your sense of humor.
I think it's a bit of a pointlessly divisive question. Guys and girls are different, but we're all part of the same community, getting out a stopwatch to monitor minutes per day spent in the shower is a bit of a case of the forest being obscured by the trees I think.
That said, this seems like a great opportunity for a piss-take.
1 - Guys are generally more interested in shooting animals than women. Animals are energy intensive and eat lots of vegetation that could otherwise be capturing carbon, and often emit methane which is far worse than CO2 by volume. PETA should start a new campaign - Fur is murder, but it comes with an emissions credit.
2 - Women consume vast quantities of cosmetics. High volume production on this level will lead to efficiencies that can no doubt be applied to other processes, thus leading to a net reduction in impact!
3 - Guys generally get frustrated by shopping, and hence are prepared to truly embrace the cradle-to-cradle concept by using things until they actually biodegrade. Women tend to be more consumer oriented.
4 - No guys no kids either. At least inasfar as no women no kids was a valid statement.
5 - Guys like beer, which is often made using barley, which might otherwise be used to make biofuel - the single biggest eco-con to date. By undermining the bio-ethanol fuel empire guys are helping to accelerate the failure of a stupid and destructive business model.
6 - I'm going to bed, tag in someone!
Women use toilet paper to piss, and shit load of bloody napkin products loaded with plastic and paper waste for a few days every month, can't use water-efficient urinals
Their excess hair and self-esteem products generate tons more water, pollution than men.
They are less likely to walk or ride public transit than men.
They live longer than men, so have a longer time to kill the earth.
Women have a long way to go before they can be the "greener" of the species
These are all facts.
Goodness gracious, what misogynistic vitriol thinly disguised as humor!! Isn't it just so heartwarming to know that idiotic victorian stereotypes are alive and well in the 'green' community!! Because men don't do anything so un-green as buy idiotic massive wide screen TVs to watch football on, are clearly thinking about the ecological implications of pregnancy when they're going out and picking up/banging chicks. Oh, and for every woman driving an SUV around here, I see 5 souped up Ford F-150's trying to race anyone and everyone on the highway, spewing exhaust, noise pollution and (eventually) mangled truck parts all over the road.
No, there's no pot calling the kettle black here. None at all.
Maybe the human race IS doomed.
I agree, women are usually in huge SUV's by themselves, go out shopping a lot, and buy way too many clothes and shoes; they use more products due to their 'cycle'; are not gonna walk to take a bike as much (Afraid of getting mugged/raped), and feel the need to shower for absurd lengths, on a daily basis, and then blow dry their hair, iron it, and then spray pollutants all over the bathroom to glue their hair/make themselves smell good/cover up their toilet smells.
Guys on the other hand, like fast cars and motorcycles, as well as their electronic gadgets, and meat.
I'm gonna go with... women are worse.
@Esme: Way to completely miss the point.
I think the question overall is pretty stupid. "Are women greener than men" is like asking "are men faster than women." Some men will be faster than some women, some will be the same speed, and some will be slower. And that's without even defining "faster": walking, driving, making decisions, spending money, hanging up, eating?
All you can talk about is individual people or general trends. Anything else is essentially meaningless.
Certain men and certain women are more ecofriendly than others. Women probably create more waste in consumable items, whereas men create waste through motorsports, golf, etc.
However, it is clear that the TYPICAL female's obsession with wealth as a status signifier in men causes profit seeking, which is most easily accomplished at the expense of the environment.
to "c"
girls shop a lot and buy many shoes just to impress the opposite sex.
unless they swing the other way,
"are not gonna walk to take a bike as much (Afraid of getting mugged/raped)"
afraid of getting mugged or rapped buy Men..
no men, the problem would more than likely stop.
"and then spray pollutants all over the bathroom to glue their hair/make themselves smell good/cover up their toilet smells"
the last time i checked men/boys do the same thing.
Guys as just as worse than women......
sadly, almost all of you are blaming on sex more than the other....and it all comes down to both genders being sexually attracted to each other,, producing a child, and brining another one into the world.....
its all equal
Oh my, all this negativity is saddening. Perhaps the issue is far bigger than gender and is rather a cultural & national problem? One does not have to trek the globe in order to realize that women do not universally drive large cars, consume mindlessly, avoid walking or biking and are obsessed with their appearances. Nor do all men consume electronic gadgets, measure their virility by the car they drive etc etc. Many people - men & omen of all all colours & backgrounds- try to preserve our earth/family/communities in their every day actions. Just as many do not. We are all responsible for our actions and should not apportion blame on the basis of gender.
I think that everyone has a different relationship with the environment, regardless of gender.
The main reason that most people think that women have a stronger relationship with nature than men, is that women give birth. We give life to new generations, whereas men only parent them. This claim seems to be the product of mere surface thinking—when you take the time to delve deeper into the idea, you realize how very wrong the assumption is. Consider the natural relationship between mother and child: perhaps the mother abuses or neglects the child, and therefore has no real connection to it. And who is to say, then, whether the un-abusive father has a stronger connection to the child, and thus, nature? Going back even further, who is to say that all women give birth? Some are born or rendered infertile, and some merely do not want children. In other women, the birth-bond is there, but not as strong. For example, having a scheduled caesarean doesn’t seem as natural as have an unscheduled vaginal birth.
interesting posts. I can only speak from personal experience. I am a married woman and mother. Until recently, I have been the sole shopper in the family (20 years) as my husband never considered the global consequences of his consumer habits and made choices I didn't feel were environmentally friendly. We had to buy a new car recently and he did all the research and selected a very practical, green vehicle. I was SO proud. Since then, his attention to more global/environmental concerns has grown considerably. We are raising our kids to be careful consumers. I don't believe it has anything to do with gender, but has everything to do with experiences/exposure to more global issues.
We should stop pointing fingers at each other and come up with effective ways to imporve the environment.