Our planet has long been characterized as ‘Mother Earth,’ an entity that is natural, beautiful, and innocent. A ‘mother,’ or woman figure, that is assaulted, plundered, and exploited by man.
Combined with patriarchy and gender roles in modern society, this thinking has snowballed into a belief that environmental conservation is effeminate, and that by consequence, consuming tons of meat, driving high emission cars, and refusing to carry a reusable tote bag is masculine or manly.
Environmentally conscious or ‘clean’ brands often market their products towards women. The first types of companies that come to mind that are likely to be dedicated to sustainability are skincare, fashion, or household cleaning products. Women are the primary group who these products are aimed at, regardless of how skincare, fashion, and cleaning are not strictly for women (and neither is being environmentally conscious).
But due to the persistence of gender roles in the private sphere, women are expected to take on the responsibility of sustainability as well as household chores and child care. In families or couples who live together, women do the majority of the housework and laundry and the majority of the shopping. This reinforces the sustainability responsibility and the marketing tactics that aim products at women.
According to a study conducted in the UK, 71% of women are committed to ethical living, compared to only 59% of men. The study also showed that British women were more likely to recycle by a margin of 10%. Studies have shown that women are more likely to buy eco-friendly or organic products, and engage in more sustainable daily habits.
In the US, a study of 125 people including 8 families, several experts, and a large survey, revealed that women were also more likely to be swayed to buy sustainable products. This is partly because most eco-friendly advertising is directed towards women. The reusable period underwear and cleanable dixie cups are the most obvious examples. Women and people with periods are expected to make their most necessary hygienic practice sustainable, while men don’t even recycle paper at the same rate.
This discrepancy between men’s and women’s sustainability habits is referred to as the eco gender gap. Feminine traits are ascribed to those who engage in pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs), meaning that masculine traits would naturally be associated with being lax around one’s carbon footprint. This is especially dangerous not just because it puts an unfair burden on women or feminine people, but it creates the feminization of environmentalism and sustainability. This causes men to be discouraged from being environmentally conscious in both the private and public spheres, and labels sustainability efforts as feminine.
In the private sphere, men (and masculine men in particular) are not being marketed towards by clean brands, at least not at the same rate as women are. There’s the sense that it’s okay for men to be less environmentally conscious because they are masculine, or to keep their masculinity intact, and for women to shoulder the responsibility of individual sustainability as a result of their assumed femininity.
Published in the Journal of Consumer Research, a 2016 study revealed that consumers who engage in PEB are stereotyped by others as more feminine and even perceive themselves as more feminine, and therefore as indicative of homosexuality. The direct association of PEBs with femininity displays how deeply ingrained sexism and homophobia pervades everyday life.
This bleeds into the public sphere when we see masculine traits associated with the success of big oil companies and the positive connotation attached to ‘progress’ and ‘profit.’ Generally speaking, caring about the environment is seen as weak, because being feminine is seen as weak, which is non-coincidentally tied with viewing women as weak. To add fuel to the fire that is toxic masculinity, something that should be so neutral, such as the consequences of climate change and pollution on human life and health, has become associated with a sexual identity.
With this ‘feminization of sustainability,’ not only are women expected to be more ‘green,’ but they are more harshly criticized when they are not, especially if they are women in the public eye. This burden is placed on women even further with the narrative that having children is bad for the environment due to overpopulation. Women who want their own children are criticized for ‘ruining the environment’ despite how men are half the equation in that process.
That being said, there are a set of pro-environmental behaviours that are considered masculine, which men are more likely to feel comfortable engaging in, such as gritty housework like changing a furnace filter. Carrying a reusable bag or water bottle is seen as a feminine PEB, and carries the negative association of being gay, or being feminine. In other words, there are masculine or strong, active PEBs and feminine or passive, ‘caring’ PEBs.
The link between caring for others and caring for the planet is a big factor in women taking on the project of solving environmental pollution. The anthropological studies on this topic of the ‘feminization of sustainability’ show that gender socialization, rather than gender roles, contribute to women having higher pro-environmental behaviour. Gender socialization differs from gender roles in that it refers to how societal conditioning determines where someone falls in their “risk perceptions, concern about the safety and care of others, institutional trust, and value orientations” based on gender. Studies found that the differences between how men and women are socialized, and the effects this has on the environment and between people, are “the most credible explanations for women’s higher levels of environmental concern compared to men.”
But what comes first? Is it socialization and marketing towards women leading to them having higher PEBs, or do women naturally care more than men about the environment, which is reflected in these studies? Its possible companies wish to exploit this socialization or assumption that women are more caring in order to get them to buy their eco-friendly products, which reinforces said gender socialization and the gender roles at play. When men don’t do any housework, laundry, or household shopping, that keeps the sustainability burden on their female partners and keeps these gender roles intact. And while the evidence does indicate that women are more likely to show characteristics of “concern about the safety and care of others,” it doesn’t mean men are naturally incapable of caring about the environment enough to make sustainable choices.
The troubling statistics showing men’s lower rates of pro-environmental behaviour are a direct reflection of this burden that is disproportionately placed on women, and not necessarily a reflection of men’s lack of care. But when men aren’t encouraged to be sustainable as much as women (and let off the hook), it also infantilizes them.
It promotes a false idea that men can’t or shouldn’t be concerned with the health and safety of others, or of the planet. This is simply not true. It is this kind of thinking that allows men to be careless or even exploitative of the planet (and people) and receive much less criticism for it. In other words, the bar for men’s involvement in the sustainability effort is much lower than for women, because of how eco-friendly behaviours are expected of women, and the higher rates of ‘green’ products that are marketed towards women.
The fact remains, regardless of the reasoning, that women contribute less waste and are more environmentally conscious. Women have made the effort (or have been encouraged to by companies) to use products like reusable period underwear, even though periods are something women can’t control. Without attempting to find what the male equivalent of period underwear could be, it’s important to note that the existence of a sustainable version of a sanitary pad is itself proof of the eco gender gap.
Toxic masculinity is linked with the slow deterioration of our atmosphere on an individual level. Broadly speaking, most of the negative environmental impacts we face today have been brought on by men who hold power in society. The vast majority of carbon emissions and pollution are the fault of big oil and gas companies, largely run by men. The caveat is that even if everyone were to engage in ‘pro-environmental behaviours,’ if these corporations don’t change their practices, our efforts are “not going to amount to anything” according to Areeba Hamid, a lead Greenpeace campaigner.
This highlights the absurdity of the disproportionate burden of ‘saving the planet’ placed on women and feminine people. Not only is it absurd to expect individuals to shoulder the responsibility that should be on corporations and government leaders, but only a portion of said individuals are expected or encouraged to ‘care’ for the environment. Women are pushed to ‘mother’ Mother Earth, in a sense. Maybe instead of thinking of Earth as our mother, and of women as caretakers, we should regard our planet as a home, which, regardless of gender, everyone has a responsibility towards protecting.
