Earlier this week, Mike Martin, a regular (and very good) commentator for the local public radio station, brought up an interesting point in a piece about how it just may have taken Al Gore’s Nobel Prize to make an environmental stance manly.
No longer about simply “cleaning up” or “keeping house” in a Mother Earth way, coming up with solutions for climate change, a.k.a. global warming, is now seen as “brave,” ” brilliant,” and “pragmatic.”
As he put it:
“But, ever so slowly, there is a seeping realization that there is nothing cute or bleeding-heart about environmentalism. The challenges before us are for brave leaders, brilliant engineers, and pragmatic problem-solvers. There is nothing idealistic about saving our environment; on the contrary, it’s an extremely practical matter.”
While women are certainly driving the consumer push toward sustainability and shrinking environmental footprints, they could never go it alone. EVERYONE has to get on board. If it takes new labeling, clever positioning, nuanced semantics – or even a Nobel Prize – to make an environmental stance valid for more people, then let’s do it.
How we persuade or motivate human beings to take their own personal baby steps to positively affect any cause is simply the means to the one big end (upon which most of us can likely agree when it comes to the environment). It doesn’t matter so much how you get people to take that step, or if different groups need to hear different words/messages to take it.
Just like any campaign, you have to consider your environmental initiatives, and the community relations surrounding them, very uniquely for each of your markets. At this point in time, I’d bet a lot of the men and women buying your goods will respond wholeheartedly to an environmental approach filled with bravery, brilliance, and pragmatism. Go forth!
Great post, Andrea. Well said.
As a scout leader of my son’s Weblos den, I am happy to teach our kids about conservation of resources and respecting the environment. “Leave No Trace” is a big part of being a Boy Scout. It makes both practical and moral sense to be conservation-minded and not ruin the world for our posterity.
On the other hand, Gore’s winning the Nobel prize doesn’t make him “manly” in my eyes. I think a lot of people realize and are turned off by the politicization of it all, and Gore’s feat has tainted the award’s credibility (but, to be fair, not any more than the award being given to the late terrorist Yassar Arafat).
Not to sound sexist, but since this is the theme of your post, I teach my son that part of being a “manly” is maintaining one’s integrity by telling the truth at all times and practicing what you preach. People can take everything else away from him), but if he keeps that, then he still has value.
The measure of Gore’s “manliness” is not encapsulated by a nebulous concept of “being green.” It is not inconsistent with it, necessarily (since it is so vague a term), but I can see how “manly men” might not want to be associated with its chief spokesperson.
Good point Cam, I don’t believe Al Gore’s prize affects the “manliness” of being green one way or the other. Green has been manly since Teddy Roosevelt, frankly.
Cam, I would also say that a person would teach one’s daughter the same principles of telling the truth and practicing what what you preach. They strike me as basic, core things you would want to teach your kids.
I agree – Gore is no perfect representation of manliness, but he happened to win an award that the world recognizes as being a big deal, so along the way that prize seemed to “legitimize” the pursuit of environmental ideals he represents. Without any award directed toward the many environmentally-related projects occurring now, environmentalism might continue to be thought a lighter weight issue by a fair number of people. Awards are ranking, positioning, and linear thinking – and a lot of people are only swayed by that type of societal credibility.
Whatever it takes – is fine by me.
Neil – That’s exactly what I thought… When I was writing the comment, I had that in there originally that those things apply to men and women, but edited it in a hurry and ended up with a grammatical mess.
Yes, Andrea, I do think it is possible that getting the peace prize is a boost to his stature and his causes. But I think it is the ipsofacto stature of Nobel rather than of increased manliness.
Again, I think that Green has been manly since Teddy Roosevelt!
Cam, I do see your point that it seems strange to award Gore this based on his environmental work but I do not think Gore lacks integrity. I would say he probably is above average in that department for national level politicians. Perfect? By no means but he is *not* your garden variety corrupt politico, I can think of a lot of much worse cases of hypocrisy and dishonesty on the national stage in one minute of thinking…
By the way, I met Gore once and he seemed as earnest as a Boy Scout. I met him along with some other politicians and, frankly, he seemed different.
Granted, he is still a politician and politicians spin, etc. You don’t make it the national stage without being somewhat hard, well, unless you have family connections that get you through the door relatively easily. That’s hard ball up there.
Neil – I met Alan Keyes twice and Congressman Pete Sessions once (back when Sessions was my rep). Both, though diametrically opposed to the things Gore is for, were also as earnest as Boy Scouts (I think Sessions actually was an Eagle Scout).
I’m not sure anyone’s seeming earnestness proves much about his integrity. It’s probably not useful here to go through our checklists to compare which politician lies more — as a politician. We don’t have that kind of time on Earth anyway.
What is relevant here (in the context of this post only) is the analysis of how integrity makes one “manly,” and how misrepresentations in the service of being “green” might affect that.
I consciously withhold from going further than that here, because I know there are many who believe Gore to be the cat’s meow, and I have no desire to challenge their perception of him here.
Well, I don’t consider him to be the cat’s meow, I just was noting that when I met him he seemed to be a man who really stands for something. I respect that. His personality was like more like an enthusiastic coach than the stiff reputation he has.
Cam, I have no doubt there are people of solid integrity in both major parties, and total dirt bags in both major parties. Can we agree on that much?
Cam,
By the way, here are my heroes:
Teddy Roosevelt – I live in the West and his conservation ethic brought us many of the beautiful places out here. Land on which many an Eagle Scout has done his project.
Pope John Paul II – The greatest person of the 20th Century. Why? By inflaming the Poles, he started a chain of events that ultimately brought down the Soviet Union and ended the cold war. Yes, others (such as Reagan) deserve credit, too, but the Pope was the key.
And one more thing, sorry, but let’s stop this red state and blue state horse shit. There are no red states and blue states, there is only the United States of America.
This is not directed at you, Cam, or anyone else in particular. It is just this idea that we are divided so neatly into blue and red is a notion I’d like to see retired.
Neil – We agree on quite a bit within the comments of this post. I’m just keeping which parts a secret.
Shut up. Come clean. What do you agree and disagree with. Be a man.
Most of it doesn’t have anything to do with this article, so I’ll have to refrain here.
However, if you want to continue over email, write me at cbeck (at) clickhere (dot) com