Guys, If You Avoid Recycling Because You’re Afraid It’s ‘Gay,’ You’re Definitely Trash
Oil, steaks, and throwing the trash in separate places don't make you any more of a man, it just makes you an accessory to mass destruction.
A new study has been released by Penn State University with some heavy implications. The study was conducted on 960 men and women to gather a picture of how men and women judge, stereotype, and compartmentalize specific Pro-Environmental Behaviors (PEBs) associated with either Gender-Conforming or Gender-Bending identities. They were asked their opinions on PEB's associated with fictional characters ranging between Gender-Conforming and Gender-Bending.
Janet K. Swim, Ashley J. Gillis (both of Penn State), and Kaitlynn J. Hamaty (of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands) defined Gender-Bending as "...engaging in pro-environmental behaviors inconsistent with one's own gender," and Gender-Conforming as "...engaging in pro-environmental behaviors consistent with one's own gender."
One of the major findings from the research was that there is an implication of social consequences if one were to engage in PEBs associated with the opposite gender. So, if a man were to engage in a behavior typically seen as feminine, there is a correlation that he would think that he would be seen as feminine or perhaps gay, i.e. Gender-Bending, by his peers.
"The present research...confirms the importance of researchers studying environmental attitudes, behaviors, and identities to integrate research and theory about gender stereotypes, sexual identities, and gender roles into their models. As an example, the theory of planned behavior has frequently been applied to predicting likelihood of engaging in PEBs (Klöckner 2013). A key element of this theory is that attitudes about behaviors reflect expected consequences for engaging in behaviors weighted by the importance placed on such consequences. Expectations about social consequences of engaging in gendered PEBs could, thus, influence attitudes about the behaviors. It is through this mechanism that gender expectations may influence the likelihood of engaging in certain PEBs."
This is a major problem coming from a society that has been the world leader in C02 emissions since 1912 and still far surpasses other world powers like China and the former Soviet Union.
Animation: The countries with the largest cumulative CO2 emissions since 1750 Ranking as of the start of 2019: 1)… https://t.co/aX8fy9lfPB— Carbon Brief (@Carbon Brief) 1556034488.0
Behaviors like driving diesel trucks, eating less meat, using reusable shopping bags, and even just recycling all have heavy implications on gender even though they have nothing implicitly to do with gender and everything to do with how society has made us believe that certain actions and objects are gendered.
In a country that places value in an Evangelical world-view that homosexuality and gender-bending is inherently wrong, bordering on evil, it's easy to see why there could be such vast repulsion to performing tasks that could make you out to your community as someone who is not gender-conforming.
Trump has even withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement. This global pact was aimed towards something called the 20/20/20 targets: "...the reduction of carbon emissions by 20%, the increase of renewable energy market share by 20%, and a 20% increase in energy efficiency" (RECs National).
Instead, according to CNN Business, "...the US is the world's largest oil producer, with output expected to average 12.4 million barrels a day this year and 13.3 million barrels a day in 2020," as a result of Trump's decisions as President.
For the men of America, how do we get to the point of de-gendering certain actions and objects so that the imminent collapse of our eco-system doesn't become a global disaster that could eventually wipe out our species? How has the gendering, and adherence to the gendering, of our society become a more important task than performing actions to sustain and cultivate the world for the generations who will inherit our Earth?
The truth is that oil, steaks, and throwing the trash in separate places don't make you any more of a man, it just makes you an accessory of inevitable and massive destruction.
It's becoming more and more obvious that, as a society, we must step outside of our stereotypes against gender-bending and make a change to our ideas and actions so that we can save the planet.
But there unfortunately might not be any real catalyst to spark that fire in our society. And, as we are steadily reaching the point of no-return, there doesn't seem to be any outward desire for people, specifically and especially men, to make a change that will be of any benefit to the world.
Yet, the real question we need to be asking ourselves is, when the world ends, was the death of our planet worth it to you so long as your community didn't think you were not a man, or were too feminine, or gay?
I'm Standing With My Trans Sisters And Boycotting Victoria's Secret
Victoria's secret has been revealed, and it's just as discriminatory as we all suspected.
In a recent interview with Vogue, Victoria Secret's CMO Ed Razek was asked about why the company's infamous fashion show does not include plus-size and transgender models. To this, he replied that the show was meant to be a fantasy, and that they include models that appeal to the markets they sell to, not the whole world.
Reading between the lines with barely a smidgen of effort, Razek meant that their goal is appealing to their cis-female, 14- to 18-year-old demographic so that those customers can better appeal to the white, cis men—the show targets, which explains all the meatless, opinion-less models.
Who cares if they promote unrealistic standards for girls with real-life bodies who aren't #TrainedLikeAnAngel?
In an effort to create that fantasy, they certainly can't be bothered to worry about the fatsos and trannies, too.
Anyone could've told Razek that secret should've stayed in the closet, but it is not altogether surprising coming from a company who only reluctantly started celebrating their top models' racial diversity and national backgrounds.
Unbeknownst to Victoria, representation for the trans community has exploded in recent years with the fashion industry leading the way. Under the influence of supermodels and activists like Arisce Wanzer, Carmen Carrera, Isis King and MiMi Tao, these women and their equals have gone from being token "trans models" to simply owning the supermodel title they so rightly deserve.
Even despite the Trump administration's most recent attack on trans rights, campaigns like Laverne Cox's #TransIsBeautiful have emboldened more trans and gender nonconforming people than ever before to be themselves in everyday society.
Victoria's Secret apparently didn't get that memo.
From a marketing standpoint, the company's stubborn refusal to change with the times is absolutely moronic. Every day, commercial brands like Arie, Gap, and H&M come out with new lines and campaigns that cater to a variety of people of all colors, creeds, shapes and sizes.
Yet, Victoria's Secret Pink line still doesn't even provide sizes past XL.
It's this obvious exclusion that has made the popularity of their fashion show decline in recent years, for young girls and femmes can no longer relate to the content.
While the size discrimination may be attributed to the availability of the cheap, uncomfortable materials the company refuses to branch out from, Razek's comments brought their discriminatory practices into stark relief.
The CMO's opinions set off a firestorm for the company, taking heat from plus-sized and trans models alike, but many of the outraged voices from trans activists were of a similar tune.
Trans women live their dream fantasy every day by simply being themselves, whether or not that fits Victoria's Secret's cookie-cutter vision for what that should be.
By refusing to include the queer community in their beauty standards, they are ignoring what the company symbolizes to many trans women who are brave enough to be themselves.
As Victoria's Secret is one of the most accessible lingerie brands on the market, I can only imagine how young trans ladies must feel when they purchase their very first piece of lady's underwear from the retailer. For a company that represents the pinnacle of womanhood and sexuality to so many developing girls, this could be a pivotal moment in many trans women's lives.
Razek's comments confirmed that the company couldn't give less of a damn about this portion of their clientele or what their brand might have represented.
With that in mind, it's no wonder this statement is quickly becoming the tipping point in the company's relationship with young people who are only going to keep getting more progressive.
Indeed, I and many other young millennials have already started to grow tired of the brand's repetitive patterns, unrealistic fit and vanilla beauty standards for some time now. It's foreseen that the company will lose more than just their queer customer base after this blunder.
It's a shame this company is so resolutely stuck in their outdated ways, refusing to embrace the inspiration that people like Christian Siriano and Ashley Grahm inspire, when they started off as a trailblazer in celebrating women's sexuality. But it's sheer, delicious luck that this happened the same year Rihanna graced us with her presence in the commercial fashion industry.
So, in the words of the infamous Trace Lysette, I'm marching over to Savage Fenty with my dollars.