If It's Bad for the Environment, It Must Be a Man's Fault
May 26th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families 
This isn't an anti-male editorial cartoon in and of itself, but as I've noted before, in editorial cartoons the person who is said to be polluting, contributing to global warming, or being wasteful is almost always a man. The above is no exception.
"));
19 queries. 0.376 seconds.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
While men take all the blame, how much environmental devastation has been wrought upon the
earth by the consumerist nature of American middle class women. From fancy gas guzzling cars, to
exspensive clothes, to fancy dinners, spa treatments, houses (kitchen remodels), etc. It costs a lot
of money to support their requirements, and most industries that make that money do so at the
exspense of the environment.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Somebody needs to do the engineering calculations to derive the soaring costs associated with the ever-expanding female butt-print. Female obesity in the U.S. is obviously driving the much-more-resource-consuming design specs of so many products which must accommodate the ever-expanding average female butt-print in America.
If all forms of seating and all manufactured items and other structures which must otherwise accommodate, for example, a 20% increase in the designed-to-max female butt-print, were taken into account, the soaring rate of female obesity in America might be found to be one of the greatest contributors to global warming. And none of this includes the costs of feeding the females who are growing these record-setting butts.
Cars, elevators, office seating, seating in buses, trains, subways and aircraft -- the list of manufactured items whose design specs are impacted by accelerating growth in the American female butt-print goes on and on. And we must also consider all the extra energy it takes to haul these ever-expanding mega-butt women around when they do leave their homes.
It's rather worrisome if you track it over time -- and growth in the American female butt-print certainly does not seem to be slowing down.
Thus, what our country should be facing up to is the undeniable massive carbon footprint which results from the ever-expanding American female butt-print. This is the type of ignored problem which could result in the veritable crushing (or should I say "squishing") of the U.S. economy as growth of the American female butt-print goes completely unchecked, and unremarked by female-pandering politicians.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Women consume far more than men, as is obvious to anybody outside of the fairyland of womens studies classes. Without women's rampant consumerism, the economy would collapse.
Men, of course, do virtually everything in the public sphere more than women -- pollute, invent, create great art and literature, and -- well, just about everything else, too. And, of course, men are involved with and and victims of crime, war and pretty much everything else bad more than women. But the feminists choose not to focus on men's victimhood or men's accomplishments, which dwarf women's in the public sphere. They choose to focus on the negatives.
Because the vast majority of fair-minded people understand this is flat-out silly and gender divisive, I don't get defensive about it. Only a sick, demented, twisted, inappropriately angry person would view this issue through a gender lens. We need to ridicule them, Glenn. They are too stupid to be taken seriously.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:08 am
Tim Murray: "Without women's rampant consumerism, the economy would collapse."
I don't agree with that assessment, Tim.
Women's rampant consumerism creates real vulnerability in the economy, not strength. You see, women are driving the U.S. economy towards an expenditure mix which comprises much of what I would call "dead end spend". That is, spending on things which can nothing whatsoever to increase the productivity of the economy -- or reduce its "carbon footprint".
Imagine two different ways of spending $20.00.
Woman spends $20 on a manicure.
Man spends $20 on an adjustable wrench.
Now, the woman's spend goes onto her fingernails where only she and a few others will ever see the "results" of this spend -- and probably only she will even care. Maybe it will briefly lift her "self esteem".
The man's spend gets embodied in a durable product which he can and will use to make various repairs and adjustments to other economic goods, in most cases reducing the costs of maintaining those goods and extending their useful economic lives, while also eliminating the need in many cases for a costly (and carbon-intensive) visit by a repairman.
The man's spend on a wrench is far, far better for economic productivity (and reducing of the "carbon footprint" than is the female's spend on herself.
In other words, if men were controlling the spending in society, you would see a much more resilient, less wasteful and less stupidly indulgent economy.
Try visiting a department store and drop into the women's clothing and cosmetics areas of that store.
Imagine what vast resources are wasted so that women can have the endless varieties of junk clothing and cosmetics which our rampant -- and errant -- female consumerist economy churns out for these vain wasters of money and capital.
It is absurd.
But the "courts" wish to shower money upon these adult-body children called the American women so that they can continue to weaken our economy more and more, driving it to the edge of the abyss as they serve their own costly addiction to the useless and wasteful consumption of vanity goods (like how many pairs of shoes? Duh!) and vanity services.
No Tim, an economy in which the share of spend on rampant consumerism is maximized -- especially when what is being consumed is what I call "dead end spend" -- makes for a very weak economy.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:04 am
par for the course
Men do the production and women do the consumption… then men get blamed for the results.
AnonymousPamphleteer – you are correct in your assessment of the types of consumption. You covered part of macro economics 101 class… investment in productive goods increases wealth much more than investment in pure consumption goods.
joe32surf & Tim Murray – good commentary… it is true, but should never be mentioned in public ;-)
May 27th, 2008 at 7:29 am
I wonder how many entitlement princesses are concerned that gas is $4.00 a gallon? Hubby is having to work harder so Buffy can drive her Escalade to get her nails done, or go to the mall for that Coach purse. Not to mention all of the plastic water bottels that she will drink up while going to the gym, once again driving the big SUV.
Now that I have stereotyped a certain group of women, understand that I don't include ALL women in this group. But you know who they are.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:53 am
ironic... feminists are quick to shout that women are just as productive as men... except when it comes to the production of greenhouse gasses. Women must be really talented if they can do the exact same things as men, yet make no gasses.
by the way... have you ever done an informal survey of big SUV drivers? I have, and my counts are approx 2 out of three SUV drivers are women. I am sure those women need a vehicle with an 8000+ pound towing capacity to go to the mall and salon.
I always chuckle when I see a fancy city girl driving an SUV... you know a minivan (which gets much better mileage) would serve her better, but she wont have one because it was the wrong style... and implied that they were domestic.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:41 am
When I lived with my ex, the 5 of us generated a bin and a half of trash a week, plus an over full bucket of glass for recycling. (empty wine bottles)
Now that it's just me and 2 girls, we barely generate a half a bin of trash a week (maybe a kitchen garbage bag or two), and very few containers for recycling.
The amount of driving has certainly gone down. I'm averaging a tank a week, where before, both cars were having to fill up twice a week or more.
The utility bills have gone down by half, or more.
Guys - do your part for a greener world - stay single!
May 27th, 2008 at 9:37 am
A recent Mother Jones article described the environmental devastation that the recent economic exspansion
has wrecked upon the Chinese environment.
Not only has this huge American consumption of Chinese goods resulted in environmental devastation in
China, but it as also undermined industries in the USA that cannot compete due to environmental controls
placed on them which make them much more exspensive.
Then you can add in the dangers of having China own over a trillion dollars of US Treasury bonds-- they could
destroy our economy overnight if they decided to dump their bonds on the market.
The US consumer (and I don't think I need to prove that American females are the biggest consumers -- just
visit any shopping mall any time of the day), has created this rather dire situation. With the courts protecting
them, it's all likely to come to a very bad end.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I think the reason why men are featured is precisely to make a gender neutral statement. I remember the days when feminists shrieked over anonymous first person's being referred to as he such as: "If a person goes out when it's raining, he should first get an umbrella." Today, it's PC (but technically not proper grammar I understand) to say something like: "If a person goes out when it's raining, they should first get an umbrella." If a woman was featured in the cartoon above, everyone would focus on their gender rather than the point.
Consider: Whether it's women scientists, politicians, or criminals and victims, the gender is the first thing people consider while if it's men then people look at the person's deeds. Feminists decry this but at the same time exploit it.
Ok, next, I've noticed for quite a while that it's not only women who are mass consumers but leftists in general. Suburbanites I know who commute to their government jobs blow about $100 on gasoline A WEEK driving 10mph from their suburban McMansions to their government job. Two parent working families require 2 cars and usually both have to commute long hours to work. 1 parent working families typically build a home either around the breadwinner (close to work) or more commonly around the family (close to schools and shopping) meaning that the SAH spouse (99+% of the time the woman) doesn't drive a lot (hence why they have the SUV's, they don't necessarily put a lot of mileage on them.)
Finally, regarding China cashing in their dollars. Those are like Chuckie-Cheese credits or Stripper Club Dollars. They have to ultimately spend them on American products we choose to sell them. In addition, with higher gas prices it's more difficult for them to export stuff to us. This double whammy means that we can sell them those 2 bedroom ranches in Riverside, California that aren't exactly flying off the shelves...
May 27th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
When I was studying consumer behavior in college we learned the principle that "advertising proposes false solutions for real human needs." All consumerism is based on promoting a psychology of individual deficiency, i.e. - you as a person lack something, and you can overcome this through consumption.
Ever wonder why almost no advertisements tell you anything about the actual product itself? It's because the ad is selling an experience, an identity, an emotional promise.
Given that something like 70% of retail space and a similar percentage of domestic spending is dedicated to assuaging women's needs, one has to ponder - just what is it that a member of today's most privileged class on earth feels she is lacking?
I wonder if there is a connection between the infantilizing psychology of advertising and the fact that the No. 1 reason women state when filing for divorce is - "He didn't meet my needs."
May 27th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I almost fell out of my chair laughing at your spot on analysis AnonymousPampleteeer. It's indeed true, much consumption in our society is purely to satisfy the whims of women, even when they're frivolous or venal in the extreme.
Taras
May 28th, 2008 at 12:11 am
>Finally, regarding China cashing in their dollars. Those are like Chuckie-Cheese credits or Stripper Club Dollars. >They have to ultimately spend them on American products we choose to sell them.
They don't need to buy anything from us. They can sell their treasury bonds to whoever they like and
turn around and convert the money into any currency they like. The point is if they dump a trillion in
treasury bonds, our money becomes worthless, because it will flood the market with dollar backed securities,
and there will not be enough buyers to purchase them. The end result will cause US dollar backed securities
to have a drastically reduced value.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
The problem with that analysis, Joe32surf, is that if the money becomes worthless then how will the Chinese so easily unload them, hmmm?
Even if George Soros or someone like that buys them on the international market for a 1/10 of a Euro on the dollar, they are STILL dollars and therefore usable to buy American products. By the same token, if American dollars become worthless than countries that export to the US, such as Canada, will also see their markets collapse and prices plummet.
We're already seeing some of this as exports from the US are up and tourists are flooding in. I should set up a bed and breakfast... Guten Tag!
May 28th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
As a man who has been trying to help the environment all his life, this cartoon is beyond offensive. So too are the images on the tele that only show *women* who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint, reduce pollution, etc.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:55 am
>The problem with that analysis, Joe32surf, is that if the money becomes worthless then how will the Chinese so >easily unload them, hmmm?
>Even if George Soros or someone like that buys them on the international market for a 1/10 of a Euro on the dollar, >they are STILL dollars and therefore usable to buy American products. By the same token, if American dollars >become worthless than countries that export to the US, such as Canada, will also see their markets collapse and >prices plummet.
>We're already seeing some of this as exports from the US are up and tourists are flooding in. I should set up a bed >and breakfast... Guten Tag!
If the dollar collapses, then basic raw materials that we import, eg oil, iron, copper, etc will become
too exspensive for americans to purchase, and our economy will then collapse. If the Chinese cannot find
buyers for their dollar assets, then they will go to zero and our dollars will buy 0 barrels of oil.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
This carbon footprint business is irritating in the first place, mostly because I can't believe the insane propaganda that has been foisted upon us as fact. I believe that if something is true, it should be able to rest on facts. For example how will the sea levels raise 20 feet as Al Gore says? The ice shelf rests on the water. Ice weighs exactly as much as it displaces. If it melts, it only fills the amount of space it previously displaced and will never raise the water level one inch. If a lie must be told about something to convince people of its truth how truthful can the original claim be?
Now ignoring my previous statement, as for who pollutes more, I think we need to be fair. Women aren't any more consumers than men are. For every woman that has to have a new wedding ring every year, there's a man that needs a new television or stereo system. For every woman that buys $3000 worth of shoes and purses a year, there's a man who spends that same amount for beer and golf.
We are all consumers, we just find it unexplainable what women spend money on. Most guys can appreciate me spending $5000 for paint on my '62 chevy truck, but would never be able to fathom spending that much on a dress.
Just because we don't understand it, doesn't make it any better or worse what women spend money on.