In the few days since the Super Bowl, I can only imagine how much meat was eaten in a five-hour period. And how much of it was eaten by men—who consciously or not – identify their masculinity as “macho.” But is eating meat really more a sign of masculinity than a vegan diet?

Granted, it does take some guts to kill a helpless farm animal before ripping it to shreds and dousing it in barbecue sauce. But how exactly is that a sign of masculinity?

In her book “The Sexual Politics of Meat”, Carol Adams makes this  connection: “Meat becomes a symbol for what is not seen but is always there–patriarchal control of animals and of language.” Because, she writes, “language distances us from the reality of meat eating, thus reinforcing the symbolic meaning of meat eating, a symbolic meaning that is intrinsically patriarchal and male-oriented.”

Through marketing prowess, we’ve co-opted cleverly named fast food and processed meat products as a sign of a man’s ability to conquer and control, when it’s anything but. In fact, the way corporate branding and marketing prey on our culture, it’s more like the opposite is true. Men are being victimized by Carl’s Jr. ads questioning their sexual urges if they don’t rush to eat a burger after watching a supermodel savor bites of beef and bacon. And the same goes for Dollar Menu items that entice men to not only eat more meat, but the gimmick appeals to a belief that the men are behaving with fiscal responsibility in doing so, like a good provider. Like a man should. He eats cheap meat because it’s the right thing to do.

Compassion has long been viewed as woman’s work. It’s a vital component to motherhood, after all. But our traditional relationship with animals raised for food was once way more compassionate, back when most men did hard labor out in the fields and barns. Before the advent of factory farming, many male farmers raised cows, pigs and chickens he knew by name before he slaughtered them. He raised them with care so they were as healthy as they could be (you are what you eat, you know). It’s a far cry from today’s “manly” meat that comes from tortured animals who spend their short lives in dark, cramped conditions packed alongside thousands of other helpless animals. Their only interactions with humans are encounters few and far between the automation of factory living, and most often only where pain—like debeaking and tail docking—or death comes all too soon.

Even as the vegan diet (and other diet restrictions like Paleo or gluten-free) become more common, a man “coming out” to his football buddies about choosing not to eat meat falls in the awkward category, almost like coming out about one’s homosexuality to “the guys.” It’s even safe to say that a gay man today will probably have an easier time disclosing his sexual preference than a man announcing a disdain for meat.

Culturally, we do not have a framework for discussing veganism or vegetarianism with meat-eaters that feels safe for most vegetarian women, let alone for men. For men who feel there’s nothing macho or masculine about eating meat and that it actually takes more strength, more guts to stand up for a helpless chicken or pig than it does to bite into one, he better be ready for the blowback. Because there are few discussions as contentious as whether or not meat-eating is ethical. Like conversations about religion, politics, or vaccines, standing your ground without losing your cool can be challenging when confronted with vitriol. Contempt for the vegan diet is rampant. In my twenty-plus years as a vegan woman (and now a vegan mom), I’ve had to defend myself tirelessly. I’ve had to gracefully tell concerned relatives that yes I eat enough protein and no, I’ve never been anemic. I’ve had to answer the “but what do you eat–don’t you get bored of vegetables?” question more times than I can count. I can only imagine the questions men get about their muscles, strength and virility.

Men are also up against the “animals don’t feel pain” argument. And blatant ignorance from their peers. I once had a (male) medical doctor tell me that KFC wasn’t real chicken. He wasn’t joking. He did not believe there were actual animal parts in his bucket of wings.

“Just as feminists proclaimed that ‘rape is violence, not sex,’ vegetarians wish to name the violence of meat eating,” writes Adams. “Both groups challenge commonly used terms. Mary Daly calls the phrase ‘forcible rape’ a reversal by redundancy because it implies that all rapes are not forcible. This example highlights the role of language in masking violence, in this case an adjective deflects attention from the violence inherent in the meaning of the noun.” The same can be said for people who identify as eating “ethical meat” or “humanely” slaughtered animals. “The phrase ‘humane slaughter’ confers a certain benignity on the term ‘slaughter’,” notes Adams.

But if macho is meat-eating, what do we say about the scores of men these days who are adopting cruelty-free vegan diets? Would you ever suggest that vegan Mike Tyson has lost his masculinity for giving up meat? Or what about political powerhouses Al Gore and Bill Clinton? How about Olympian Carl Lewis? The tide is indeed turning. Just like most of the Super Bowl commercials failed to ignite any enthusiasm from the target audience–machismo feels played out. That’s not to be confused with masculinity—the world needs strong men confident in their maleness. But as a culture, aren’t we ready to embrace men who are also comfortable in their compassion? Men who don’t view eating healthily and gracefully as bereft of masculinity, but as a noble and ethical (and delicious) way to relate to food? Really, what’s more masculine than that?

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

‘Reiki Me’: It’s a LOL New Age Spoof of Miley Cyrus’ ‘Wrecking Ball’ [Video]

From Artists to Yogis: Are Sensitive ‘New Age’ Guys Sexy?

99 Sources of Vegan Protein

image: dinner series

The post Hey Guys, is Meat-Eating Really More Macho than a Vegan Diet? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Former Vice President and climate change crusader, Al Gore, was in Los Angeles recently for “24 Hours of Reality: The Cost of Carbon,” an annual live-streamed multimedia show dedicated to sparking action on climate change.

He took a break from the action to answer some questions on Reddit AMA, where he was asked:

“What specific things are you doing in life to lower your personal carbon footprint? And what is the biggest one specific thing I as an individual can do to reduce mine?”

Gore responded by saying, “I use only carbon-free electricity. Have 33 solar panels on my roof, seven deep geothermal wells under my driveway, LED lights and highest-grade energy-saving windows, max insulation, hybrid plug-in car, etc. No fountains, btw. What you can do? Make smart choices for low-carbon options in the marketplace, make sure you divest from carbon-intensive stocks; be a smart and active citizen! Let politicians know the climate crisis MATTERS to you — A LOT — that you will WORK and contribute to candidates who really champion solutions — and that you will seriously work hard to DEFEAT candidates who ignore climate or take the wrong positions on climate. Help put a price on carbon in the market and put a price on denial in the political system.”

He also urged everyone to assess the carbon pollution risks they’re exposed to by visiting www.thecostofcarbon.org.

This article appears courtesy of Ecorazzi

Ecorazzi covers news and gossip on celebrities and notables in support of the environment and humanitarian causes. You can follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Related on EcoSalon:

Vegetarians in Australia Get Cheaper Life Insurance!

Daryl Hannah’s Top 5 Ways To Stop Global Warming

‘Gravity’ Director Alfonso Cuarón Is Yet Another Hollywood Vegetarian

Image: opendemocracy

The post 5 Ways Al Gore Offsets His Family’s Carbon Footprint appeared first on EcoSalon.

As the dust (and political garbage) of the election settles, it’s time to take a breath of clean air, regroup and see the fear for what it was. Hyperbole, right? Scare tactics from The Left. Doomsday predictions if polluter-sponsored climate deniers won the day. Yes. It’s going to be fine. Just breathe.

Cough.

Okay, so it wasn’t hyberbole. What happened in last week’s elections was a serious body blow to the environmental movement and it’s going to be all we can to do to weather the anti-science storm that’s about to go down. Know this: Half of the new congressmen deny climate change. And they’re arriving in D.C. on a wave of cash supplied by some of the world’s most egregious corporate polluters. Tying ourselves to mast isn’t going to cut it. Make no mistake. These people want to turn the environmental protection clock backward.

This is why I got all excited the other day when I read a story in the Los Angeles Times saying that “faced with rising political attacks,” the non-partisan American Geophysical Union (AGU) – the world’s largest, not-for-profit, professional society of Earth and space scientists, with more than 58,000 members in over 135 countries – “plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.”

Consider the milquetoast approach to taking it to the streets that’s gone down since Al Gore did his heavy lifting back in 2006 (with his powerful documentary, An Inconvenient Truth and subsequent Nobel Peace Prize). And remember the ugliness of the media rollover on Climategate, and then its pitiful and measly coverage of the debunking of the scandal. Left vs. Right aside, the tendency of progressives to make too many assumptions and preach to their own choir has resulted in this electoral cycle’s “mandate” against climate science reality. Non-partisan scientists getting heavily proactive (if it can still be called that) seems critical right now.

So I did a little research on the piece and here’s the thing: The AGU immediately denied the story (which had already been picked up by news outlets and then the blogosphere at large) saying the report of their push-communication effort was bogus. “In contrast to what has been reported in the LA Times and elsewhere, there is no campaign by AGU against climate skeptics or congressional conservatives,” says Christine McEntee, Executive Director and CEO of the American Geophysical Union. “AGU will continue to provide accurate scientific information on Earth and space topics to inform the general public and to support sound public policy development.” What the AGU is instead doing, says its release, is “relaunching” an ask-for-info-and-we’ll-give-it-you Q & A service for journalists to coincide with the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico.

This begs the question: What’s the problem here? Haven’t we learned that laying facts on the table and then walking away from them in the hopes that they will be eagerly devoured by a truth-hungry public is just well – milquetoast? I don’t want to jump on scientific groups who, like the AGU, don’t want to be advocates involved in any “commentary” on policy, but when are our specialists going to leave their towers and hit the streets with what they know?

I mean, hey, white coats, your high-profile presence is required! Here’s what was accurately reported in the LA Times story: Now-powerful congressmen such as Darrell Issa of California, Joe L. Barton of Texas and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin have pledged to “investigate the Environmental Protection Agency‘s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions” and the Climategate scandal.

Oh, and then there’s John Shimkus of Illinois (who wants to head the Energy and Commerce Committee) on why we need not worry about climate change: “God will decide when to end the Earth, not man.”

Cough.

As near as I can tell, the LA Times story may have been triggered by the activity of John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, a scientist and climate science advocate who is involved in putting together a “climate rapid response team,” which “includes scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.” So far, his effort reportedly has dozens of leading scientists on board to “defend the consensus on global warming in the scientific community.”

Here’s what we need to hear more of: Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York, says “this group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists. We are taking the fight to them because we are, tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed.”

Abraham wrote about his efforts in the guardian.co.uk (on the same day as the LA Times story), where he also mentioned the (later denied) AGU plan. In the piece, he points out that (wait for it…) “Scientists have not been effective communicators” as while “approximately 97 percent of the top climate scientists believe we have a problem – the general public and members of government are split on this issue.”

Perhaps prescient of the AGU’s shy stance, he adds, “It is a shame that scientists have to take personal and professional risks in order to be good citizens of the planet. It doesn’t have to be this way.”

Maybe I just have some post-election blues, but before the dust truly settles here, perhaps we had better kick it up again and maybe – (cough) – we could use some more noise from the folks in white.

Image: NASA Goddard Photo and Video

The post Battle Lost, War to Win: (Some) Climate Scientists Fight Back appeared first on EcoSalon.

From the Hill…

I just couldn’t let this one go by. And it pains me to bring it up. But let’s talk about a few inconvenient truths.

Who’d have thought that President Bill Clinton was the eco-friendly “bad boy” of the Clinton-Gore administration? He made intimate phone calls to his special friend from inside the White House during his scandal; Vice President Al Gore took a private jet during his. How could our anointed Captain Planet turn his back on (in addition to one other key figure) Mother Earth?

Masseuse Molly Hagerty has been dishing about the Nobel Peace prize-winning climate change guru’s ‘crazed sex poodle’ behavior. I won’t go into the gossipy details of the alleged massage because it has no relevance here.

But, some facts have arisen about the other, more globally pressing issues about the Harvard-educated family man becoming entangled in this controversy. He was staying in Portland, Oregon, and asked staff at the luxury Hotel Lucia to find him a masseuse. Two things. One, the Hotel Lucia is lovely, lively, hip and chic. But just because it’s located in the Emerald City, doesn’t make it a green hotel. Maybe Gore forgot to do a simple search for one of these environmentally friendly lodgings. Also worth noting: Staying at the Doubletree is not any greener simply because the word tree is part of its name.

Plain and simple, Gore hasn’t been practicing what he’s been preaching all these years. Witness the purchase of his bachelor pad in San Francisco in 2006.

Gore paid $3.9 million for the apartment atop the grand St. Regis Hotel in San Francisco in 2006. There is a swimming pool, a health spa, a roof deck and even a butler available to bring refreshments along with his order of double standards. He enjoys an opulent personal lifestyle while lecturing the public on green morality.

It’s a complicated situation being a public personality. The spotlight can illuminate, yes, but it can also seduce and reveal the bad in someone as well as the good.

Tabloid fodder aside, it’s the double talk with regard to core message that’s difficult to stomach, let alone abide. San Francisco is one of the greenest cities in the country. So what kept Gore from finding, or erecting, a sustainable living space? Building a green house doesn’t take much more than money. Heck, even Glenn Beck built and lives in one.

University of Manchester Professor Geoff Beattie published a study about environmentalism and attitudes versus actions. In it he differentiated between how people felt about being “green” and what they actually believed and did about it. Sean Coughlan at the BBC reports:

Researchers, at the university’s Sustainable Consumption Institute, made video recordings of people talking about issues such as global warming – looking at how their words matched their body language, such as hand gestures and expressions.

The study found that while people could control their speech to express green opinions, their unconscious gestures suggested their “true thoughts and feelings” lay elsewhere.

Explicitly, people may want to save the planet and appear green, but implicitly they may care a good deal less.

Given it is these implicit attitudes that direct and control much of our behaviour in supermarkets and elsewhere, these are the attitudes that we have to pursue and understand and change.

It’s common knowledge that people (politicians, especially) will say one thing and do another, often the opposite. It’s just difficult to observe, in hindsight, when some of those people take a very public stance, muscle their way to icon status – and make less good on their word. The lesson here: If you’re going to fall from grace, make sure you have a cushy seat on a private jet to make your descent a comfortable one.

Editor’s Note: This is the latest installment in Christopher Correa’s weekly column, Hill/Street Greens, examining the environmental deeds (and misdeeds) of Washington, D.C. and Wall Street.

Image: socketsite

The post An Inconvenient Roof: Al Gore’s Controversial Lodgings appeared first on EcoSalon.

Al and Tipper Gore’s recently purchased cozy Californian retirement villa now more likely to serve as a Fortress of Solitude. Oh, and it doesn’t look too eco-friendly either.

Many environmentalists, myself included, were a bit taken aback when word hit that Al and Tipper Gore had purchased a $9 million 6,500 sq. ft. Italian-style villa in Montecito, CA late last October.

The highly-exclusive neighborhood, which also counts mega-celebs like Oprah as residents, is ranked as the 7th most expensive in the U.S. by Forbes.

Now, it’s no surprise that the Gores have money. The former V.P. has always said that he puts his money where his mouth is – and it’s paid off handsomely for him. Nor should we discount the millions that Gore has funneled away from his personal accounts and into environmental foundations – like the Alliance for Climate Protection.

What’s irked the green scene, and given fuel to his detractors, is the underwhelming choice of this property with regards to sustainability. From the pictures that have been posted, there is no indication of any green features. Instead, we’re treated to specs like “6 bedrooms, 9 bathrooms, ocean views” that invite ridicule as proof that Gore is full of hot air and isn’t adhering to the very lifestyle he advocates the rest of the world to follow.

It’s interesting to note, however, that while the property was purchased in October 2009, it wasn’t actually purchased under the Gore’s names. As the blog Real Estalker points out, the home “was purchased through a trust that links back to the very same post office box in itty-bitty Carthage, TN to which all of the other Gore properties link back.” This is unusual, the site says, as this is the first property to have been done this way.

Ok, so why all the secrecy?

There are two possible reasons: 1. The Gores were keeping this property under wraps until all green-energy remodeling projects could be completed, thus avoiding (now unsuccessfully) the drama that ensued over their Tennessee home back in 2007 or 2.) they really just didn’t want anyone to know about this home.

For more on what will undoubtedly become a receptacle for old Ramen containers and empty whiskey bottles, check out the full article at Ecorazzi.

Editor’s note: Article by Michael d’Estries. Originally published by our friends at Ecorazzi. Ecorazzi is the source for breaking green gossip. Be sure to visit them and say hi, and follow Ecorazzi on Twitter, too!

Image: World Economic Forum

The post Al Gore’s New Home More Efficient, Lonely, Than Most appeared first on EcoSalon.

From the Hill”¦

Call Earl Warren! Recent speculations about the cause of the oil spill in the Gulf implicate North Koreans, Al Gore, Venezuelans, the Chinese and Communists. You’re reading that right.

The mainstream media’s consensus is that the spill was a result of offshore drilling activities. But there are some fun holdouts I can’t let go unnoticed.

First there are the earthers, which basically represent a faction of conspiracy theorists who are convinced that timing of the event (it occurred right on the cusp of Earth Day and during a period of political contentiousness over drilling) is just too close for comfort. Basically, they’re giving it the Zapruder treatment (there was another shooter – er, spiller!).

Says the Dakota Voice:

“Rush Limbaugh pointed out that the explosion occurred on April 21st, the day before ‘Earth Day.’ He also reminded us that Al Gore had previously encouraged environmental nut jobs to engage in civil disobedience against the construction of coal plants that don’t have carbon capture technology. ‘Eco-terrorists’ exist and have done millions of dollars worth of criminal damage. Fire is one of the main tools of their evil trade. I’m not claiming the Deep Horizon was bombed by eco-terrorists, although I don’t believe it’s out of the realm of possibility. But, it would take some serious money and ability to pull off an attack like that, so I would tend to think much bigger than college hippie eco-wackos with some money-backing – a foreign government, perhaps.”

And don’t forget the the North Koreans! Aided and abetted by the Ruskies, to boot!

Dakota Voice:

“[Michael] Savage said there is a theory on a Russian website that claims North Korea is behind this. The article claims that North Korea torpedoed the Deepwater Horizon, which was apparently built and financed by South Korea. Torpedoes would make sense for the results we see.”

So the spill was in fact caused by Commies (operating under the code name Obammies), who are eco-terra-rists with green thumbs and green cards, and who upon deeper analysis are actually Red Chinese Muslims from South America. You see, America isn’t the only country drillin’, baby, drillin’, so it would make sense that one of our rivals might pull a Tonya Harding on us.

What are your conspiracy theories? Let us know in the comments! And remember, always question and look to the skies waters!

Editor’s Note: This is the latest installment in Christopher Correa’s weekly column, Hill/Street Greens, examining the environmental deeds (and misdeeds) of Washington, D.C. and Wall Street.

Image: uscglantareapa

The post The Gulf Oil Disaster – There Was Another Shooter – Er, Spiller! appeared first on EcoSalon.

Climate change is nonsense.

If I’m ever lucky enough to bump into millionaire Donald Trump (say at a real estate sale or divorce court), I will rush up to the man and shake his hand. He’s opened my eyes to this global warming hoax once and for all. Addressing an audience of 500 admirers at the Trump National Golf Club (Westchester, N.Y.), he uttered these immortal words:

With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore…Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn’t care less. It would make us totally non-competitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.

I bet those countries aren’t laughing now!

But if there’s one person who does look stupid, it’s me. All these years believing in the power of science, logic, reasoned argument and differentiating between weather and climate, and now the Donald’s blown that baloney into the weeds. But I can take it – after all, I’d rather get my story correct than support some thoughtless populist prejudice designed to further the political agendas of self-serving elites. Don, you’re the man.

But I want more from our Gore-slaying guru of truthiness. I want him to explain the specifics. What say you to these thorny issues, Mr. Trump?

1. Increasingly extreme weather. Any fool can see that the earth can’t be warming up if it’s snowing! So what is causing all this weird weather right now? There’s only one rational conclusion: the earth must be cooling down. (I’m blaming all these wind turbines, it’s like global air-con).

2. Crops are on the run. Guatemalan coffee growers are moving their plantations, claiming that climbing temperatures are putting their livelihoods at risk. Scottish soft fruit is in danger of getting squished. Indian farmers are insuring themselves against crop failure. To them all I say – what’s wrong with tinned food? This loose food fad has to stop sometime, might as well be now. (And don’t get me started on that organic rubbish).

3. The mountains are thawing. The glaciers are melting on Everest and the Himalayan snows are turning into lakes. What’s that about, Don? No, I’ve got it – summer’s coming! Of course. These things are so obvious if you spend the time to really think them through.

4. The seas are rising. The island chain of the Maldives is sliding beneath the waves, and its inhabitants are responding with heavy investment in a zero-carbon economy. Heavy. See what I’m saying? The heavier it is, the less it floats. (Pro tip, guys: use coal, it gets lighter the more you use it).

5. The ice-caps are melting. The Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up (here’s the latest from the US Geological Survey), making the oceans rise twice as fast as they were doing in the 1970s. The summer polar ice cap is 20% reduced from its 1979 coverage. Where’s it all going? It’s this snow we’re having! Gotcha. The ice isn’t melting, it’s just moving around! Give it a few years and it’ll be right back at the poles again, you’ll see.

Am I on the right track, Don?

Image: Trump Ice Skating Rink in Central Park, New York, by James Trosh

The post Donald Trump Sets the World Straight appeared first on EcoSalon.