A new study suggests that men and women connect differently with nature based upon how gender-based norms impact perceptions of the self and others. The researchers believe that women tend to have a greater positive sensory experience when interacting with nature and are more likely to benefit from “nature-based theories” (not sure what this means, but perhaps it is getting at things like yoga and alternative medicine, which, at least from what I have seen, are highly marketed towards female consumers). In addition, the study shows …
…. that women who spend more time experiencing nature may also have a less critical opinion of their own bodies and feel less pressure to conform to stereotypical beauty standards. The researchers conclude that these reasons may explain why women tend to be stronger supporters of conservation and environmentalism.
Before we dive into “hippie chick” cliches (and yes, I went to a liberal arts college, so I met a few young ladies who were kind of, shall we say, “out there”), there really does seem to be something to this. Ever since the rise of contemporary cities and high fashion culture, there has been a burden placed on women to look good and compete with other women for male attention (not that this was a new phenomenon, but mass media and globalization have certainly exacerbated it). Spending time outside of the rat race would naturally get you away from the oppressive echo chamber of lacy panties, Birkin bags and rail thin models, therefore giving you less reason to conform. Thus, it would make sense that women would want to preserve this space that gives them respite from unreasonable expectations (and perhaps why so many women on OkCupid claim to like outdoor activities despite living in urban areas). While I am not arguing that men do not enjoy outdoor activities, culture does seem to create for them more of the role of conqueror and tamer of the wild, perhaps explaining why conservative, anti-environment politicians tend to draw much of their support from rural male voters. I mean, when was the last time you heard about a hunter from Oklahoma talking about green energy?
Most hunters are conservationists, actually; if you kill of all the elk, for example, with unregulated hunting and irresponsible actions with environmental consequences, there are no elk left to hunt. I don’t know, I don’t really think women are any more in-tune with nature than men are, although I agree that men are encouraged to get out and “conquer nature” more than women are. Women are catching up quickly (if they haven’t already) in terms of outdoor activities, though. There are plenty of women who hike/rock climb/ski/etc with their significant others.
.
I have noticed that women who do more outdoor activities tend to buy into the “acceptable female standard” far less than their indoorsy counterparts. At least, I assume they do since they seem to wear Chacos around all the time instead of 4″ heels.
I think hunters are more in tune with nature than your average person.
People these days recoil in shock at the mere suggestion of killing an animal – 97% will immediately sign a petition to stop others from doing so, yet are perfectly comfortable buying their meat on little pink foam trays – all sanitized for their comfort – nary a hair, feather nor hoof in sight.
That’s so artificial.
I most wholeheartedly agree, Blurry. I wouldn’t enjoy hunting because the little dead animals make me sad, but I certainly wouldn’t condemn my friends for hunting because most do it responsibly and legally.
” (not sure what this means, but perhaps it is getting at things like yoga and alternative medicine, which, at least from what I have seen, are highly marketed towards female consumers)”
And here I thought alternative ‘medicine’ was heavily marketed to women because women are the ones more likely to buy into it. women ON AVERAGE are more swayed by emotional arguments, less often likely to make clear rational assessments, and more women than men lack the systemizing skills to evaluate the crap. I don’t think it has anything to do with being ‘in touch with nature’.
Perhaps women who are heavily involved in outdoor pursuits have a different standard of judgement. Perhaps they’re simply off and away somewhere, and not exposed to the ads which target consumers. Perhaps it’s just that people who are interested in getting away from civilisation are also the people less likely to care what people think.
And don’t go marking all hunters the same. There is a HUGE crevasse between redneck trophy hunting and the mass of people who simply like to get their own food. It’s terribly silly to assume that killing animals is better in a factory process. I mean, if I were an animal destined to be eaten, I’d rather live the days beforehand off free in the forest for a good normal life. I greatly respect people who do their own killing for food – and then make good use of the whole animal. Not all hunters are the same. Many are serious outdoorsy people who greatly value simpler living, biodiversity, and low-impact habits.
Some people vacation in permanent camps with cabins and other facilities (such as hunting camps or children’s summer camps), but a stay at such a camp is usually not considered camping. The term camping (or camping out) may also be applied to those who live outdoors, out of necessity (as in the case of the homeless), or for people waiting overnight in queues.-
Have a look at all of the most recently released write-up at our internet page
<http://www.caramoan.ph