How to get men to care about the environment

I do not know if the average Australian understands just how hard it is, in 2016, to be an environmentally conscious man who is also committed to maintaining a strong and unshakeable sense of masculinity.

Do you understand what it is like to desperately want to join the fight against the degradation of our natural world, but to be hamstrung by the need to minimise the ever-present risk that I could slip into unmanliness?

A new study published in the Journal of Consumer Research — Is Eco-Friendly Unmanly? The Green-Feminine Stereotype and Its Effect on Sustainable Consumption — has found that men shy away from environmentally responsible activity due to fear of its effect on their gender identity.

Men see the purchasing of green products and the performance of green practices as feminine, and are hence less likely to engage in them, for fear of having their masculinity diminished.

I wish I could make people understand. I wish I could make people see that, when I litter, I am not doing it out of reckless disregard for the future of the human race.

I am not hurling my burger wrappers and Coke bottles into the street with any kind of gay abandon.

Indeed, I do it with a heavy heart, because I know only too well of the waterways that will be choked, the wildernesses that will be despoiled, the animals that may be exterminated, by my destructive-yet-attractively-decisive abuse of nature.

Recycling does not a manly man make

But what choice do I have, when I know that if I am seen not littering, onlookers might question my manhood?

What would you do, if confronted with that awful choice — to toss your waste into a designated receptacle, or dispatch it to the four winds with a throaty chuckle — while feeling the eyes of the public upon you?

All those silently judgmental watchers ready, as soon as you put your rubbish in the bin, to text all their friends and loved ones, “OMG you won’t believe what a gigantic girlie-man I just saw!”

That tension, multiplied by about a hundred, is what I feel every single day.

Because of course I want to recycle, of course I want to reduce my carbon footprint, of course I want to donate large portions of my income to environmental activist organisations.

But the minute I do any of these things, I will be labelled, by both my personal circle of acquaintances and society at large, a sissy. And that is something I simply cannot countenance.

It is a problem that we need to acknowledge in our community.

Everyone knows environmentalism is for girls

The movement does not even try to hide this: think of all the times that Greens MPs have publicly demanded action on climate change, always emphasising the soft, effeminate nature of emissions trading schemes.

Remember the notorious Greenpeace slogan, still in use today: “Be A Woman: Save The Planet.”

Presidential Debate Moderators

One more question about the upcoming presidential and vice-presidential debates has been solved: The identity of the moderators. The presidential debates are to be moderated by NBC’s Lester Holt, ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper (doubling up for the town hall-style debate), and Fox News’s Chris Wallace. The vice-presidential debate, meanwhile, is to be moderated by CBS’s Elaine Quijano.

It’s a slate that’s diverse both in ways that reflect America—including two women, two nonwhite journalists, and an openly gay man—as well as the news business. The slate ranges from a host on an identifiably conservative news outlet to an old-school nightly news anchor to a fresh, less-recognizable face. While the grousing over debate moderation and timing from Republican nominee Donald Trump throughout this election cycle had given rise to much speculation over what moderators his campaign might agree to, this list is about the most auspicious anyone interested in TV fireworks could hope for. (The moderators were, as always, chosen by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which governs the timing and moderation of the quadrennial events.)

Part of what makes the group so exciting is a sense of turnover. None of these moderators are exactly millennials—and nor should they be, given the level of public trust and sheer broadcasting experience it takes to credibly pull a gig like this off. But they’re all new to the general-election debate game, except for Raddatz, who stood out as a breakout star moderating the Joe Biden-Paul Ryan vice presidential debate with sharp knowledge and attention to detail in 2012.

Raddatz stood out all the more against last cycle’s presidential debates, moderated in large part by a prior generation of broadcasters taking their last lap. The first of 2012’s presidential debates was moderated by PBS’s Jim Lehrer, who, in his twelfth go-round, saw his generally too-gentle-by-half, dispassionate style give way to something like indifference as the candidates went after one another more relentlessly than was easy to follow. Fellow veteran debate moderator Bob Schieffer, of CBS, did a little better, and CNN’s Candy Crowley’s willingness to correct the recordonstage sparked conservatives criticism but was utterly compelling as pure TV and revealing as to how candidate Mitt Romney reacted under unexpected pressure. Crowley’s perceived pro-Obama advocacy in that debate, along with the fact of her, like Lehrer and Schieffer, now having retired, probably made her a non-starter when it came to choosing this cycle’s debates.

We’re the better for it. The difference in rhetorical style between candidate Trump in particular from past nominees demands a set of moderators who have not dug in deep grooves on their particular modes of questioning. I can imagine nothing less informative than Lehrer’s hands-off mode of allowing the candidates relatively free rein, honed over cycle after cycle of familiar styles of candidate rhetoric. By contrast, Chris Wallace—one of Fox News’s nonpartisan news anchors rather than an opinion broadcaster, so much so that he’s done great work interviewing Hillary Clinton during the campaign—was refreshingly blunt with his lines of questioning during the Republican debates, as when he challenged Trump on his deficit calculations. He seemed to appreciate that the challenge in keeping the debates on-topic and actually informative, this time, was different.

Wallace was one of the sharpest of the moderators in the lengthy cycle of primary debates, a cycle that had an almost bizarre-seeming level of vigor and excitement (not all of it due to candidate Trump, who seemed to lose interest in the process as the field winnowed). If he and his counterparts can transfer the energy that Americans experienced throughout the primary debate process, meaningful light might actually be shed both on Trump and on Clinton, a candidate who, as has been widely noted by a press that wants her to host a press conference, avoids press conferences. A Raddatz or a Cooper or a Wallace, all of whom have shown willingness to press their points and ask aggressive follow-ups, could go some way towards closing the gap between the willingness to answer tough questions Clinton owes the public and what she’s so far been willing to do.

While it’s a truism that televised debates won the election for John F. Kennedy in 1960, it certainly seems in recent cycles as though the candidate who was going to win the election won the election with little thanks to the debates. (If ever a debate was going to change an election outcome, it was in 2012, when Romney took advantage of the slack Lehrer provided to talk circles around the incumbent president. Romney still lost.) None of these moderators are likely to change the outcome given the dug-in nature of the viewership at home, both to the left and to the right.

And yet the mere fact of their freshness—that, while they’re certainly part of the journalism establishment, they don’t yet seem like old hands at the moderating-presidential-debates thing—is cause enough for hope, that the broadcast will be entertaining and enlightening both in a way it too rarely has lately been.

Beyonce Cheer Serena Williams on at the U S

Talk about game recognizing game. Beyoncé and Jay Z attended the U.S. Open on Thursday night to watch Bey’s friend SerenaWilliams beat Vania King, and in so doing tie Martina Navratilova’s record with her 306th Grand Slam win, in New York City. The pair was sitting just one row behind Williams’ family. This isn’t the first time that Queen Bey and Hov have come to watch Williams compete — they also made an appearance at her sets during Wimbledon.

Williams, for her part, also supports her friends; she notably appeared in Beyoncé’s video for “Sorry” and took time during this U.S. Open to hang out with fellow Rio Olympic pals, Simone Manuel and Ibtihaj Muhammad.

Williams told ESPN on Friday that having celebrity friends like Bey and Jay in the crowd doesn’t leave her star-struck, but actually improves her game.

“Usually when people are there, I try to play better, especially if they’re famous and they’re doing so great at their job,” she said, post-match. “It’s like I want to show them that I’m good at my job, too.”

Born in Hong Kong in 1954 and trained as a martial artist from childhood, Chan’s first major film breakthrough in 1978 gave rise to the new genre of comic kung fu. Lauded by martial arts fans as the new Bruce Lee, he quickly became the highest paid Asian star in the American film industry, pocketing $1 million for Warner Bros’ The Big Brawl.

The Rush Hour star was the second highest paid actorthis year, according to Forbes, cashing in $61 million thanks to his still-soaring popularity in China’s movie markets. The former wrestler Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson was the highest paid, taking home a full $64.5 million.