Derek Markham is passionate about the environment, and he wants to know why so many men don’t want to talk about it.
Every time another guy asks me, “So, what do you do?” the conversation plays out in the same way. I tell him I’m a writer, and he asks, “Oh, what have you written? Who’s your publisher?” When I say, “I’m my own publisher. I’m a blogger,” you can see the look on his face change from wow to meh, instantly (It’s like I said “I’m an athlete…on the company softball team.”). And then comes the inevitable question, “What do you write about?” “I usually cover environmental issues, water, food, social justice, activism, you know, the most pressing issues on the planet.”
Big silent pause.
And then I hear, “So, Bob, how about that game last night?” followed by a highly animated discussion about who has the best defensive line in the league, during which I smile weakly and excuse myself with some lame reason and wander off.
Occasionally I do run into a guy who wants to go toe to toe on specific environmental issues, and then I generally get to listen to this dude regurgitate some bullshit they remembered the talking head saying on the news recap last night (before the game starts). Again, it’s almost always the same.
♦◊♦
It’s strange. When discussing “manly” topics such as sports, or cars, or business, or whatever, I generally see a bigger divergence of passionate opinions. But with the environment, you’re either “green” or you’re not. You’re either about saving the whales or you’re about fishermen’s rights. You’re about cheap energy now, or you’re about investing in clean energy for the future.
So when a guy wants to go toe to toe on an environmental issue, sometimes I rise to the challenge and offer my rebuttal to their talking points, based on facts and figures, hard science and data, taking into account the long-term effects of the issue.
And again, there’s a big silent pause.
Now contrast that scenario with a fictional encounter, with me talking smack to that same random group of men about sports: “I can’t believe you guys spend so much time watching other men fight homoerotic mock battles, grunting and sweating and patting each other on their tights-clad, overdeveloped asses.”
You can probably almost see the steam coming out of their ears, followed by a heated discussion about how I just don’t get it, and maybe even a summary of studies about the positive aspects of sports or a pithy quote from a popular athlete or coach about how noble it all is.
There’s no lack of courage there—or in defending one’s favorite team or favorite player—and there’s no shortage of facts and figures.
|
I don’t see very many men willing to say “Them’s fightin’ words, son” when it comes to protecting our environment.
|
This is when I scratch my head. Why is a professional athlete’s record, or a team’s statistics, or the outcome of their next game, more important than talking about not poisoning the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food we eat?
I know men who are environmental activists and fundraisers, journalists and biologists, green business owners and socially-conscious philanthropists. I know men whose outward appearance is to the contrary—tree-hugging cowboys and such—who go to great lengths to conserve and preserve our natural resources in their own way. And I also know ruthless businessmen who are all about “going green,” as long as it saves them money.
But for the most part, these guys are too afraid of being branded as capital-E Environmentalists to ever give impassioned speeches to convince their friends and peers of how important these issues are.
I don’t see very many men willing to say “Them’s fightin’ words, son” when it comes to protecting our environment.
Which leaves me wondering why I bother to do so at all. It’s all so much work, talking about real-life issues and taking action on them, trying to get people to educate themselves and to think critically about the issues affecting them.
Maybe I should just switch sides.
Fuck the environment, what time does the game start?
—Photo Highways Agency/Flickr
About Derek Markham
Because you know it’s the right thing to do. Because somebody has to stand up and fight. And because you believe in what you are doing.
I’ve spent the last year studiying for a Master’s in Sustainability and Environmental Policy, and I get that same silent pause when I tell a lot of people my subject. This is usually followed by something like “blimey, that sounds complicated” or “I wouldn’t know much about that” or, perhaps the most depressing answer, “what’s that?”
*studying
Because sports is about now. Now is when records get broken. Harder, faster, higher, all that kind of stuff.
The environment? That’s about later. A later that we have no way to understand, much less see, hear, touch or feel. Its about things that may or may not happen to people we may or may never get to see. Worse still, about things that may or may not make any difference whatsoever.
Because the environment is about collective action. No one in the history of man has been able to make much difference in that regard. The issue is too unknown, too big, therefore too meaningless. I’m not saying that what we’re doing doesn’t feel wrong. Its just that there’s no way of knowing what’s wrong with our actions, and just how wrong we actually are.
Back to that overdeveloped ass’ batting average…
Derek: This is such bullshit.
Maybe they’re not interested in your discussion because environmental bloggers and activist tend to be among the most highly annoying people on the planet. Or, perhaps it’s because people like you have to pit sports against whatever cause you’re championing. Instead of trying to include them in the discussion and find some way to co-exist, you take on an elitist tone and excuse yourself from the conversation.
Let me ask you, how is you walking away from a conversation about sports any different than another guy walking away from a conversation about the environment? Newsflash, it isn’t. But because you fancy yourself as having some benevolent agenda, what you’re talking about is just oh-so-important. Meanwhile anyone who talks football is some meathead cretin who couldn’t graduate from high school.
Is it any wonder no one wants to talk to someone who acts as you do??
People have different interests. Can I talk about the viability of wind farms, renewable energy credits and industry standards for biodiesel fuel blends? Yes. As a reporter I’ve delved into each in detail. But I find it boring. It doesn’t interest me. It doesn’t interest a lot of people. And yes, I’m very into sports and tend to talk about them more. And you want me to feel bad about myself? Screw that. Who the hell do you think you are?
If you couldn’t tell, this article really pissed me off. Usually I enjoy and respect your pieces about fatherhood, but this was such a condescending pile of shit I don’t even know where to begin.
Aaron –
1. You just proved my point. You got fightin’ words about sports, but the environment is ‘boring’.
2. You completely missed the ‘tongue in cheek’ slant.
3. I don’t fancy myself as having a ‘benevolent agenda’. I just happen to think that our home (this little planet of ours, and the life support system we depend on (air, water, food)), is more important than discussing the way that other people play games.
4. I don’t want you to feel bad about yourself. That’s all you, mate. If you want to read ‘meathead cretin who couldn’t graduate from high school’ into my article, that’s your move. I’m not gonna take credit for that bullshit.
5. I can talk sports, too, and have been known to shoot the shit with the best of them, but I’d prefer to actually play than watch someone else play and then talk about them.
6. Who the hell do I think I am? Obviously someone who can get a rise out of someone who disagrees with them.
7. Like I said, fuck the environment, the women’s underwater hockey season is underway. I’ll be glued to the TV for awhile and I’ll have no time to discuss being a good steward for our planet and preserving a healthy environment for our kids to grow up in.
8. You usually only comment when you disagree with me, so the fact that you find this to be a ‘condescending pile of shit’ does not surprise me in the least.
See you again the next time we disagree.
Cheers,
Derek
Derek: I don’t feel bad about myself. I said I take issue with the implication in your article that we who talk about sports should feel bad about ourselves because we’re not all making our own clothing out of hemp and tending to our free range chickens in the yard.
And sorry, I don’t think there is a tongue in cheek slant here. You’re upset not only because people are talking sports instead of the environment, but it also seems you’re harboring some insecurity regarding the fact that people hear “blogger” when they ask about what you do, and then tune out. To be fair, they probably do the same thing when a guy answers “I’m a middle manager at a financial consulting firm.” I’m not sure why you seem to be taking it so personally.
And lastly, you’re right about the environment being low on the list of priorities for many people. Myself included. While I try not to add to the mess out there, I fully admit there are more important things to consider nowadays. I need to pollute the air with my car exhaust as I commute 4-5 hours a day to my job, which I need to feed my family. Paying the bills comes first in relation to installing wind turbines and solar panels on my house. It’s hard to care about rain barrels and compost piles when you’re just scratching and clawing to get by.
And some of us turn to sports, both for entertainment and a distraction. A welcome one at that. And that’s a good thing.
The work you’re doing isn’t bad. On the contrary, I’m all for it. I’m not anti-environment. What I am against, however, is trying to bring down those of us who aren’t as environmentally active for no other reason than to make yourself feel better.
When you write “Which leaves me wondering why I bother to do so at all. It’s all so much work, talking about real-life issues and taking action on them, trying to get people to educate themselves and to think critically about the issues affecting them,” that’s where I have the real problem. This “woe is me,” martyr attitude that paints you as the lone voice fighting in the wilderness because the rest of us aren’t educated enough and don’t think critically.
In your article you say “these guys are too afraid of being branded as capital-E Environmentalists to ever give impassioned speeches to convince their friends and peers of how important these issues are.” Maybe you’re right. But have you ever stopped and wondered about why they don’t want to align themselves with environmentalists? A look in the mirror might not be a bad idea if you’re really interested in drumming up more support.
Aaron –
Sensitive much?
No implication about ‘feeling bad about yourself’ from me – You’re reading that into it, and those are your words, not mine.
And yes, I did write it as a tongue in cheek piece, and no, I’m not upset or insecure. I was just relating one example of this stereotype. I’m actually totally fine with my work and my ideals, and could care less about what someone thinks about what I do. Good Men Project wants free content, lots of controversy, and lots of pageviews, so I delivered what I promised: a piece on the environment. Looks like I got the controversy part right.
And I actually came to find that rain barrels and compost piles and a home garden and reducing my dependence on energy made sense financially, so it’s not about buying more ‘green’ stuff for me. It’s about the best use of resources and conserving the things that I can, not installing high-end alternative energy systems (which I don’t have either).
There’s no ‘woe is me martyr attitude’ coming from me – it’s just snark, plain and simple. Maybe if you knocked that chip off your shoulder you could see that.
You’re taking this very personally, but I’ll go look in the mirror if you will.
Waiting for your parting shot…
I’m sensitive? For someone who freely admits to writing something with the specific goal of drumming up controversy, you seem to be awfully surprised and sensitive about accomplishing your goal. If you write to elicit controversy why do you seem to be so surprised that you got exactly what you asked for?
And it’s pretty funny that you classify me as having a chip on my shoulder simply because I disagree with you.
I’m actually laughing heartily, not crying into my non-dairy milk, so I guess sensitive is a relative term.
I feel your pain, Derek. A couple weeks ago I was driving back from a movie with a couple of friends and saw an alert on my cell phone about the number of people arrested for their protest against the Tar Sands reaching passing 1,000. I said, “Wow. Over 1,000 people arrested at the White House so far.” They both asked why. The arrests had been going on for days. I felt the blood rush to my ears. How could they not know about thsi? I said quite simply, “They’re protesting against the Tar Sands pipeline.” And one of my friends said, “So what else do you have going on this week?” Huh? I put her on the spot about the sudden change in subject she claimed it was because she didn’t know anything about the Tar Sands. I think both sides of any issue can get a bit anxious. One for not really knowing (sometimes not wanting to know, other times because their focus is somewhere else in life; not always because they don’t care). The other anxious, angry that the other side has no clue about what they’re talking about. But my friends started asking specific questions like, ” what kind of migratory song birds will be effected?” and “Where exactly is Alberta Canada?” and I didn’t have those specifics neatly stored in my brain. I’m not an environmental scientist or speaker or teacher. I’m an advocate and a writer. Anyway, I later emailed them the link to my blog with a note “I’m a writer, not a talker. Here’s the info in case you’re interested.” I think the way to approach it is that you’re concerned. Not everyone is concerned about the environment. Continue to inspire, Derek, by writing about these things and being honest–questioning why people treat the subject as taboo makes a great discussion and I’m glad you brought it up! Keep it going, D!
One quick thought: let’s get rid of “sensitive” as any type of derogatory term. I think in this case “sensitivity” means a different perspective that someone is willing to passionately (and mostly reasonably I might add) defend. Good! A good man shouldn’t be fearful of sensitivity; they should embrace it and balance it with ultra macho toughness we’re constantly brought up with.
In general, I think this article targets a bigger problem with society. We’re fearful of arguing important issues. And by argue I don’t mean the type of argument you see pundits on TV displaying as they yell at each other and bitch and moan about whatever opposition they’re targeting. I mean argue as in passionately discuss a topic. I enjoyed the back and forth in the commentary. Perhaps Derek went a little far with the generalities and criticisms of what seemed to be ignorant sports fans (I’m a huge sports fan, and I’m sure in a similar situation I’d engage Derek on environmental issues). And it’s possible Aaron took it to another level with his broad description of environmentalists as “the most highly annoying people on the planet”. (side note: have you seen some of our politicians and their recent transgressions? Environmentalists would have a tough time rising about #2 on my list).
Either way, argue! Defend your points! I think this is exactly what Derek wants. Maybe you’re not the most educated person in terms of environment or politics or foreign policy; but listen to someone’s argument and come up with a thoughtful, reasonable response and defend it! And it’s okay to occasionally concede points when you realize you’re wrong. And you will (more than occasionally) be wrong. We are men (and women), we screw up. This life and society is going to be trial and error for at least the rest of our lives, that I’m sure off. We need more open debate in this world that doesn’t involve people shutting themselves off to an issue (or in the case of politics and foreign policy, just branding the opposition the enemy).
I truly believe there are reasonable solutions out there to almost every problem, if people have open minds and passionately seek successful solutions (not just what they want). So don’t change the subject the next time the topic is a bit out of your comfort zone (or even if there’s a more interesting but less intellectual option available). Ask a few questions; be curious; and present a challenge to the people you’re with. We’ll all benefit.
More people are struggling to survive than ever. Is the environment an important issue? Yeah, but so is eating and trying to avoid sleeping on a park bench with your kids. When you’re at risk of not accomplishing the latter, talking about the former is relatively unimportant.
Your argument implies that the two are entirely unrelated. As one small example, living costs might not be such as struggle if alternative energy brought down energy prices.
Aaron, as a reader and contributor to the Good Men Project, I’m going to assume that discussing the meaning of modern masculinity and what it means to be a 21st century man, father and everything else is at least somewhat important to you, and that you want to talk about it with other people. Now imagine if when you brought it up in conversation, even if it wasn’t regularly, no one wanted to talk about it. Moreover, they won’t even condescend to say something on the lines of “oh I don’t care, men are men and women are women, who gives a shit?”, they just say nothing or change the subject. Every. Single. Time. Or near enough. After a while, you might feel like bitching about it in an article, no?
That was a good article, Derek. Personally, I find that many men are not interested in the environment. Several of my male friends have told me that recycling is a bunch of baloney and that global warming is a hoax. However, environmental activist groups tend to be male dominated. Yes, there are several women leaders in the envionmental movement, but it’s not that close to 50-50.
I am concerned that most top green jobs will go mainly to white males. I want civil rights and feminist groups to encourage women and people of color to become environmental engineers.
Derek: its ok derek, he is just a worker clone not ready to contemplate the idea of spending his short life actually making a difference for a better world and has decided to be content with scraping by and will fight for his right to just scrape by. all the while ignoring the catastrophic effects of our wasteful culture in ignorant bliss just like bee number 3,355,634,888
Aaron: I feel you man, he is an elitist asshole incapable of adapting to the relaxation aspects that men share due to his anxiety over our lack of sustainability, and will tell you that your lifestyle is wrong and urge you to do “more” while people like him actually just urge you to do less and he just doesn’t get that it’s the simple things in life that should be enjoyed before you die and that it’s “all gunna be alright”
now that we understand each other, will you take out your fucking tampons and hug?
Because so much of environmetalism is based upon feelings and not facts. It is all about politics and not the environment. CO2 can’t possibly cause global warming because it does not rise into the atmosphere. This is because it is a heavier than air gas, 152% heavier in fact. This is why they use it in fire extinguishers and spooky ground fog in movies.
The Greenland Ice sheet in contradiction to the propagandists de jour has actually increased in height by over 270 feet just since 1944.
If you could talk about some actual facts then people would be more willing to talk. You might check out my blog posts scientifically destroying most global warming claims. I have a degree in science and worked in a scientific field for a number of years
John Wilder
Gross generalizations there, John. I didn’t even bring up ‘global warming’, and there are tons of other issues surrounding environmental topics that are not open to interpretation. I guess you assume I’d have conversations about the environment that are solely based on my feelings, and not any science, eh?
But thanks for clearing up the CO2 question. I’ll let all of those other scientists know that they’re wrong, because a behavioral science and Bible degree trumps any other discipline, yes?
How ’bout them Colts?
I prefer not to talk about it because most people don’t really care (given their actions and on a few occassions, verbally confirmed to me by the parties in question), and because there’s almost nothing that can be done about it. Seriously, anyone living in North America can really only “pretend’ to care about the environment. So long as we live the way we live, almost no one can 100% honestly claim that they “care about the environment.” You become very hypocritical very fast. Which isn’t to say I’m not sad about my way of life destroying the world, but I’m not going to live like an Eskimo or Native American did 500 years ago (which was also bad for the environment given the number of species that went extinct when their ancestors arrived on the North American continent 15 – 20,000 years ago (or whenever it was).
As long as there are as many of us as there are, with no restraint whatsoever on our numbers, that want to live like North Americans and that want to have a better standard of living, the environment as we know it is completed screwed.
That’s fine though. Our planet (i.e. the environment) has gone through many catastrophic events in the past that have dramatically changed the face of the earth and the diversity of life. Humans are just one walking, eating, breeding, jabbering mass extinction event on two legs. This too shall pass, and that will be all that was written on the anthropocene. In truth, properly understood within the full scope of geological time, there is absolutely nothing to care about. Individual humans, with their mostly short timeframes of reference will never really understand this. Due to the anxiety, fear and sadness that is caused by rivers catching on fire, species going extinct and masses of oil coating birds and shorelines, some people will always be activist about these things. However, in the long, none of it, none whatsoever, will matter. In 1 million years (maybe 10 million years who knows?) most evidence of our existence will be gone and will not matter at all.
So, what to say at the end of all of that? Peace. Nothing else, just peace.
Men are used to making the messes, and women have to clean it up. But really, the men I work with are so emotionally dead, they can only manage sports stats and their job. That’s all they are able to talk about.
Looking at what the earth has become, and who created the mess, I think we have to say that patriarchy itself is destroying the earth.
Wow, what a comment.
Like wow!
Here’s a suggestion to defeat the patriarchy and save the environment (you won’t like and neither will anyone else, but I’m going to proceed anyways). All women on earth should committ sepuku tomorrow (or maybe at Christmas, that would be nice gift to give). In less than 100 years the environment would be saved. Also the patriarchy would be completely screwed as there would be no more women to lord it over and patriarchy would become meaningless and totally defunct. Without any women, no feminist (those that remain) would have anything to bitch about (epecially the patriarchy).
What a wonderful solution to all the problems you’ve so elegantly set out Kiran.
/sarc off.
What a bullshit comment. Seriously. Pull your head out of your anal sphincter and quit being like that. It’s fraking tiresome, nonsensical drivel that needs to be called out. Yeah I’m pointing at you, you pathetic creature!
I just spent an hour in front of my town planning commission asking them, as part of my Energy Committee agenda, to look at residential and commercial zoning regs that would ask builders to utilize the sun, more efficient standards et. I was told that they are a bunch of flat earth society folks who have no interest in hearing about it. Unfortunately if they quit their volunteer jobs on the PC there are not likely to be others who will replace them, let alone environmentalists.