10 Reasons Real Men ‘Go Green’

Gentlemen, (and Ladies),
This is a lose, lose. Agree, lose. Disagree, lose.
Rather, be responsible, be a caretaker. Let’s not condemn a person that tries to get you to see their point of view. You should have your own, and be able to disagree.

Unfortunately, this topic (and others) leave no place to disagree and move on without rancor.

Find a way to make it a better place, not worse, and that includes AoM. Perhaps being a Real Man is not taking umbrage when you don’t agree totally, and yet express your opinion and be done with it. Personally, didn’t like the article, but everyone is entitled….
By the way, it’s the AoM, so it’s inherently sexist…..

First post on AoM I was really disappointed in….. I don’t buy the whole ‘go green’ crap. To be honest, if you look at most of the ways to ‘go green’ it merely involves screwing the environment in more subtle ways. I agree we should not destroy our earth, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use it. I won’t go out of my way to cut down trees and I do my part not to waste, that, i believe, is all that is required of me, and anyone else for that matter. I might go ‘green’ where convinient (buy a prius), but I won’t go out of my way to ’save the environment’. I agree that we should try not to disturb the natural balance of things though.

This will be my last post on this site. I’ve started paying less attention the more posts about fashion, grooming, etc. became the norm. A couple of quick points, however…

To agree with some above, real men know when they’re being condascended to by putting any type of recommendation (right, left, religious, environmental, etc.) after the words “Real men…”. Including, of course, this post.

There are many good reasons to be responsible stewards of the earth–to recycle, to not litter, to live simply and not overconsume, to develop alternative energy sources, etc. But anyone like me who tries to investigate the claims of “Greens” finds an enormous gap between the “inarguable” empirical findings of environmental scientists and the narrative that the shyster Al Gore and his minions have been trying to sell in order to scare people into doing really, really stupid things with our economy. And read Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” if you think the latest scientific findings in any field are beyond debate.

Finally, I really want to have this conversation with a knowledgeable person who believes in man-made global warming, but every time I mention the apparent cooling of the earth the last decade or so, how NASA’s scientist Hansen keeps posing like a victim-claiming to be censored while he’s done over 1,000 interviews, how Al Gore had a chance to confront skeptics in Congress and instead showed up late and obfuscated with his answers, Gore’s profiteering off of this whole scare, the way scientists who raise scientific questions that don’t fit the narrative are personally denounced by colleagues… I am simply met with hysterics and am called a fool. This isn’t what a reasonable and confident persuader does.

It is a big, complicated issue, and to treat it as if it has already been decided and to berate anyone who raises legitimate questions as “deniers” does not reflect great confidence in the validity of the case for man-made global warming. I honestly still don’t know and I will continue to drive as little as possible in my little fuel efficient pickup, recycle, and so on. But as one who is watching the whole debate who is trained in rhetoric and logic, the skeptics have by far the greater credibility and uneducated hordes screaming at them for “denying” does not help the green cause.

Best wishes to Brent–there were a couple of interesting threads on this site. I may need fashion and grooming tips–as a “real man” I can admit that, but I’m told that I do ok anyway. But I will not be condascended to.

It looks like this blog just jumped the shark… If I wanted to read leftist political editorials posted by women, there are plenty of other places to go. Please stick to non-partisan topics like soda pop, pocket squares, and pull-ups.

@Sara

You know, I think the “real man” part is what did it for me. It’s just very contentious. I think a lot of the people here don’t feel as manly as they’d like and are here to learn, and “real men” puts them on the defensive because it feels like they’re being judged at the core of who they are and all they’ve worked on.

For instance, the Freemasons is a group for male self-betterment. But they don’t say “we’ll help you be a real man,” they say “we’ll help you be a better man.”

If you’re looking for a new term, I might just go with “men” full stop. Men care about the world they live in.

Carver Doone has it right – you guys jumped the shark…A real man understands that this list deserves a rebuttal to some of the points.

Environmentalism, like pork chops , can be overdone. You probably don’t know any real cowboys. The ones I know , have a reverence for the environment and love of animals that can only be admired.

This is totally unlike what I expected from AoM. While interesting, and even kind of amusing(I choose to be amused at people doing things that may insult me, it’ll make them look worse in the end, and I get a good chuckle.) It was a decent guest article, and was entertaining.

However in three key area’s I feel it failed to be a “AoM” Article. When i read AoM, I expect advice, tips, or information, generally non-controversial info, that I can use despite my political, or religious views. This article seems to fail at that, it talks down to me, fails to give me any ideas to be more green, fails even to substantially discuss what going green means. Second, this article talks down to me, the tone continually tells me that, “only a lesser man scoffs at what his predecessors knew and better peers already understand.” she continues with this kind of tone, which is quite alien to AoM. Third, whatever anyone says, the issues of environmentalism has be politicized, not only by the parties, but by the environmental movement itself.

I hope that if we see more articles on this topic we can see them with less snark, and more AoM style.

I am 50, married w/2 kids, love sex with my wife who is georgeous.
I am part vegetarian, love tofu, meditation, yoga, nutrition, physical fitness
and I look 40 years old. Still drink beer and smoke in moderation.
Been veg and doin yoga since 1980.
Real men take care of themselves, mind, body, spirit and respect women and all of life. Moderation is key – no extremes.

if real men lead, do real women follow? I thought we were getting beyond these old sexist stereotypes.

The natural opposite to the phrase “real men” is “un-manly men,” not ‘women’. What makes a woman a “real woman” is outside the scope of this article and this site.

Women can lead, or not; the article didn’t express any opinion on the issue, and it doesn’t have to. This is an article directed at men, on a site explicitly for men; it’s a “men’s space,” and in that space, it’s not inherently sexist to write without discussing women.

Those of you that think global warming is some sort of hoax should evaluate the sources, not the science. Since its likely that most of the global warming detractors commenting their way through the internet aren’t scientists they can’t make an informed opinion on the subject. Instead they should look to the sources of the claims being asserted. There is only one peer reviewed scientific study that concludes that global warming MAY be of natural causes (other than man). Its by an MIT prof that is slowly coming around, by the way. The studies that conclude that global warming is natural aren’t peer reviewed, and with a little digging they usually end up being funded by some polluter or another.

If they don’t want to look to the sources, they should look to their own common sense (assuming they have some). Who is more likely to benefit financially by their findings? The Union on Concerned Scientists that believe that global warming is man made (primarily), oil companies and similar anti regulation carbon polluters.

Through propaganda and politicking, the oil companies have actually tricked these suckers into voting, and arguing against their own interests. Oil companies have a trillion dollars of product still in the ground waiting to be extracted and sold to consumers. They stand to make ridiculous profits if they can convince “Joe Six pack” that they are doing no harm.
To the deniers, pull your head out of the Weekly Standard and read one of those PEER REVIEWED global warming studies, you just might learn something.

WTF man.

This site is suppose to teach you how to be a man.

Why start pushing views and believes. What next “10 Reasons (Religion of choice” is Manly”.

What is cool about this site is it gives you information no matter your believes or lifestyle.

With this article the writer is trying to push a believe so she can get more people into a group/organisation. Do I have faith in the believe? Not important, but what is is she using a popular and unbiased website/medium to get people to lesson to her cause, which not many people may agree with, when the cause has nothing to do with being manly. That I believe is wrong.

Example: Pushing religion at an ‘How to stop HIVS/AIDS’ event.

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

Wow…. one of the reasons I like AOM is because (most of) the articles aren’t preachy. Can’t say the same about this one. They say that you should try to direct your subject matter to your audience, and I believe that Mrs. Ost and whoever approved her article for this blog flubbed this one.

I ran across the link above and thought it would be a good counterpoint.

Bo, saw that, too, but it was only one scientist who questioned the APC’s official stance, it wasn’t the APC changing its official stance as some had thought.

Gary, you make some well-thought out and articulate points. Glad to see that “Free Macs for Pirates” program from Apple is yielding such promising fruit.

William, a very sane and thoughtful post. I would question, however, your understanding of falsifiability. You correctly, if simplistically, lay out the basic MO of scientific debate: peer review of published empirical findings based on observations, application and testing of hypotheses (that’s plural for hypothesis, Gary. ARGHHH!). Thus understood, falsifiability has to do with challenges to the findings, the method, etc. pertaining to the study in question.

It is a further leap from hypothesis to theory, and further still from scientific theory to the “catastrophic potential of anthropogenic global climate change”. Theories having to do with possible future consequences are only falsifiable, or validated, in the future. There are degrees of probability, but as any statistician can tell you, these are notoriously subjective measures.

First, I am not a scientist so I do not question the scientific methods and findings of empirical studies. I do, however, question the leap that many of the faithful take from certain findings, which, as you correctly aver, are always subject to criticism and debate, and the narrative of Al Gore and company, as well as the fools who claim, contra your correct elucidation of the nature of empirical scientific debate, that the “science” is “settled”. I will refer you (and the other two people who are still reading the thread at this point) again to Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” for historical examples of scientists who were so convinced they were right that they, with increasing vitriol, challenge those who dare question the paradigm they are working from; who punish dissenters; and who downplay anomalies until they no longer can.

Second, since I am not making scientific claims, but logical, rhetorical and historical ones, I don’t need scientific studies to prove what I’m saying. A real man can make that distinction . I just have a problem when they become politicians and moralists, exhibiting poor reasoning and, ahem, overheated rhetoric.

It is worth noting, again, that thousands of scientists do not believe that human-created carbon emissions have any significant effect on climate change. And many that do believe that humans are in some way causing global warming think that it is potentially a good thing (fewer deaths among the poor in cold areas, etc.) and strongly criticize the economic solutions of Gore & co. as destructive and utterly inadequate (Bjorn Lumborg, et al).

Finally, your points about falsifiability cut both ways. Every time I hear some uneducated dope yelling about how any scientist who questions global warming alarmism is obviously paid for by big oil, I say, even if it were true (which it’s not), so what? Many, if not most, of the scientists supporting the alarm receive enormous grants for doing just that, and these are often from leftist organizations and individuals (i.e. Soros). Am I not supposed to believe them? Or is it democratic? The side with the most scientists wins?

You know this is nonsense. Again, I think it’s great to live green–simply, low consumption, recycling, etc. And I think it is beyond idiotic to forge economic and regulatory policy based on the “latest science”, since, as you know, this is always subject to review, and even if we grant all of the findings there remains an enormous logical and causal gap between these findings and the “Florida will submerged unless we act (read: devastate our economy for no measurable change in climate) now!” crowd. I’m also tired of debating fools who religiously think that the “facts” (none of which they can name without Google) all point in one direction, and I find the moralism behind the whole green movement utterly insulting, as in that which informed the article which began this thread.

Again, nice post, William. It’s easier to exchange with sane people.

“I’m sorry to say it, but men are largely responsible for the environmental mess we’re in thanks to a widespread lack of self-discipline and flaws like greed, selfishness, and laziness. And men increasingly do not take care of themselves in even the most basic ways.”

Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s can this reverse misogynist nonsense, shall we? Women can be equally blamed for whatever faux problems you perceive in the world.

And as far as taking care of themselves, let’s just say that if I have to suffer through seeing one more “whale-tail” peeping out of a young ladies jeans and hiding under of “muffin-top”, I’m going to gag. As the saying goes, “people who live in glass houses…”

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/91d4/cols_fashion-39809.jpeg

Amen, Ken.

Checked back again when I saw this. Another scientist jumps off the global climate change bandwagon. Pointing out how inaccurate climate modeling is and the lack of a “signature” of carbon-based global warming where it is to be expected, he has changed his view as scientists must when the evidence does not support the theory.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

I find it interesting that you have published an article by a woman on how to be a real man.

I wonder how much water would a “how to be a real woman” article would be seen to hold if it were published in cosmopolitan?

While I agree this lady could write about the facets that she admires in men, or even prefers, I dont think any woman is qualified to judge what a real man is, any more than men are qualified to to the opposite.

To the writer of this aticle.
I had been recommending this web site to young men that I know, but now I’m not sure that I will in the future. It’s not because I don’t completely buy the Global warming issue but because the writer of this article had to show his political stripes with his “real me aren’t cowboys” statement along with the picture of President Bush. The president is first considered a “Cowboy” for taking on terroism without the approval of most of Europe, Russia and, China. Secondly he is dresses like a cowboy in that photograph becasue when he does take a break from LEADING our country (even if you do not like how he is doing it) he enjoys WORKING on his cattle range. I think that fits your own definition of a real man. It’s strange that you consider Al Gore a real man for standing up to criticism and ridicule for his campaign on Global warming. Never mind that he is a hypocrit for not living the way he tells us all to live. He lives in a 10,000 sq ft 20 room mansion and Bush’s Texas White House is only 4,000 sq ft, which was designed with very eviromently friendly features I might add. I could go on forever, but half your list is a “Load of Crap”. If you think Al Gore is a “Real Man” and MAtt Damon is to be admired for driving hybryd you need to find another topic to write about, becasue you have no idea what it is to be a “Real Man”.

Steve

The same crowd that rails against man-made global warming is actually advocating man-made global cooling. If we cool the earth too much, will we then have to warm it back to our favourite temperature? What temperature should we cool the earth too? And, once we reach this self-proclaimed temperature, will it be ideal for all species? Man-made global cooling may help certain species (everyone’s favourite, the polar bear), but it will certainly harm others (perhaps the less cuddly sort).

MEN: Go hiking, fishing, kayaking, rock climbing, skiing; photograph, paint, sketch, write poetry about the wonders of nature and our infinitely small place in it. Marvel at and respect her beauty, ruggedness, resilience, and tenacity. Raise your children to do the same. By doing this you will do far more good for the environment than any “green” purchase you could ever make. Don’t go green, go into green.

I am disappointed in AoM for publishing this article, but not because of the sex of the author or because I disagree with the political viewpoint it espouses. Political discourse is one of the oldest of the Manly Arts, and it should be encouraged. This article disappoints me for the reason that it does not validate the opposing side. One of the prerequisites for manly discourse (even manly armed combat) is the respect of one’s opponent.

The author correctly lists “Intellectual Rigor” as a manly quality. One of the defining aspects of intellectual rigor is that through this prudent study of evidence men will come to different opinions, even when drawing from the same body of evidence. In the very same passage on intellectual rigor, the author states:

“Global warming is real. Climate change is affected by man’s actions, ”

Even the addition of two small qualifying words “many believe” would have changed the statement on climate change from intellectual imposition (my belief is fact) to intellectual discourse (I believe this is fact, but I recognize my colleagues’ right to come to their own conclusions). There is a growing body of scientists and meteorologists who doubt that global warming is effected by human activity. Not least among them is the American Physical Society, a secular society representing fifty thousand physicists (@Chris W: not right-wing blowhards). I write this, not in an attempt to convince any readers of this post to any position, only to say that, even without this “official” recognition of that position, it would be a basic requirement of proper political discourse to recognize the validity of the position of the opposing side.

To the editors of AoM: Please do not hesitate to publish articles of a political, even controversial, nature, but I call upon you to do so making sure that the authors of future essays maintain a fitting respect for the opposing position.

Excellent writing with a strong point of view.

I agree with most of your points, except number ten.

Real men eat tofu? Real men don’t allow themselves to be poisoned by estrogen-like substances and grow man-boobs…and then call it being green.

Why don’t you drop the vegetarian nonsense and supplement your plant-based diet with some natural-raised and grazed meat?

Real men do indeed eat tofu – Bruce Lee anyone? He’s…about as real as it gets.

It’s a pity how Ameri-centric males in this country can be – tofu and meat substitutes are eaten virgorously in half the world, and still this steak chomping “real red blooded amurican!” thing is king? And if you are going to eat meat at least take the trouble to eat meat that tastes like meat, factory farmed has never tasted as nice as local grass fed beef to me, it costs more but then again meat is meant to be a treat, there’s a reason it’s served at celebrations and cooked with respect in other countries who haven’t got the resources to devote to mass production. At least be (”(hu)manly” enough to demand something quality for yourself (hint – Kobe beef isn’t the only quality out there, shortribs off a cow who got to live a fairly pleasant cow life devoid of hormones and full of grass and good care is as good as it gets for me)

“Real men” or at least anyone with half a brain, knows how to listen and learn from experts in the field – you know, people who got the education and are doing the work? Or…do you really think C Student George Bush and Beauty Queen Sarah Palin know more about science than…a scientist? Not every biologist is a bleeding heart vegan human-hater, but biologists are shown the massive diversity of life and how humans as a relatively small but massively impactful species (at least compared to bacteria) have a big place in the web of life and a much greater chance of screwing it up than say, a lion or a deer. Thus…we have more responsibility because we’re virtually the only species that can *actively* screw things up.

And as for “land owners” who don’t want to be told what they can/can’t do with “their land…” You should be ashamed of yourself. You may own a swatch of land but you’re still part of the earth, last time I checked, and being equitable and making sure your actions aren’t destroying

And admirable men are capable of making sacrifices, and doing research. it’s easy to just buy whatever you see at the supermarket that is “eco friendly plant based cleaners”

But what’s in your plant based cleaner? Palm oil? Hey did you know the demand for cleaning products that use palm oil leads to increased demand for raw palm oil, which leads to a greater level of deforestation in areas like Malysia and Indonesia – displacing people and orangutangs because you want to give yourself a big old pat on the back for buying “environmentally friendly” because a corporation has told you it is?

I draw exception with point #3 about global warming being real. I agree that mankind, not just men have made many poor decisions about the enviroment especially in the last century, but there is little proof that this activity has led to an overall global warming. With that said, that does not negate our responsibility to be responsible stewards to the planet by using more environmentally friendly products, recycling what we can, and being more aware of our impact on the earth. I believe that the overall premise of this artice can be met by not just men, but mankind, by appreciating the unaltered beauty of this home that God has given us by taking a hike, going fishing, going hunting, eating more natural foods, riding a bike, etc.

God Bless!

PUU-L-EEZE!
Here’s the REAL reason:
http://www.theguysplace.com/whyrealmengogreen.html