Frankly, I’m a little ashamed to have my first post be all human-interest-y, without a single hypodermic penis in sight. Still, I can’t resist highlighting this ludicrous NYT article about couples who bicker over sustainability. NYT human interest stories always end up making you hate everyone in it, and this is no exception.
Mr. Fleming, who says he became committed to Ms. Cobb “before her high-priestess phase,” describes their conflicts as good-natured — mostly.
But he refuses to go out to eat sushi with her anymore, he said, because he cannot stand to hear her quiz the waiters.
“None of it is sustainable or local,” he said, “and I am not eating cod or rockfish.”
That’s so sad. The guy lives in Santa Barbara CA and he can’t find tasty seafood to eat? (Also, cod and rockfish are not necessarily sustainable.) I’m no fan of preachiness, but what surprised me about this article was how trivial all the disagreements were. He can’t stand to have his girlfriend ask where the seafood comes from? Another woman’s sister can’t be bothered to recycle cardboard? Someone’s mother won’t eat off reusable plates? This isn’t exactly selling all of one’s possessions and living off the grid in a van down by the river.
But maybe that’s just my delicate ladybrain talking, since according to the article:
Women, Ms. Birkhahn said, often see men as not paying sufficient attention to the home. Men, for their part, “really want to make a large impact and aren’t interested in a small impact,” she said.
How can men make manly large impacts? The NYT doesn’t say, but somehow I doubt that the people in this article spend all day writing their representatives and hand-feeding injured sharks. Perhaps the only kind of conservation that really sells is the dinosaur-riding ass-kicking kind.