Feminists and climate change

So a big meeting on climate change is in full swing in Copenhagen, Denmark. Since this blog is primarily about poisonous effects of feminism, I won’t go into details about the issue. But as you can imagine, as in every large, high-profile international conferences, feminist will not pass up an opportunity to promote themselves and their issues, and if possible steal the show and hijack the conference. As I mentioned before, feminisists are a creature that needs to be in the center of attention all the time. So if the world’s eyes are on Copenhagen, that’s where they are going to be. That’s why they’ve sent a large number of (self-appointed) “delegates” to Copenhagen.

Why women and climate change, you ask? After all, if world is to perish from too much greenhouse gas, aren’t both men and women going to suffer equally?

(This reminds me of the joke - Breaking news: the world to end tomorrow. Women disproportionately affected!)

NO, according to feminists. Climate change is not an equal opportunity menace that affects both men and women at the same rate, but is indeed a very gendered issue that requires approach and actions approved by feminist authority.

Why is it a gendered issue? Because…(according to feminists)

-Climate change affects world’s poor regions and poorest people most severely, and 70% of the world’s poorest are women.

-Women and girls are often responsible for collecting firewood and cooking in developing countries, who will be more affected by climate change.

-Women are responsible for growing the bulk of the food staples in developing countries

-Women, as farmers, need better climate and weather information

-Women in rural regions could benefit from agricultural waste to energy projects.

-Women are four times more likely to die in natural disasters, which is happening at greater frequency as a result of global warming.

Wmmm, sounds serious enough, to make you believe that the global warming is actually a women’s issue, rather than an issue that affects all human beings, or small islands in the Pacific, or polar bears in the South Pole. Or is it?

Many of the arguments listed above look like a dramatic scaling down of the problem that was supposed to affect everybody, not just all human beings currently residing on planet earth but future generations, and polar bears and other animals and eco-system as a whole, and ultimately the entire planet earth. But according to feminists' logic, everyone in the developed countries need to fundamentally change their lifestyles, lower carbon emission, develop new source of energy, and undertake millions of other things that were recommended by green activists, so that, so that - some poor little girls in rural Africa don’t need to spend time to collect firewoods but attend school instead (presumably so that girls rather than boys could get higher education and eventually land a better, more powerful and high-paying jobs than boys).

This is obviously absurd. For one thing, girls (or boys) in rural Africa must have been collecting firewoods for centuries, long before Western countries started emitting too much CO2. Their problems is not created by some greedy western countries who pursue only their economic self-interests, but by poverty and underdevelopment. And poverty and underdevelopment could only be by countered by industrialization and economic development which, whether greens like it or not, is going to mean more coal and fossil fuel burning, among other things.

And obviously it doesn’t make sense that, for example, western governments and multinational corporations need to spend billions (or trillions) of dollors to research and develop new clean energy just to save some sorry girls in rural Africa.

Many of the above points were taken from a website by the Government of Finland, whose only “achievement” in the world political stage is to have elected a woman to it’s national leader, thereby nothing up a percentage of world female leaders by a bit and making power-hungry feminists feel better..

So what’s the Finnish government, now led by a wise female leader, recommends? Exactly the kind of things you would expect from power-hungry feminists;

● nominate female and male delegates to climate meetings, with developed countries supporting financially the participation of developing country representatives, both men and women, in these meetings;

● include climate change and gender as an item on the agendas of relevant high-level meetings,

● draw active attention to the gender-related impacts of climate change and to the positive role women could play in influencing climate change in the negotiations on the new climate agreement and incorporate gender considerations in the new agreement;

● allocate funds and encourage the financing institutions and UN and other international organisations to support women and men in influencing climate change and to contribute effectively at local levels, e.g. through sustainable agriculture, forest and water management, and increasing the use of renewable energy;

● invite developed countries to pay active attention to women's role in climate change in their bilateral cooperation with the developing countries and to provide financial support for gender-specific programmes.

Above recommendations (demands) are hardly surprising given that power-feminists’ utmost concern is in grabbing as much power as possible from men. But having more under-qualified women in decision making bodies, just to satisfy some quota-obsessed feminists, is not going to solve climate change problem. Or adding a purely political gender-perspective (a.k.a “gender-mainstreaming”) in what is already extremely politically-charged and controversial issue is going to do nothing to help solve it. If anything, a real solution (if there is really such a thing as man-made climate change) is going to in giving MORE SUPPORT TO MEN. If people are serious about tackling global warming, more support to men who make up majority of the scientists, engineers and who ACTUALLY DO THE HARD WORK OF developing and inventing new technologies is crucial. This men’s role is in stark contrast to that of women in this climate change debate, which mostly consisted of BLAMING men and DEMANDING more from men, and more gender quota.

Saturday Night Live on Tiger Woods

Another sequel to a never-ending Tiger Woods DV/cheating saga..

The article says Saturday Night Live (SNL) was criticized for its skit satiring apparent DV against Tiger Woods by his wife Erin.

But exactly what the SNL is being criticized for ?

a) For making light of the issue of domestic violence (of women against men)

b) For airing it when Rihanna was a guest (the one who initiated a domestic violence but now lionized as a symbol of domestic violence victim, or

c) Suggesting that a woman can be an abuser in domestic violence case.

I think it’s the combination of all three. DV to a feminist man-hating industry is a sacrosanct issue that nobody should make an even the a slightest fun of (especially men should not), and that one of the core tenets of feminist DV theory is that it is only perpetrated by men against women, and therefore suggesting that a wife could beat up a husband is simply not acceptable. And showing this skit in front of Rihanna would remind her of bitter consequences of initiating violence against Chris Brown, I guess that’s a too bitter memory for someone who is indulging in DV victim status granted to her by society and DV industry.

By the way, it’s interesting to see one of the reaction;

"Had the tables been turned and a man was suspected of beating up his wife, there definitely wouldn't be a lighthearted sketch like this. But since it's female-on-male domestic violence, our current culture deems it kind of, sort of okay to make fun of and the scandal had to be addressed before it lost heat."

This is same kind of logic and expression Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) use to draw attention of DV against men. But in this case, I’m not sure if the writer really meant it, because it’s so hard to think that a regular mainstream reporter is even a bit concerned about DV against men. I guess what he really meant was that DV (by men against women in his mind) should not be treated lightly and in the process he inadvertently ended up drawing attention to the issue of DV by women against men.

Battered Tiger a victory for feminism

Slightly old article, but it’s worth mentioning. This one should go down in the history of media as an article that most explicitly supported violence against men by women. She legitimizes use of violence, including the use of potentially lethal weapons such as an iron golf club, as a means by the wronged wives to get even on cheating husbands. In her view, the year 2009 was historic, since now women can wield a golf club to go after cheating husband. (I remember that according to feminists’ logic, wives cheating on husband is husbands fault since the husbands failed to take care of wives or were not attractive and attentive enough that wives needed to look elsewhere for satisfaction, etc, but of course that logic flew out of the window when wives are cheated – NOW it’s a serious matter). This truly shows that the benefit of empowering women; before they were too disempowered to think of beating up cheating husbands, but not anymore! Now a woman can swing a heavy golf iron, run fast enough to chase after a big SUV, and smash down windows! A frail woman from a foreign country intimidating a world-class professional athlete! Feminism has come a long way.

Feminist DV law backfires

It’s a pretty bad time for feminists, they are on the ropes now with the story of Tiger Woods all over the news. What to do? Ignore? Or spin?

Let’s see some master work on spin.

There are so many lies and spins in this short article that I don’t want to even bother discussing it. Except to say that there are many good comments in the “Fray” section for this article.

“Primary aggressor” theory is basically a feminist invention and its main purpose was to make men the guilty party in any domestic dispute and enable police to arrest men, without actually referring to “men” or “women”, as the law’s language needs to be gender-neutral. Including criteria such as physical size in determining a primary aggressor is a clever and pretty sure way to ensure that fingers are almost always at men, and if in rare case a woman happens to be bigger than man, then other criteria apply. It’s ironic (and very, very amusing to be honest) that this automatic DV arrest policy is becoming problematic for women. I hope women will now realize what men have been subjugated for many, many years. They shouldn't be suffering like this (nor men should), but blame your feminists sisters.

And my guess is that finally this problematic policy would soon be reviewed now that women is on the receiving end. There is a famous saying, “The best way to eliminate child support is to make women pay it”. So I guess in this case, we can say “The best way to change unfair DV law is to make women suffer from it”.

Though I'm sure feminists will waist no time in inventing even cleverer, seemingly gender-neutral ways to make men guilty ones in all domestic disputes.

Feminists' attention deficit disorder

Remember Super-bowl-DV study that was proved to be an ideology-driven propaganda? This new article gives you a reminder that feminists won't give up after just one failed attempt. They will keep coming back with new lies and hoaxes that each time look a bit truthy-ier than the last. And so here comes the newest, fanciest football-DV “study”. This one even nicely try to link women's high earnings with lower occurence of DV (against women of course), as if to create a false impression that if women's earning power is raised (by another feminist inspired law on gender paycheck “audit” or some other wealth re-distribution scheme), DV(against women) could be prevented. Nice try. Keep wishing.

This happens ("this" means this study, not the so-called uptick in DV) because feminists are jealous of all the attention that football games get at after Thanksgiving dinner - and women are not in it! Again, "men" (football stars) are the center of all the attention, and "men" (fans) are having pretty good time watching the games. Where are women in this equation? People need to pay attention to women, because this century belongs to women!! (me doing a little feminist talk) Focusing on the so-called uptick in DV (against women) after football game is a nice entry-point for feminists to inject "women" in this very popular American pastime and stigmatize football fans as well as football game itself which is allegedly causing men to behave macho against their partners.