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.