Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Conversation claims that climate change hurts women more than men, because men from backward third world countries are selfish misogynists, who let their women go hungry, and who force women to do all the unpleasant, dangerous jobs.
According to The Conversation;
… Women are also more likely to be exposed to mosquito-borne diseases through their daily activities; water collection and food harvesting puts them in close contact with mosquitoes.
Warmer temperatures, especially when combined with higher humidity following flooding, enhance transmission of diseases such as malaria, dengue and chikungunya. Women who are pregnant are especially at risk from malaria, as are children. During a disease outbreak, it is women who typically provide care, which also erodes their economic productivity.
Increasing food insecurity also disproportionately affects women and girls. Women have greater requirements than men and boys for some nutrients, even before their hard physical labour is considered.
In some cultures, women and children do not eat until the men have had their fill, further risking their health when food is scarce. As food becomes increasingly scarce and expensive, women forego other essential items such as medicines, to feed their family. …
Read more: http://theconversation.com/worldwide-climate-change-is-worse-news-for-women-49668
Even if we accept the sweeping generalisations of the article, that the key threat to poor women is misbehaviour by misogynist men from backward countries, how could it possibly improve their circumstances, if we immolate our first world economies on the altar of green idiocy?
In the West, the rise of technology and women’s liberation are inextricably intertwined. The rise of machines replaced the need for raw physical strength, with the need for patience, dexterity, intelligence and attention to detail – qualities which women can supply as easily as men.
If anyone seriously wants to help women from backward cultures, then help their countries industrialise – give them access to education, cheap energy, technology and trade opportunities, so they can follow the same path to modernity which liberated our women.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Women are also more likely to be exposed to mosquito-borne diseases through their daily activities; water collection and food harvesting puts them in close contact with mosquitoes.
But it was Rachael Carlson a Western World Enviromentalist women that banned DDT and inflicted millions in the third world to the scourge of Malaria
Women and minorities are always hardest hit (except asians)
In the West, the rise of technology and women’s liberation are inextricably intertwined. The rise of machines replaced the need for raw physical strength, with the need for patience, dexterity, intelligence and attention to detail – qualities which women can supply as easily as men.
Taking this further, the rise of technology has been amplified and accelerated by capitalism, where the profit motive has driven us to place technology into the hands of the consumer at a torrid pace. In other words, capitalism has benefitted women.
And yet many feminists and environmentalists view capitalism as the enemy.
It could be argued that women are to blame for causing global warming with their constant demands for household labour saving device.
washing machines, cookers,vacuum, cleaners, irons etc.
Man only invented the car because she wanted to go visit her mother.
It has been said:
“Behind every great man is a good woman”
Possibly the truth:
“Behind every great explorer was a nagging wife”
Indeed I have heard it said the the greatest factor for the liberation of women was the bicycle at the turn of the last century – all those factory workers could go out into the countryside at weekends.
“Progress isn’t made by early risers. It’s made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
“Trade not aid” is the key phrase to use. Trade will encourage capitalism and markets and industry to flourish. Aid hinders that and hinders a country’s progress.
I don’t suppose they asked any women.
============
Thank you, I’ll take the light switch, you keep the dung patty.
=========
Kim:
Superb.
why?
in 3rd world nations their opinion is of little worth.
the supposed warming isnt their problem,
culture is
poverty is also
and the lack of power and appliances.
having lived for many years without piped water,
and growing up carrying water and boiling a copper and hand washing
i LOVE the luxury of running water and heated water on tap.
i am still grateful I live where its available.
and i am IN a so called 1st world country.
but when my tanks get low..I am back to 3rd world lifestyle
Wait…what? I thought all men were selfish mysogynists?
Me too.
Let’s ask NOW.
At it’s simplest this argument does have some merit.
The least resilient to adversity are the poor and disenfranchised.
Women are generally less enfranchised than men in the world’s poorest countries.
Therefore the most vulnerable people in the world will be women (and, for similar reasons, children).
Doesn’t mean that any particular remedy is called for.
But the problem as identified is true.
Should I conclude that women in the 3rd world were better of in the Little Ice Age?
MCourtney writes “But the problem as identified is true.”
The behaviors identified are likely reported with adequate accuracy. Whether it is a problem is not for you to say; it is for the persons engaged in those behaviors to decide for themselves.
Maybe I am being pedantic but it is a subtle bias that creeps in to conversations to suppose what is and what is not a problem is for you or me to say.
http://www.omovalley.com/The-Karo-or-Kara-Tribe-live-on-the-banks-of-the-Omo-River.php
There is a difference between being potentially vulnerable and being the actual victims of an (supposedly) enforced change. In most cases when there is forced change e.g. war, famine, drought, disease etc. it is actually the man and children who are most affected by these disasters. The men in the competition for resources and power [both of which they share with their women and children] and the children during drought, famine and disease. The group that is least affected by these changes are the women.
You say that women are poorer and less enfranchised than men in the third world. However, this is not completely true.
First poverty:
Most women in these societies rely upon the income of their husbands, brothers and other male relatives to support them and their children. This means that that there is a substantial transfer of wealth from men to women in these societies. The UN and other feminist dominated organizations totally ignore this wealth transfer and then claim that women are substantially poorer than men.
Second enfranchisement:
Most women in the third world have no less access to democracy (when it exists) than the men and last I heard the voting process was by secret ballot. In countries without democracy, women access power as they always have through the indirect control of the males in their lives. If you want a good belly laugh, ask a father in the third world who is the real boss in “his” family.
Third violence:
Most women are protected from violence by their male relatives. Indeed, it is their male relatives who experience the bulk of the violence because they act as both economic and physical shields for their female relatives.
Interesting. I do know someone who would rather I spend my last red cent on a handbag, rather than paying for a meal. Some people do have a false sense of reality.
Hear WHAT?
White men are less selfish NOW?
“Third World poverty is on the run
Economic growth and aid have benefited the developing world so much that it looks as if dire poverty could be wiped out within 20 years…
….It seems incredible. The South Asian nation – the most densely populated sizeable country on earth – had long been written off. But the prediction is based on exhaustive, if pioneering, Oxford University research and backed up by other authoritative reports.
In a study published this month, covering 22 developing countries with two billion people, the university’s Poverty and Human Development Initiative concludes that half – including Bangladesh, Nepal and Rwanda – will have “eradicated” destitution within two decades if they “continue reducing poverty steadily at the current absolute rate”. Another seven, including India, will achieve it “within 41 years”.
And this is just one indication among many that the poor may not, after all, always be with us, in what is one of the great under-reported developments of our time.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/9948554/Third-World-poverty-is-on-the-run.html
And, the greening from AnthroCO2 is feeding an extra billion people.
=============
and the amount of land being used for agriculture has decreased since 1997.
The amount of land being used to grow crops for fuel has increased.
Meanwhile in the real world the World Health Organization reports the following
Available evidence suggests that given equal exposure,
adult men and women are equally vulnerable to malaria
infection, except for pregnant women who are at greater
risk of severe malaria in most endemic areas
and
The rate of malaria infection is higher in pregnant
women because of their decreased immunity. Studies
have shown that infection rates are highest in first and
second parity women with lower rates in later pregnancies.
The best methods of reducing Malaria are the traditional ones of draining malarial swamps and using mosquito nets. A small fraction of the money wasted on eco icons like windfarms would solve this and have immediate economic paybacks.
Reduced rates of malarial infection are counter to the primary Elitist Green intent.
Woman working in fields where DDT is banned have greater threat of Malaria.
World Ends Tomorrow!
Women and Minorities Hardest Hit!!
Film at 11:00.
Beat me to it but you forgot:
Denialists to blame.
H.R. — good one — Eugene WR Gallun
A good example of how light-headed greens have it exactly backwards. The intentions might be there, but these “intellectuals” don’t think things through. They don’t research, they don’t grasp history and the how and why of the past, nor do they consider consequences. In short, they don’t have a clue.
How many of them, though, have cars and dishwashers and washing machines? How many of these “intellectuals” will want to give up any of these things? There’s more to lose than computers.
What about their nice modern jobs? In a society where jobs are few and backbreaking (because industry will have closed down), will women again find themselves relegated to the home?
But wait. Such a drab life won’t be for any of the “elite”. No, of course not, all the “intellectuals” will still be pushing papers and ideas. Hardship is only for the rest of society…
Seriously, these people have no idea what harm they are trying to bring to the world. I’d pity them if they weren’t so destructive.
I think they do know the harm they will be inflicting. The sentiment has been known for hundreds of years, but is buried in sophistry. Succinctly put by Dicken’s character Scrooge in 1843 it was “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Jeff, you are, of course, 100% correct.
Well I guess the solution is that 3rd world women should not get married, have sex at will, have multiple children out of wedlock, or multiple ab0rtions, live on welfare, leave school early, become beholding to government, the new daddy, allow the government to control their reproductive health, destroy the family and hate men. Then they will be free.
Oh wait…I was thinking about the USA.
Let’s not go over the top here.
This what the wealth redistribution scheme behind the IPCC is all about. The socialists have already gone over the top. I just stated exact facts, that have already happened. Now the man-haters want to spread their disease to the 3rd world.
If memory serves, I recall 20 years ago, & it may have been when I respected D. Attenborough, watching a programme about sub-Saharan African tribes, & the “experts” studying them were surprised how after a hunting “kill”, the carcas was handed over to the tribal women to prepare & distribute as “they” saw fit!!! They were surprised at a) the act of men handing over the killl to the women, & b) that it was distributed by them around the tribe. Admittedly the men tende to get more, but women had some power within the tribe far more than the “experts” didn’t not anticipate!
That should have read either “did not”, or “didn’t”. Please take your pick!
Alan the Brit – raises a smile:
and You’re triple right.
1. A ethnographic docu about pygmeans / maybe BBC or NatGeo / :
woman reign OK for the men in the hunter/gatherer tribe
2. the “experts”, ethnographs plus docu staff didn’t anticipate!
3. the “experts”, ethnographs plus docu staff did not anticipate! *
Thx for that point – Hans
* by the way: live expectancy of this peoples max. 27 yrs. – the green dream!
not to forget the summary:
the really LAST hunter/gatherers to meet in real time.
Hans
…Third World Men are Selfish Misogynists…
That sounds racist and sexist to me. Has the perpetrator been banned from speaking ant thrown out of her university post…?
Over the decades, the Woman’s Liberation movement has passed through many phases. Equal rights, empowerment, the ERA, justice, and a bunch of others. All along the way, there is one message which is constant, clear, and consistent, and which was heard clearly above all din of the other messages. That message is simple, direct, and to the point. It is Men Are Pigs.
In the good old days, the ‘libbers hated feminine women, who they deemed willing slaves of the patriarchy (or something), and derisively labeled as “feminists”.
Eventually, they must have realized that taking care of yourself and your appearance (at least a little) might not be such a bad thing, and they adopted the term “feminist” as their own.
The mind reels. My neck is still hurting from the whiplash.
Along comes the Social Justice Warriors, (SJWs) who know men are sexist, misogynistic, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and who knows what else. And if you are white, add racist and white privileged.
There is one area where the feminists and the SJWs have nothing to say. That, of course, is the Mideast, there women and children are captured and literally sold into slavery. That ancient scourge has made a modern comeback, and still, not a whisper of protest. One might get the idea that the feminists really do not mind. Perhaps protesting Islamic barbarism does not sufficiently advance their cause.
Global Warming, on the other hand, that is a real problem for women. (And men are still Pigs)
“there women and children are captured and literally sold into slavery. That ancient scourge has made a modern comeback,”
That they are, however it is not a “comeback” as it never went away in those regions.
With more funding, the model and the blame game can tie it all back to evil corporations and while males. Safe targets with a history of not firing back tend to draw the most evil headlines and flak.
Old religion meets the the new Green religion …. Oh boy !!!
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/26/catholic-leaders-push-new-rules-to-limit-effects-climate-change/?intcmp=latestnews
The 1st half of “The Conversation”‘s masthead Academic rigor, journalistic flair gave me a good LoL .
Is there any democratic party special interest group that isn’t disproportionately impacted by climate change?
I feel disproportionately impacted by climate change propaganda.
I feel disproportionately impacted by climate change propaganda.
As a climate realist, I am part of a “minority” (so we are told – I may even be member of an empty set, according to NKM, a former environment minister).
Reminds me of the claim that climate change was forcing more women into prostitution.
The Hillary effect on headlines and research claims is just getting started.
Once again , using post normal science, more evidence the Greenies are Eugenics Reborn.
Another, poor brown persons are subhuman, rubbish.
As it is all political and only persons with wealth and leisure can play this game all the time, stripping these fools and bandits of both is essential to saving civilization as you knew it.
In the spirit of doing unto others as they would do unto you, but do it first,we need more CAGW /CCC merchandizing .
A high priced idiotic “theory” being used as cover to strip us of wealth and freedom, deserves a similar response.
The “prove you care” line of Cult Accessories should sell real well.
After all if one will buy CAGW, they will buy most anything.
What a pile of crap, full of lies and Appeals to Emotion. Another imbecile with no clue about either climate or economics. The effect of “fighting climate change” will do the exact opposite of what she claims, hurting the poor, and yes, of course women.
So, the problem is Third-world men and First-world women. Then the solution must be marriage of First-world men and Third-world women. The First-world women empathize with Third-world men, because… equality.
Once again, I’m reminded of the Onion-esque headline:
“World to End Tomorrow. Women and Minorities Hardest Hit.”
It’s a runaway model of finger pointing with social agendas. Science was left back at the station a long time ago.