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.
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.
When I consider arguing with a feminazi I am reminded of the advice of G.K. Chesterton:
Damn Bob, you hit the nail right on the head, which gives me the urge to hit the head right on the nail. Was checking out a debate between Dr. Ball and our resident Idiot MP Elizabeth May and the quote you provided explains all.
Link here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Ih2Wi8AAQ
I can’t remember the author but the idiom goes something like this, ” Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
Why does “Climate Change” always have to have negative consequences? I am certain that many women in many third world areas would have just as many positive consequences from climate change as any negative ones. Nature doesn’t just go one way.
It’s a lie built on a lie built on a lie:
If global warming is significantly impacted by manmade CO2 (doesn’t seem so from the last 18 years),
and if warming caused by manmade CO2 actually causes the stated effects known as “climate change” (I’ve not seen any evidence not based completely on climate models),
and if the effects are not balanced by as many or more benefits,
and if the cost of mitigation is not more than the cost of adaptation,
and if the mitigation actually works, and doesn’t create more problems than it solves (war, famine, economic collapse, etc)
and if something else doesn’t happen to the world to make such piddling trivialities such as a degree of warming completely irrelevant,
then we will all bask in the glow of a green nirvana
Out of curiosity, I just looked up the figures for ratios of female/male in the state-sector and private sector, here in the UK.
What I discovered is that since the mid 90’s the private sector has comprised a steady 60% male workforce.
The public sector, has not only grown during this period – BUT – the ratio of females to males has increased.
Such that now, males represent less than 35% of the state sector workforce.
Of course, the state provides some useful functions – but it has expanded rapaciously. And now, here in the UK, over 50% of GDP is government spending.
When you discover that women constitute more than 65% of the state sector workforce, then it is not hard to see why women in the UK tend to gravitate toward a preference for further expansion of the state and its priorities and schemes.
In the sense that people are disinclined to “bite the hand that feeds them”.
I also looked back at gender and voting and discovered that indeed, women have drifted over towards supporting Labour (the UK left). Actually a complete reversal seems to have occurred in this regard since the 1970’s, when the left was predominantly supported by male union members.
This may not seem to be wholly related to the topic in the O.P. but, I am interested to figure out why I struggle to find females who are suspicious of the motives of big government, or questioning of the output of government funded media (the BBC) or engaged with purportedly “scientific” assertions in a skeptical manner.
I know that there must be more Judith Currys, Joanne Novas, Donna Laframboises out there. But in my everyday experience, I do not seem to encounter any female criticism of this vastly expensive project to curb the proposed “extreme weather” phenomenon – the grand delusion of our age.
Anything in the study to link climate change, third world women and the inability to parallel park.
Mjw, it’s really easy. The vast majority of women in the third world don’t own cars and therefore the vast majority of third world women are unable to parallel park. QED
The only reason so many scientists jump onto the alarmist bandwagon is because that’s where the money is !!! If we had a system that provided money EQUALLY to both sides, most scientists would be on the side of ” unadjusted” science !!! IMHO
This is one way to close the seniority gap at academic institutions.
Is it my imagination, or are these claims becoming crazier and crazier as more and more evidence piles up that they are undeniably wrong. The greens/lefties will not hesitate to contradict their own position on one issue to advance their agenda on another issue. On the one hand, third wold people are culturally superior, hard working, and very desirable as immigrants. On the other hand, they are “selfish misogynists”.
I’m sure I read somewhere that global warming causes misogyny.
/snark
Looks like another snout in the trough expedition.
Try not to scrutinize the victim pyramid too much, it changes faster than an sjw confronted with logic.
Actually its more like a Rubik’s cube, with each cell colour randomly changed, EVERY time you turn a row.
The only winning move, is to take off and nuke the site from orbit.
+1. At least that would lead to some localised warming!
Appropriate also that the site in question is Hadley’s Hope.
According to the book, “City of Joy” (not the worthless rubbish movie of the same name), obviously written by someone with intimate knowledge of the poor of Calcutta, the rule actually is that the breadwinner eats first. And the reason is simple: if the breadwinner falls ill, everyone else starves anyway. It’s easy to see how western sophists spending two minutes of their shallow attention on the problem might get that one wrong, but that doesn’t excuse their misandry.
Absolutely Ron, as Karen Straughn points out in one of her pod casts, the Men in rural afghan villages got medical treatment first, if Dad dies, Mom and the Kids are in a world of hurt. That came anecdotally from a US Service Woman who served in Afghanistan if I remember correctly.
Kinda ironic that a Woman serving her Nation, could see on the ground, the very facts her ivory towered sisters missed entirely back stateside.
Also worth noting, the burden of performance on Afghan Men is phenomenal, and under the Taliban even more so, as Women weren’t permitted to travel without a Brother/Father or Husband to escort her.
Don’t see the third wavers crying about that on the universities, must be a taboo subject.
What passes for lefty thunking on issues afflicting the poor, is an embarrassment to the enlightenment.
Many women I know from the “3rd world” who now live in the “1st world” don’t seem to appreciate the pressures on that “bread winner”, when that person is the ONLY bread winner in the family. Choices choices!
It seems to me that there are extraordinarily high rates of education in this country and not enough brain power to even battle the imbecilic, spoiled rotten philosophies of environmentalism and de-industrialization. This is truly a psychotic pandemic which the culture is in.
It is a mess, with NonGovernmental Organizations claiming to represent “Indigenous Peoples” and “Women,” while pursuing environmental policies which raise water rates, electricity rates, and which attack the very agricultural advancements which would free women from constant weeding all day in those countries that are pretty much agrarian societies.
People need to stop handing these brilliant girls and boys over to the educational experts and trusting them to raise children for them, more like it.
http://uploads8.wikiart.org/images/william-adolphe-bouguereau/the-hard-lesson-1884.jpg
William Adolphe Bouguereau “The Difficult Lesson”
And one good painting deserves another (:
Or should that be +LV-426?
Apropos…
What do you mean “they cut the power”? How could they cut the power, man?! They’re animals!
“[SJWs], they’re coming outta the goddamn walls”
“LETS ROCK!’
Queue Smart Guns…no really,…seriously don’t hold back,…if just one of those things gets in here, we’re all dead.
HIppies LOVE her!
http://www.oldandinteresting.com/images/lessiveuse.jpg
Find out the secret of happiness discovered by NGOs introducing Agenda21 in your country. You WON”T BELIEVE IT! It’s washing laundry by hand in a barely lit cabin!!! Only do laundry once a month, or once a year with this REVOLUTIONARY new laundry trick!
“The buck wash was a relatively infrequent cleansing of household linen and clothes. (More about this in the Great Wash.) In the water were “bleaches” like ashes or urine. As bucking gradually became less popular during the 18th and 19th centuries it was sometimes combined with, or alternated with, a soap wash.
Millet painted the Lessiveuse in the 1850s: a woman heating water and pouring it onto her laundry through a layer of ashes spread on a bucking-cloth. The bucking-tub is raised on a frame, and a plug-hole allows the water to run out into a bucket underneath. For many hours, the water passes through the tubful of laundry, as it is re-heated and poured back in over and over again.”
source: http://www.oldandinteresting.com/lye-bucking.aspx
the femine story goes:
1. LOVE
2. get pregnant.
3. DIVORCE. child and house are mine.
4. alimentaries until child get’s it’s grades.
5. Unemployed GoodDoers Life on subsidies for NGO’s, ….
alternative:
2.1. LOVE, 2.2 get pregnant, ….
____
what reigns is evolution and thats the trap.
I can tell you a little story, a divorce (Not my own). I was messaging to my friend one day just a few months ago, she is from Zimbabwe in Aus. She was also messaging to her sister, in Zimbabwe (Might be South Africa). Anyway, my friend sent me a message by mistake, it was intended for her sister. I responded anyway because knew I could help (Some may not agree with that, so be it!). And it was as simple as this (A message by mistake); If her marriage was legal in Zimbabwe and that marriage was recognised in Australian family law, she could submit an application for divorce from here, from Australia, by post. A few hundred AU$$$ later (I actually did the application as she had no PC), it was done.
People can help others in unexpected ways when the law is an ass.
patrick – it’s their houses, their childs. They wanted, let them reign.
our’s is the world; we never forbade them universe – a concept they just lack.
‘paradise’ is the arabic word for the stonewalled garden at the hind door, mostly dry, greened as affordable. Where woman, children and pets dwell.
Leave’em the costly paradises.
Thx for the view. Hans
Well, it seem that the solution is obvious. As lack of development results in massive male chauvinism the obvious answer is that the UDCs must develop as quickly as humanly possible.
And, as lack of development results directly in shocking destruction of the environment, that development is doubly vital.
So if you care about women (and the environment) — bring on the coal.
I made a comment on The Conversation below this article, in support of another comment which had been critical of the article and had been responded with comments to the effect that people who were critical should be prevented from commenting. I too was told that my comments were not wanted there. It seems that only a very one-sided ‘Conversation’ is what they actually want.
My comments were then removed by the moderator. I shall not be reading anything else from this site. Its views are worse than the Guardian.
You’re right ANH. I’ve copied the following from the comments section over at The Conversation:
Doesn’t seem to be much of a ‘conversation’ to me…
Zeke October 26, 2015 at 5:56 pm
“It seems to me that there are extraordinarily high rates of education in this country and not enough brain power to even battle the imbecilic, spoiled rotten philosophies of environmentalism and de-industrialization. This is truly a psychotic pandemic which the culture is in.”
Rule number two: Never confuse education with intelligence.
There is a simple answer to that. Divert all the money spent on climate change research to providing well paid jobs for women and do not allow any aid whatever to go to males who have not worked for it. Also do not allow in a single male refugee to any western country until he has proved he has done everything possible to see his family were properly provided for before he looked after his own welfare. Send them back with no rights of appeal whatever.
Even when they get here the difference in the achievement of African based immigrants and their Asian counterparts says they are out of place here. The Africans are intelligent but do not confuse that with useful when laziness and dishonesty is a cultural requirement they seem to equate with getting “respect” in some areas.
“liberated our women”
A bit contradictory? lol