Reposted from Science Is Not The Answer, William M Briggs’s Substack
Busy day at the Briggs compound, and I only have time to tell you, with regret, that the feminists are at it again.
Turns out there is a journal, and I promise this is true, called Australian Feminist Studies. And in this journal is a peer-reviewed—what is a peer here? angry unnaturally colored hair she beasts?—a paper titled “A Climate of Misogyny: Gender, Politics of Ignorance, and Climate Change Denial – An Interview with Katharine Hayhoe” by Sophie Bjork-James and Josef Barla.
According to her official bio at Vanderbilt Bjork-James “has engaged in long-term research on both the US-based Religious Right and the white nationalist movement.” Which makes her officially ignorant on the subject of physics of fluid flow on a differentially heated rough rotating sphere.
But she does appear quite knowledgeable about what eye wear to don to signal to others her woke credentials.
I refuse to look up Barla because no man has any business in a “feminist” journal.
Hayhoe, however, does know something about physics. She’s best categorized in that second-tier of scientists (see her paper titles) who take an idea given to them by first-tier scientists, and worries that idea to death. She has no idea how to even question the idea given to her. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Most of us do not belong in the first tier of anything.
Yet this paper is a catalog of feelings of these three people—transcribed from a Zoom call! Which, I suppose, is precisely what a paper in a feminist journal should be. So this is not a criticism. The only fallacy would come in supposing depth of feelings is a sound proxy for the correctness of propositions like “climate emergency.”
Sophie starts us off: “We find it striking that many of the voices downplaying or denying the reality of climate change are also those who forcefully oppose gender equality.”
This is because those in opposition understand Reality. In Reality, there is no interesting or important threat from “climate change”, and gender equality is a myth. I don’t mean myth in its modern sense of fiction or error. I myth in its classic sense of a foundational moral story. Only this one happens to be false, too.
Hayhoe (you do realize, dear reader, the intense effort it takes to not tease that name?) responds:
…there is the issue of gender inequality in the physical sciences in general. So, when you look at the earth sciences for example, which is my field, by the time you get to the level Full Professor, only 13% of us, according to the most recent numbers I have seen, are women.
Realists would take this as proof that men are better than women at physics, on average. And that the woke have not yet made the field DIE. But that it’s getting there.
Hay—stop me!—hoe’s answer goes on for a very long time to this first question. Indeed, the paper goes on for pages and pages. You know I love you, my dear readers, but even my great heart is of finite size. I could only read snatches.
Anyway, she says “research has shown”—research!—“that climate denial is not exclusively but predominately a male-dominated area and it is usually older White men”.
Which, again, proves older White men (ahem) are more in touch with Reality than others. And ore often tell the truth.
She immediately confirms this judgment: “Women conversely are more concerned about climate change.” Ain’t it the truth! Because “climate change” is a cultural or social phenomenon, and maintaining rules and order in these are what women excel at.
“Briggs, that is so sexist. That isn’t true. That makes you a misogynist.”
Uh huh.
Heyho’s very next sentence: “I am part of this program called Science Moms that just launched yesterday and part of why we did that was that it turns out that 83% of women in the USA are worried about climate change.”
Almost every one of these 83% of women do not understand any physics, but they do understand they have to be seen caring about “climate change.” Yet their deep feelings for “climate change” means nothing to the climate.
Wait. Why did she say White (and notice the capitalization) men are so amazing?
“The fact that being a White man has allowed them to dominate Western society for centuries and all of a sudden that is not enough anymore.”
Allowed to dominate? Who allowed them? Women?
She then moves to a story of her—and I know you won’t believe me, but you know your Uncle Sergeant Briggs wouldn’t lie to you—a story about her cats.
I stopped reading after that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Women seem to be more likely to support these fashionable social and environmental issues than men. Maybe they’re just more idealistic, but they should rest assured that neither governments, businesses, industries, nor consumers will make the operational or lifestyle changes that will have any effect on the climate. The evidence from the IEA is this: during the last three decades emissions from industry and electricity generation have risen 60%. The future seems it will be more of the same; e.g., India plans to boost coal use by 40% by 2030, while China’s coal imports are forecast to rise from 229 MT in 2022 to 378 MT within two years. So who’s doing that much in the climate fight anyway?
Hayhoe 0 – Curry 1000
They’re not idealistic, they’re unrealistic. They can afford to be because the western civilization men built has insulated such women from the consequences of their stupidity. Their privilege has metastasized into a revolting sense of entitlement. I say that as a woman.
………..but we don’t even know what a woman is!
Speak for yourself.
I’m identifying as a woman today, and a man tomorrow, the next day, well I’m not sure what I will be. Depends how I “feel” mate! —
Now how can Katherine mischaracterize you if you keep switching from male to female?
Next thing we know, Katherine will be calling transsexuals climate change deniers.
Hayhoe doesn’t speak for all women – just the blue haired, tattooed, screamy ones
Katharine Hee Haw is a whack job who has been wrong too many time with her breathless fearmongering babblings.
So, according to some poll cited by Hayhoe, 83% of women are onboard with the climate change bandwagon. I wonder what would happen if women (white and otherwise) were polled about whether they would support eating bugs (and feeding them to their kids). Would they support living in a home without adequate heat and AC? Would they support being forced to either ferry the kids around in an EV or take public transit (if even available) instead? Would they want to be trapped in a small city, and face restrictions on travel, especially air travel?
Personally I don’t know any women (including myself) who would want anything to do with nutty net zero nonsense that is always coupled to the climate change narrative like a bunch of box cars behind a locomotive.
This Hayhoe lady is incredibly ignorant – and stupid – if she thinks that most women want to go back to an 18th century lifestyle – and for some bizarre reason, white men do not.
IMO this apparent marriage between climate change activism and feminism is simply insulting to women. It’s not unlike the notion that supporting fossil fuel use is racist. As if people of color are supposed to also want to give up the fruits of the industrial revolution and the positive impact it has had on humanity.
It’s no wonder loopy ideas like this (luckily) gain little traction….
“It’s no wonder loopy ideas like this (luckily) gain little traction….”
I agree with the sentiment, but I’m having trouble with historical examples of loopy ideas that died. Loopy ideas seem to gain traction as a mark of increasing standard of living.
The example that comes to my mind first is USA fad diets – they come and go with different names on overpriced snack food boxes, but the general idea of losing weight by eating “as much as you want” seems to persist across fad diets.
I believe it goes back to the old “no enemies on the left” attitude that many leftists take. As a result they feel the need to support any cause that is being pushed by other leftists, no matter how nonsensical, or unconnected to the causes they are pushing.
Please do not use racist terminology like “people of color.” Like its predecessor “colored people,” it was designed as a phrase to divide people into white vs. non-white groups and pit them against each other for the political benefit of the racist Democrat Party and their foot soldiers (KKK, Antifa, BLM, etc.).
From another “words have meanings” fan: you should offer a substitute term to try next time. It’s not the kind of search history I want lurking in my browser.
In Holland we have this song: “He ho, he ho, je krijgt het niet kado”
What is the difference between a feminist and a knife?
A knife doesn’t whinge about mysogeny whilst practising misandry
Ho hum
I hold it that that paper will turn out to be a spoof. Whatever it is, it is a rich source for a competent comedian.
“Hayhoe (you do realize, dear reader, the intense effort it takes to not tease that name?)”
Heck, and I was just about to…. but I’ll refrain.
Thank god she doesn’t suffer from dwarfism, it’d be so much worse.
“only 13% of us, according to the most recent numbers I have seen, are women”
Yuh, but how many enter that or any other field? The feminists think every field must have AT LEAST 50% women.
Yeah, and what was the percentage 10 years ago, 20 years ago?
It’s higher now, which means progress for women.
In my field, forestry, few women study that subject. The few who do- are guaranteed a job because all the state and federal agencies that hire women MUST increase the number of women. But the fact that they’re guaranteed jobs certainly ticks off the men because forestry jobs are tough to get – partly thanks to climatistas who are trying to shut down all forestry “to save the planet”. Reverse discrimination isn’t helping their cause if it angers people. Here in Wokeachusetts- women now dominate not just forestry but all state environmental agency leadership positions.
It’s an odd situation where I worry “they’re” being pulled onto a sinking life raft when their parents push them into STEM. 4 billion humans are smarter than average and most of them could not afford the computer I’m typing on.
Half of civil war era Americans were subsistence farmers, I wonder whether engineers will be the next farmers (meaning, only a small very effective minority of us might be needed).
In academia, she would naturally see who’s learning what now, In industry, I’m surrounded by certain demographics – the uniformity isn’t good or bad, it just is . After years of worrying that faraway people might steal my job for half price then do it better, I root for them to succeed. It might otherwise feel hypocritical to buy on Amazon.
I wonder what the percentage is for Sumo wresters?
Football linemen?
“Sophie starts us off: “We find it striking that many of the voices downplaying or denying the reality of climate change are also those who forcefully oppose gender equality.””
Forcefully oppose? What the hell does that mean? I’m sure she used that word to imply rape. I’m not aware of any man who opposes gender equality in any fashion- it’s just that they don’t want reverse discrimination.
““Sophie starts us off: “We find it striking that many of the voices downplaying or denying the reality of climate change are also those who forcefully oppose gender equality.”””
I would like for Sophie to give us one example of someone doing this.
This is a figment of Sophie’s imagination, not reality.
Maybe she was personally not popular with men- so this is her way of getting back at them. If she claims to be a scientist- she should stick to pushing back the frontiers of knowledge.
To most on the left, there is no difference between a failure to support and being guilty of forcefully opposing.
According to many, anything less than full throated agreement and support, is equivalent to actively opposing.
Of course these are the same activists who just a few years ago, claimed that all they wanted was acceptance.
““The fact that being a White man has allowed them to dominate Western society for centuries and all of a sudden that is not enough anymore.””
Dominate? Men do the hardest jobs and go off to war. It would be one thing to complain about aristocracies and “the Church” as dominating powers- but to blame all men? And of course, men don’t live as long as women, on average!
If you are in a predominantly white society then they will dominate that society through numbers alone.
That would apply to any race. A predominantly black society would be dominated by the members of that society.
So these women are whining about demographics.
Dont worry, Joe Biden is trying to change the U.S. demographics. He has a *long* way to go to make white people a minority in America, though. But he is trying his best with his wide-open borders.
Though I’m not a huge fan of Trump, I did like many things he said. Once he said, “we should encourage more Scandinavians to emmigrate to America” or something like that. And for saying that, he was accused of being raccist. I think Trump’s thinking was more that Scandinavians are highly educated and can add more to America than millions of peasants in a time when we no longer have rapidly growing industry desperate for low skilled people, as when my peasant grandparents came here from Italy just before WWI. Every Scandinavian that I’ve personally met or seen on a video speaks better English than most Americans. What’s racist about wanting highly educate people coming here? Isn’t it the policy of New Zealand that they only allow people to become citizens if their nation needs those skills?
I suspect that Scandinavians have a lower crime rate than many of our recent immigrants as well.
A short lesson in metaphysics and the Problem of Induction.
You fail to get a job.
Is this because
(a) you are crap, unqualified, chippy and resentful, and no sane person would employ you.
or:
(b) You are being oppressed by White Men.?
Answers on a postcard to the institute of Marxism, Peace and Love.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown isn’t that old.
I am trying to figure out where someone like Willie Soon fits in. The notion that he is an angry old white man will surely come as news to many.
According to the leftists that I unfortunately know, if you are not a white male, then you are a lackey of the white males, which is even worse.
As every good leftist knows, all minorities are supposed to support them.
I remember some leftists proclaiming that Clarence Thomas was not a real black.
And that was before he didn’t vote for Brandon!
“that climate denial is not exclusively but predominately a male-dominated area and it is usually older White men”
That makes perfect sense to me. Men tend to be more logical while women tend to be more emotional. Men tend to value independence and self-determination while women tend to value safety and stability.
Older men tend to have been educated through their formative years before the left solidified its stranglehold and shifted the government school’s mission from education to indoctrination. White men were more likely to have been educated in rural and suburban schools rather than inner city schools where the leftist stranglehold took root much earlier.
‘The fact that being a White man has allowed them to dominate Western society for centuries and all of a sudden that is not enough anymore.’
Allowed to dominate? Who allowed them? Women?”
On the contrary, the only reason that women and minorities have equality un this country is because white men granted it to them (and, in the case of blacks, fought a devastating war to win it for them). The question is, had the roles been reversed, would they have done the same?
I believe that the way those on the left treat anyone who dares to disagree with them, answers that question.
William Briggs is a hard act to follow for anyone who might try to offer a clever response to absurdity.
Not only is Katharine Hayhoe a misogynist, she it a racist misogynist. That, of course, is my humble opinion from reading the above article.
Just carefully examine her quoted statement:
“The fact that being a White man has allowed them to dominate Western society for centuries . . .”
Hmmmm . . . one thinks (reasons) that having:
(a) wealth,
(b) education,
(c) inheritance of military powers,
(d) inheritance of political powers, and/or
(e) family connections to others in power
may have been significantly more important than being “White” in enabling them to “dominate Western society for centuries”?
As others have documented, “White” is not defined as a specific race . . . it is a construct proven useful for things like conducting a census and filling in government forms.
“The [US] Census Bureau defines White people as follows:
‘White’ refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa. It includes people who indicated their race(s) as “White” or reported entries such as German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.”
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans
I have not doubt that if asked, the former kings and queens of Spain and Portugal—you know, the rulers of those countries that largely dominated the conquest of the North and South America—would have objectively strenuously to being classified as “White”, given their typical skin pigmentations.
Ref: https://andscape.com/features/white-immigrants-werent-always-considered-white-and-acceptable/
Errrr . . . last sentence of last full paragraph should read “. . .—would have objected strenuously to being classified . . .”
The great irony of the uninformed climate alarmists is that they think we are wrong about their “truth”. “If I feel it, it is true.” Men and women are different, and that is good. It has taken me forty years to learn to listen to feelings and be empathetic. Fortunately, my woman not only has feelings, she also believes in real facts and real truth. So it is becoming increasingly easy to listen and care about her feelings that have nothing to do with climate. It is harder to have empathy for feelings grounded in a false narrative – especially when those with climate alarmist feelings refuse to debate what is actually happening versus what the flawed models predict.
In the real world, old white men have contributed quite a lot to society, just saying
“The fact that being a White man has allowed them to dominate Western society for centuries”
Hmm, not really. If we’re using the racialised descriptor “white” to mean Western European society, the reality for centuries was a small elite that dominated a much larger lower class.
Science Muthas has such a different ring, doesn’t it?
When I hear her name I always expect “Kermit the frog, here” to follow.