The Guardian: Population control is not what makes climate change a feminist issue

Oh come on. This article is ridiculous. The statistics are beyond being plausible. The argument is formulaic and boring - women are always the victims and men are always the perpetrators, women are always getting less and men are always getting more, and the answer to everything is to give more rights and privileges to women. The big pink elephant in the middle of the living room, the topic that nobody is willing to talk about, is that women are the ones who want to have all these babies, and it is therefore women who are causing climate change and environmental destruction.

manonthestreet

There will forever be a succession of these articles coming out of the guardian newspaper. It is just the way it is. The numbers are just as said above 'ridiculous'. 70% of the worlds poor are women - oh really. So the fathers are wealthy while their daughters are poor. I wager you that all these numbers come out of the UN which has their own bizarre feminist way of seeing the world as it is.

Typical use of statistics! Report just the part that supports your theory, but leave the rest of the story out.

RE: refugees
Most are women because their husbands were killed or are working in other locations to support the family. But, as HC would say, 'women are the real victims.'

RE: being poor
Being poor in this case means this: You are not gainfully employed or do not bring home the 'bacon.'
Just because you personally are not gainfully employed doesn't make you poor - you have the assets from your husband or other men to rely on.
Case in point: Here in USA, many women complain about not being paid the same as a man. But, women, by and far, spend most of the assets gained in the household - 75% to 80%. Which would you rather be, the one who works the most hours and spends the least (men), or the one who works the least hours and spends the most (women). Who's really poor here?

I'll be so glad when these one-sided articles are the thing of the past. [sigh]

regards,
MAJ

Does the term "journalistic credibility" have any meaning anymore?

"70% of the worlds poor are women"

How does that reconcile with this?

Pocketbook Power: How to Reach the Hearts and Minds of Today's Most Coveted Consumer - Women
by: Bernice Kanner

From the Back Cover:

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, women--who comprise just over 51 percent of the U.S. population, making them the largest consumer segment in the country--control six trillion dollars in buying power annually. Statistics show that:

Women make 88 percent of all U.S. retail purchases. Some experts even predict that, by 2020, women will control most of the money in America.

Women control 88 percent of all purchases.

Women handle 75 percent of family finances. 43 percent of those with assets over $500,000 are women.

One out of every 11 women in America owns a business.

...an article that gets its statistics from what is clearly a feminist group - the group she links to says the answer is, surprise surprise, more women in parliament and on company boards! How's that for a lucky coincidence?

----------------------
Rise, Rebel, Resist.

Obviously a propaganda piece to try and get women to rally behind "global warming". Yeah I'm sure carbon taxes are really going to help women in poor countries.

manonthestreet

No Stringer503, but for sure they will help the banks and government spending. Funny how carbon taxes are essential just as governments are having big deficits.

In Canada we pay an environmental disposal "fee", aka tax, on every electronic item purchased. I would really like to know where this money goes, other than lining someone's pocket (politicians and/or corporations). In my province there is also now a fee for every plastic grocery bag used at a cost of 5 cents per bag. The money simply goes to the grocer. The "green" economy and global warming are further scams to get people to conform to contrived environmental ideologies and to continue the financial rape of citizens.