Politics is a dirty, nasty business. If you don’t know that, or if you do not want to be attacked, then you should stay out of it. It’s always been this way. ‘Climate change’ is really all about politics, and it seems that male Warmists think their women folk aren’t strong enough to be involved
Why climate deniers target women
Harassment is no stranger to the reporters, researchers and policymakers who work on climate change, but it is particularly severe for the women in those fields.
Canadian environment minister Catherine McKenna was labeled“climate Barbie†by the right-wing political blog The Rebel Media. Kait Parker of the Weather Channel suffered attacks from Breitbart News, which dismissed her forceful and lucid explanation of climate science as an “argument from a pretty girl.†Emily Atkin, who covers climate and energy for The New Republic, also has endured sexist barbs from Breitbart,which said she had “kitty claws,†and Rush Limbaugh, who called her an “infobabe.†In similar fashion, climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe earned the moniker “climate babe†from Limbaugh.
Not mentioned are the names and stuff that male Warmists are tagged with.
Nor that the article itself uses a term mean to smear people who don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change as the same as people who deny the Holocaust.
It is interesting, as well, that, again, male Warmists think so little of the females that they have to protect them and shelter them.
Fortunately, the article goes down typical stupid roads
Certainly, sexist attacks are not unique to climate science, journalism or advocacy, but research into public understanding of climate change reveals an important link between sexism and climate denial — support for the existing social hierarchy.
Often, in studying how humans arrive at their values, attitudes and beliefs, social scientists will ask people about their views of hierarchy. Do they believe that some groups should have more power and influence than others? Or, do they believe that power and influence should be broadly shared? Research shows that men who value hierarchy are more likely to downplay the risks of climate change and more likely to hold sexist views.
What you have going on is people who start the attacks with terms like denier having fits that people would dare respond back.
We live in a sexist society. Liberals at least try to be less sexist. Con Men fight hard to maintain their male privilege.
And since most global warming deniers are Con Men it’s not surprising that deniers tend to be more sexist.
And somehow manage to be more sexist instead.
Male warmist is code for fag.
How come it’s all the globull-warming Nature Deniers that are being arrested and fired for rape and sexual harassment??
Have you ever seen any ugly women reporting the news in Fox, CNN, or The Weather Channel? The news channels put all of these very attractive women out there, dressing them in skirts and f(ornicate) me heels, and then they’re shocked, shocked! that Rush Limbaugh characterizes them as ‘infobabes’?
It’s the fifth of February, and the women on the Weather Channel are doing their in-studio shows in not just tight dresses, but sleeveless dresses, as though it was July.
I remember, several years ago, seeing Maria Larosa on the Weather Channel’s Wake Up With Al early morning show apologizing for wearing flats, explaining that she’d broken a heel on her heels.
It is the left, it is the Democrats, telling us that it’s just plain wrong to judge people, especially women, on their attractiveness, on their sexual appeal, even as Los Angeles Times opinion writer David Horsey, among others including Cher, or all people, criticized White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ appearance. Then, Salon writer Chauncey deVega decided to criticize White House Communications Director Hope Hicks because she is too pretty, and “enjoys privileges and other unearned advantages that are denied to nonwhite women.†Yet, when Miss Hicks wore a tuxedo at a state dinner in Japan, the media were full of articles about her appearance. It seems that the left, dogged opponents of sexism that they are, can get all gaga over Miss Hicks’ looks and fashion, and attack Mrs Sanders for hers.
I documented a lot of this here.
Of course, it would be noted when we get a liberal “argument from a pretty girl,” because studies have shown, conservatives are generally better looking than liberals, and people tend to vote for more physically attractive candidates. Thus, when the left manage to find an attractive woman on their side, they tend to promote her.
Our Missouri feminist told us that liberals “at least try to be less sexist.” The real difference is that conservatives aren’t hypocrites: we tell people that we appreciate good-looking women. Harry Weinstein and his ilk appreciate good-looking women, too, but they won’t be honest about it.