This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Feminism and It's Effect on Global Warming
I'll keep it simple.
1. We are told that global warming is the most important issue of our times. The entire well-being of the planet is dependent upon how much effort we put into reducing our carbon emissions. This global warming is, allegedly, so important that billions of dollars and a huge amount of human energy must now be expended every year in order to counter it.
2. One of the very best ways to reduce our carbon emissions is to live together rather than to live apart. By living together - e.g. getting married - people can save on heating, transport, wastage and living space. Traffic congestion and pollution would be reduced enormously and time spent travelling would be cut. And so on.
Indeed, if my memory is correct, 1.5 million new houses need to be built in the UK just because of the tendency for people to live alone these days.
3. So why is it that whenever the global warming issue is discussed in the mainstream you never hear the politicians talking about policies that would encourage people to live together? We hear talk about just about everything else to do with cutting our carbon emissions, but not about policies designed to encourage people to get married or to live together.
If global warming is the most important issue of our times, then why, in connection with this issue, are the mainstream media and the government not promoting polices that would encourage marriage?
It doesn't make sense - until, that is, you realise that there is a very powerful group of dysfunctional people - feminists - whose main aim is to encourage family breakdown. No way are they going to allow politicians to encourage marriage; specifically heterosexual marriage.
I know that it sounds crazy, but it is true.
For example, the feminists will say, "Oh no, you must not encourage marriage - because "marriage oppresses women" - and what about those poor vulnerable women who are forever being abused? We must not do anything that reduces their chances of escaping."
And the politicians and the media know this feminist tactic very well. And if they upset the media feminists by suggesting that marriage should be encouraged, they will be hit very hard by them via the media.
The politicians are terrified of these selfish women; because they have learned over the years just how nasty they can be.
The main aims of feminists are to stir up hatred towards men and to break apart as much as possible people's close relationships.
And they will allow nothing to get in the way of these main aims.
Indeed, the huge negative effects of family breakdown and fatherlessness on our societies and our children is also well-documented and very visible. But feminists will still fight viciously against anything that increases the chances of close heterosexual relationships forming and/or succeeding.
Their Number One priority remains at the very top of the agenda; to encourage relationships to break down.
In other words, as far as they are concerned, our children and our planet can go to Hell. Their Number One priority remains at the very top of the agenda; to encourage relationships to break down.
------------------------
And now I have a question for you.
Do you really think that the government and the powers that be cannot see the connections between carbon emissions, wastage, pollution, traffic congestion etc etc and the tendency for people to live apart?
Do you really think that they do not realise that family breakdown and fatherlessness cause a multitude of very serious problems to millions of people? - with so many of these damaging problems being lifelong for them.
Do you really think that they remain unaware of the billions of dollars and of the huge resources that the country has had to expend over the years in order to try to counter all these problems?
Of course they can see these things.
So why do they say and do nothing about them?
And the answer is this.
They benefit from all these problems.
And this is why they are also forever promoting policies that both cause and exacerbate these problems.
1. We are told that global warming is the most important issue of our times. The entire well-being of the planet is dependent upon how much effort we put into reducing our carbon emissions. This global warming is, allegedly, so important that billions of dollars and a huge amount of human energy must now be expended every year in order to counter it.
2. One of the very best ways to reduce our carbon emissions is to live together rather than to live apart. By living together - e.g. getting married - people can save on heating, transport, wastage and living space. Traffic congestion and pollution would be reduced enormously and time spent travelling would be cut. And so on.
Indeed, if my memory is correct, 1.5 million new houses need to be built in the UK just because of the tendency for people to live alone these days.
3. So why is it that whenever the global warming issue is discussed in the mainstream you never hear the politicians talking about policies that would encourage people to live together? We hear talk about just about everything else to do with cutting our carbon emissions, but not about policies designed to encourage people to get married or to live together.
If global warming is the most important issue of our times, then why, in connection with this issue, are the mainstream media and the government not promoting polices that would encourage marriage?
It doesn't make sense - until, that is, you realise that there is a very powerful group of dysfunctional people - feminists - whose main aim is to encourage family breakdown. No way are they going to allow politicians to encourage marriage; specifically heterosexual marriage.
I know that it sounds crazy, but it is true.
For example, the feminists will say, "Oh no, you must not encourage marriage - because "marriage oppresses women" - and what about those poor vulnerable women who are forever being abused? We must not do anything that reduces their chances of escaping."
And the politicians and the media know this feminist tactic very well. And if they upset the media feminists by suggesting that marriage should be encouraged, they will be hit very hard by them via the media.
The politicians are terrified of these selfish women; because they have learned over the years just how nasty they can be.
The main aims of feminists are to stir up hatred towards men and to break apart as much as possible people's close relationships.
And they will allow nothing to get in the way of these main aims.
Indeed, the huge negative effects of family breakdown and fatherlessness on our societies and our children is also well-documented and very visible. But feminists will still fight viciously against anything that increases the chances of close heterosexual relationships forming and/or succeeding.
Their Number One priority remains at the very top of the agenda; to encourage relationships to break down.
In other words, as far as they are concerned, our children and our planet can go to Hell. Their Number One priority remains at the very top of the agenda; to encourage relationships to break down.
------------------------
And now I have a question for you.
Do you really think that the government and the powers that be cannot see the connections between carbon emissions, wastage, pollution, traffic congestion etc etc and the tendency for people to live apart?
Do you really think that they do not realise that family breakdown and fatherlessness cause a multitude of very serious problems to millions of people? - with so many of these damaging problems being lifelong for them.
Do you really think that they remain unaware of the billions of dollars and of the huge resources that the country has had to expend over the years in order to try to counter all these problems?
Of course they can see these things.
So why do they say and do nothing about them?
And the answer is this.
They benefit from all these problems.
And this is why they are also forever promoting policies that both cause and exacerbate these problems.
Scroll to see replies
I must say, you've rather outdone yourself on this one.
you're actually blaming feminism for global warming? This is ****ing hilarious.
Original post by brunettegirl92
you're actually blaming feminism for global warming? This is ****ing hilarious.
It's more of a knock-on effect of feminism.
The rising divorce rate and the amount of broken homes means that more housing is required. More housing = greater carbon emissions. Not difficult to understand to be honest.
Is it really so hard to believe? Feminism has been one of the most influential ideologies of the past thirty years. Of course there are going to be wider ramifications outside of what they were trying to achieve.
Unless of course you think that feminism is not responsible for rising divorce rates?
Original post by Dark Horse
It's more of a knock-on effect of feminism.
The rising divorce rate and the amount of broken homes means that more housing is required. More housing = greater carbon emissions. Not difficult to understand to be honest.
Is it really so hard to believe? Feminism has been one of the most influential ideologies of the past thirty years. Of course there are going to be wider ramifications outside of what they were trying to achieve.
Unless of course you think that feminism is not responsible for rising divorce rates?
The rising divorce rate and the amount of broken homes means that more housing is required. More housing = greater carbon emissions. Not difficult to understand to be honest.
Is it really so hard to believe? Feminism has been one of the most influential ideologies of the past thirty years. Of course there are going to be wider ramifications outside of what they were trying to achieve.
Unless of course you think that feminism is not responsible for rising divorce rates?
No. Unhappy marriages are.
Original post by brunettegirl92
No. Unhappy marriages are.
And why are there more unhappy marriages now than thirty years ago?
What the ****
Original post by Dark Horse
It's more of a knock-on effect of feminism.
The rising divorce rate and the amount of broken homes means that more housing is required. More housing = greater carbon emissions. Not difficult to understand to be honest.
Is it really so hard to believe? Feminism has been one of the most influential ideologies of the past thirty years. Of course there are going to be wider ramifications outside of what they were trying to achieve.
Unless of course you think that feminism is not responsible for rising divorce rates?
The rising divorce rate and the amount of broken homes means that more housing is required. More housing = greater carbon emissions. Not difficult to understand to be honest.
Is it really so hard to believe? Feminism has been one of the most influential ideologies of the past thirty years. Of course there are going to be wider ramifications outside of what they were trying to achieve.
Unless of course you think that feminism is not responsible for rising divorce rates?
I'm not against the idea of a troll thread here and there - but factually, divorce rates are low and have generally been falling for decades. I think they did uptick very very slightly in the last year or two, but this is from a general pattern of decline.
Original post by Clip
I'm not against the idea of a troll thread here and there - but factually, divorce rates are low and have generally been falling for decades. I think they did uptick very very slightly in the last year or two, but this is from a general pattern of decline.
Only because the marriage rates are.
Original post by Dark Horse
And why are there more unhappy marriages now than thirty years ago?
They were always unhappy. Now people can do something about it due to our more liberal culture, caused by liberal politics and the left wing.
Feminism doesn't break families. People do. Often, it is better for the children if their bickering parents divorce. It is a lot better for the unhappy couple too.
I fully support the right to divorce. It is very important to me.
The quality of these feminism rant threads is falling faster than a whore's pants. (inb4 misogynist)
Original post by Dark Horse
Only because the marriage rates are.
These are rates, not discreet numbers. The number of marriages won't affect the rate of divorce.
Original post by brunettegirl92
They were always unhappy. Now people can do something about it due to our more liberal culture, caused by liberal politics and the left wing.
Feminism doesn't break families. People do. Often, it is better for the children if their bickering parents divorce. It is a lot better for the unhappy couple too.
I fully support the right to divorce. It is very important to me.
Feminism doesn't break families. People do. Often, it is better for the children if their bickering parents divorce. It is a lot better for the unhappy couple too.
I fully support the right to divorce. It is very important to me.
Sorry. Did you mean marriages were always unhappy?
If feminism has been influencing the mindsets of women over the past thirty years (and marriage was central to their mantra) then how can you absolve it as a movement when the people it has influenced start behaving in certain ways. Wasn't the whole premise to change the way women think about things?
And whether you think divorce is important or not is not really my concern. The argument was that more people living alone = greater carbon emissions. The notion is not a difficult one to grasp.
Original post by Clip
These are rates, not discreet numbers. The number of marriages won't affect the rate of divorce.
Come on, if less people get married then there are less people to get divorced.
And unless there are many unmarried couples co-habiting then the problem still stands to be honest.
Original post by Arithmeticae
The quality of these feminism rant threads is falling faster than a whore's pants. (inb4 misogynist)
Funny, I don't remember receiving any money for the threads I post.
Original post by Dark Horse
Come on, if less people get married then there are less people to get divorced.
And unless there are many unmarried couples co-habiting then the problem still stands to be honest.
And unless there are many unmarried couples co-habiting then the problem still stands to be honest.
They are rates. As in percentages.
Original post by Clip
They are rates. As in percentages.
Oh god.
The trend for divorces can be found in this article: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jan/28/divorce-rates-marriage-ons
There is a massive spike and then a dip between 2006 and 2011.
That's a lot of carbon emissions.
Original post by Clip
They are rates. As in percentages.
And also here is some marriage data.
Original post by Dark Horse
Oh god.
The trend for divorces can be found in this article: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jan/28/divorce-rates-marriage-ons
There is a massive spike and then a dip between 2006 and 2011.
That's a lot of carbon emissions.
The trend for divorces can be found in this article: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jan/28/divorce-rates-marriage-ons
There is a massive spike and then a dip between 2006 and 2011.
That's a lot of carbon emissions.
That Guardian article gets trotted out a lot, but misses the point entirely.
The reason for the spike in divorces in the 70s and 80s was because of the introduction of the MCA Special Procedure - essentially divorce on demand with no investigation from the court.
Original post by Clip
That Guardian article gets trotted out a lot, but misses the point entirely.
The reason for the spike in divorces in the 70s and 80s was because of the introduction of the MCA Special Procedure - essentially divorce on demand with no investigation from the court.
The reason for the spike in divorces in the 70s and 80s was because of the introduction of the MCA Special Procedure - essentially divorce on demand with no investigation from the court.
The marriages and divorce is not the focus of the discussion. It's the higher carbon emissions due to less people living together.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
