Quote from Xxavier

The final vote passed

VoteWatch.eu European Parliament - Women and climate change

I don't think climate change is our biggest worry here.

It was never in doubt. These people may think they're untouchable - they're not.

You can find out on this page which of your MEPs voted in favour of this resolution:
VoteWatch.eu European Parliament - Women and climate change

You can see on this page what they voted for.
REPORT on women and climate change - A7-0049/2012

It includes:

A. whereas climate change is not gender-neutral and does have gender-differentiated effects; B. whereas consumption and lifestyle patterns have a significant impact on climate change;

C. whereas women represent approximately 50 % of the world’s population and whereas they still have relatively more responsibility for everyday consumption choices, childcare and household activities; whereas consumption patterns differ between women and men, as women consume more sustainably than men and show greater willingness to act to preserve the environment by making sustainable consumption choices;

D. whereas due to gendered roles, women’s impact on the environment is not the same as men’s, and their access to resources and ways to cope and adapt is severely affected by discrimination in terms of income, access to resources, political power, education and household responsibility;

E. whereas climate change will amplify inequalities and there is a risk that climate change policies will also have a negative impact on gender balance and women’s rights if they do not take gender discrimination into account from the very start;

O. whereas two thirds of the world's illiterate persons are women and access to information and training via appropriate communication channels is therefore critical to ensuring their independence and inclusion, in particular in cases of emergency such as natural disasters;

You might note that claims in C that women consume more sustainably is argued against in D which implies they can't consume sustainably because of men.

I included O because it just seems amazing to me that anyone believes that literacy is vital in an emergency. By the time reading skills come into use, the emergency is over, almost by definition.

There is a lot more crap that carried a 77% vote.

You can send a letter to your MEPs who voted in favour of this rubbish via this site, demanding that they explain themselves and state why they voted for a resolution that aims to define useless and damaging gender division on a topic which (assuming it exists at all) clearly affects all of humanity (as well as most other living creatures):
WriteToThem - Email or fax your MEP for free

women consume more sustainably than men

In the language of diplomacy, quell un load des ancient bolloques.

This thread seems like a really bad joke. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. The thing is, you cannot legislate nature. When TSHTF, whom are women and these manginas who mindlessly and ball-lessly support them going to look to to protect them from whatever natural disaster strikes?

Women will be struck hardest since they have, in general, removed the man out of the way and opened themselves to all the dangers of the now and future.

whereas due to gendered roles, women’s impact on the environment is not the same as men’s, and their access to resources and ways to cope and adapt is severely affected by discrimination in terms of income

Woah! Women lack ACCESS to income? Hold your flippin' horses, guv........can someone remind me what % of the world's wealth, women control? Greater than 50, considerably, no? 75% rings a bell........perhaps someone can confirm this for me. Men may have the 'pleasure' of EARNING more of the world's income; but let there be no mistake as to which gender has the PLEASURE of ACCESSING and SPENDING most of it.

That reminds me, I owe my ex last week's child support...........................no, actually, I don't, I always pay on time, like a good little boy........

Quote from byslexic_danana

Woah! Women lack ACCESS to income? Hold your flippin' horses, guv........can someone remind me what % of the world's wealth, women control? Greater than 50, considerably, no? 75% rings a bell........perhaps someone can confirm this for me. Men may have the 'pleasure' of EARNING more of the world's income; but let there be no mistake as to which gender has the PLEASURE of ACCESSING and SPENDING most of it.

That reminds me, I owe my ex last week's child support...........................no, actually, I don't, I always pay on time, like a good little boy........

To clarify, I like this because it is true not because it is happening.

I have a hard time believing most women aren't entirely selfish in relation to men when all of these issues are the case. I'm not saying that they're selfish on their own because there are "powers that be" but women like to claim a small role in the destruction they and the state cause and a big role in accomplishments. Come on now, isn't this all just too convenient?

Quote from Zuberi

The sun is my friend.

Pops knows what I'm talking about.....

The sun has always been nice to me, no sunburns and that's without sunscreen!

The resolution rewards a good read. Because it tells us a great deal about how the feminist mindset works and how it weaves exaggeration, bias and outright lies into a pious sounding document. It also gives us an insight into the way those in power over us go about their grisly business of wasting our money, keeping themselves occupied doing nothing of any value, and how they fail to protect our best interests. Kudos to scullion for bringing this to our attention, Douglas for his comments and the others here who refuse to swallow the hogwash that these people are trying to get us to believe.

The resolution is absolutely chockful of unfounded and unproven assumptions about the victimhood of females worldwide, spilling over into some of the most outrageous claims. How about this gem:

J. whereas, while 70 % of poor people living on less than USD 1 per day are women, women own less than 1 % of the world’s property; whereas, compared with men, women in developing countries reinvest considerably more of their income in their families;

Women own less than 1% of the world's property? Where did that outright lie come from? Straight out of the backside of the feminist who dreamed up this drivel, presumably. The only place on this planet where women own less than 1% of the property are in the dwindling number of monasteries where they are not allowed. And if women own less than 1% of the property, how can they invest more of it in their families than men, who presumably own the other 99+%? Or are they trying to persuade us that men spend all that wealth exclusively on themselves? This is not just a big lie, it is a disgraceful and shocking insult to men - and to the intelligence of everyone. How do these charlatans get away with it?

I have to comment on this too:

M. whereas between 75 and 80 % of the world’s 27 million refugees are women and children...

Well of course they are. Women and children together make up probably something close to 75% of the world's population anyway, just depending on what age you decide to define "children" as. Also of course when a man moves out of a place where he cannot sustain himself or his family, he is merely an economic migrant. It is only when women do the same that they get classified as refugees. And when it is war that drives people out of their homes, the men are the ones doing the fighting and the dying in that war. Dead men don't get into the refugee statistics. Apparently they don't get into any other statistics that feminists or EU MPs are interested in.

Q. whereas droughts and water shortages resulting from climate change force women to work more in order to provide water, food and energy...

As opposed to men, who presumably react to droughts and water shortages by sitting on their backsides letting the women do it all? Utter piffle. Why doesn't the additional hard work of men get acknowledged here? Oh, silly question...

How about this whopper, number 24 of the General Provisions:

Underlines that 70 % of the world’s poorest are women, who carry out two-thirds of all work done but own less than 1 % of all goods

Excuse me? Women do two thirds of all work done? Not anywhere that I have ever seen. Unless by "work" you mean exercising their jaw muscles or testing the effectiveness of seats by sitting on them for hours at a time. And don't tell me it is any different in the third world. Every film I have ever seen of women in their natural environments has shown the same picture.

We can also see that remarkable phenomenon of feminism: the ability to hold contradictory beliefs at the same time. There are classic examples within this resolution - the desire to portray women as helpless victims, while at the same time promoting women's incredible wisdom and strength. Here is a case in point:

From the Explanatory Statement:

Owing to their subordinate position in all areas of life - economic, political, social, etc. - women's are less able to respond and readapt in the face of major changes such as global warming and its side-effects.

While from the Motion:

R. whereas women are also powerful agents of change and are globally more active in civil society activities

So which is it? Are women "powerful agents of change" or "less able to respond and readapt in the face of major changes"?

I think we all know the feminist answer. It all depends on what lie they want to propagate at any given time. Women are powerful, women are weak. Women are active, women are passive. Women are strong, women are victims. All at the same time. Just pick the image that best serves the purpose of the moment. Just hope that nobody notices the deceit or has the balls to question it. Which works very well in the European Parliament; because that is clearly full of politicians who don't notice the contradictions, who swallow the lies, who are too lazy to read resolutions properly and engage their brains in any kind of critical exercise and who blindly vote for a heap of garbage that will no doubt at some stage cost the rest of us a fortune in paying for more feminist pork.

The EU Parliament is a disgrace, a scandal and a monumental waste of time and our money.

Paul Parameter gives us a detailed, biting and no-nonsense empirical breakdown, which differs greatly from the agitprop which agressively washes upon us everyday in the mindless political void.

Quote from paul parmenter

I have to comment on this too:

M. whereas between 75 and 80 % of the world’s 27 million refugees are women and children...

Well of course they are. Women and children together make up probably something close to 75% of the world's population anyway, just depending on what age you decide to define "children" as.

I had completely missed this point when writing to my MEPs.

However, being factually-minded, I'd though I'd check this out. It's hard to find any data on the age and sex of refugees. It's very difficult to even determine the age and sex ratios of countries where refugees originate. This means that accurate data just isn't possible but then "75 and 80%" is only a rough figure anyway so we can afford some inaccuracies in checking the data out.

Using world population as a basis, as Paul suggested, I looked for an impartial source of information to provide the data. Any data is open to question because to some extent there is an element of estimation involved but I can't see why the US Census Bureau would bother publishing misleading figures on world population, since they are not trying to make any conclusions about it.

Here is the relevant data:

Age	Both Sexes Population	Male Population	Female Population
Total	7,023,324,899	3,534,797,376	3,488,527,523
0-4	634,481,069	327,679,623	306,801,446
5-9	608,928,831	315,170,283	293,758,548
10-14	596,769,288	309,008,632	287,760,656
15-19	597,027,875	308,014,052	289,013,823

If "Children" are 0-14 years old then the population of Females + (Male) Children is 4,440,386,061
If "Children" are 0-19 years old then the population of Females + (Male) Children is 4,748,400,113

Before we look at real-world ratios, let us just remind ourselves that 77% of MEPs have voted special treatment for women (only) based, among other things, on the fact that

between 75 and 80 % of the world’s 27 million refugees are women and children

If "Children" are 0-14 years old then

63.2% of the world's population are women and children

If "Children" are 0-19 years old then

67.6% of the world's population are women and children

(These figures are only half a percent different for "men and children".)

So, quite apart from the very questionable data in the first place, given that men are far more likely to be dying in disasters that cause people to be seeking refuge it is hardly surprising that so many are women and children. Once again, we see statistics for children being lumped in with women to push a skewed agenda that is unlikely to be in the interests of those children at all.

Quote from Celtic Druid

Paul Parameter gives us a detailed, biting and no-nonsense empirical breakdown, which differs greatly from the agitprop which agressively washes upon us everyday in the mindless political void.

Indeed, very good comments from Paul and Douglas.

Quote from scullion

Full article here - Global warming: 'Women at greater risk' | Mail Online

There was a time when I would have been shocked & angered by this.

These days it's just par for the course.

Ask how you can serve, not flout predictable ways.