The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Gender, climate change and natural disasters > Comments

Gender, climate change and natural disasters : Comments

By Kellie Tranter, published 4/2/2008

The effects, direct and indirect, of natural disasters are much greater for women compared with men.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Vanilla,

'She wanted to comment on the article. Go back and look through these posts. Not one engages with the topic'
I think she wanted to castigate the men for daring to question the motives of the article, and get on her high horse to show how much more compassionate she is.

We have engaged with the topic (James came up with some good questions about the data in fact) but are just suspicious to the motivations of the article and research. As I said, read the first paragraph for the transparent attempt to justify the research.

' intellectually, the conversation is going nowhere.'
Fair enough. But be thankful you at least have threads about women to comment on. Classic example Bra Boys article. Out of a whole movie about men and gang culture, the topic was contorted to a discussion about why Men's affect on women wasn't discussed in the movie. It's comical really. Out of all the themes in the movie that could have been discussed.

This is how I see feminism; Enough about men, let’s talk about women. It’s an all pervasive one track record, and I have responded I suppose as an alternate one track record in an attempt to even out the propaganda. I apologise to all for the repetition.

'suggested my grandfathers were "abusers and rapists"'.
To be fair I think he was characterising and regurgitating well known extreme feminist arguments. I can see how you found it offensive though, as he attributed those thoughts to you unfairly. But maybe that's a reaction to a lifetime of having feminist women/articles attributing negative attitudes to women to all men. I think this is probably where my problem with feminism comes from. The message I’ve heard is men are bad, women are good, women are always the victim with men as the perpetrator.

' promoting and strengthening masculinity, rather than complaining.'
Fair enough. I realise I have been a whiny, and exactly like the feminists I loathe so much. I realise these pages aren't the place for me to take out my frustrations. Where to now?
Posted by Whitty, Monday, 11 February 2008 2:51:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanilla, what a shame that it is not possible to highlight some of the words that you have just written.

I think my daughter as about 4 when she had a similar dummy spit to yours.

You wrote; 'I have always been interested in the way feminism has affected men, but it is impossible to have an interesting, intelligent conversation about that on this board"

Have you read Warren Farrell, David Thomas, Dr Richard Hise?

One thing that I have discovered is that even though people read the same words, their interpretation can be extremely different and the thing that fascinates me is why or how someone else's interpretation can be so different to mine.

So basically if I am correct, you are saying that you will only engage in conversation with men who help to support your view or who provide information that supports your view.

There is fortunately/unfortunately limited word space in these posts, so it very difficult for all points to be covered and most of us blokes are not as naturally articulate as most women.(generalisation).

I have noticed that in most of the blogs that many fail to stick to the main article. Even blogs that have nothing to do with feminism or women.

I believe that I did raise some valid points about the research and after some consideration have come to understand another point raised by the article, which I will post later after I have finished working on it.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 11 February 2008 3:54:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James: "So basically if I am correct, you are saying that you will only engage in conversation with men who help to support your view or who provide information that supports your view."

No, you are not correct.

I've appreciated the points you've brought to this debate. I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was trying to say, but there it is.
Posted by Vanilla, Monday, 11 February 2008 4:04:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whitty (and JamesH)

‘Nobody is arguing the deaths are not bad, just that gender shouldn't matter, and isn't ever considered relevant except when women are at a disadvantage.’

Put the halo away, mate. You ARE arguing that the disporportionate deaths of these women are ‘not bad’ – to the point of callousness.

You and JamesH have been taking up all the oxygen on this thread (as you do on all OLO gender threads – along with a cabal of others like HRS, runner and trade215), playing down the significance of these disaster statistics for the sake of your own pro-men agenda.

Your male supremacist obsession is so bizarre that you must continually set up this weird competition to assert men’s superiority over women in absolutely everything, even victimhood.

Gender does matter. That’s why you write so many posts about it.
Posted by SJF, Monday, 11 February 2008 8:43:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kellie Tranter uses three research articles to support her sensational claim. In the past sensational claims have been made using the research tool. Sometimes much later the research is shown to have been faulty. However the initial urban myths created by the initial research remains a 'truth' in the public conscious.

Eeva Sodhi a woman who is critical of feminist driven research, wrote that the truth is usual buried in the detail and that the truth is usual confined to a line or two in the research.

Daphne Patai, indicated that one of the techniques used is to engage a emotive response, once a emotive response is engaged this tends over ride the more critical, analytical and rational thinking parts of the brain.

The author uses the word 'climate' 17 times, and climate change is a highly emotive subject at present.

It is a pretty long string to draw to include a tsunami in 'climate change'. Unless geologist have some how linked earthquakes which are caused by tectonic plate shifts to climate change.

Bangladesh is a country which from what I understand happens to be relatively flat, particularly in the areas that are likely to be affected by cyclones. Secondly it is a densely populated country, so people are likely to live where ever they can find land to live on.

So in Bangladesh the solution would be for people not to live on land that is prone to flooding.

Wherever there are millions of poor women, there are also millions of poor uneducated men. Whilst educating women may possibly help improve their lives. The reccomendation is to make gender specific strategy, invest in gender-specific climate change research and establish a system for the use of gender-sensitive indicators.

Whilst on this forum many people have claimed that feminism is about equality, where is the equality in having programs that only target disadvantaged women, and not disadvantaged men?
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 9:24:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF,

'Put the halo away, mate. You ARE arguing that the disporportionate deaths of these women are ‘not bad’ – to the point of callousness.'

Nice try, but You're blatantly the one getting on your high horse. I think you need to put the Halo away, since you are just oh so compassionate. I've stated earlier that I'm not interested, and it's not news worthy, or worth studying, when more men die than women in war, or 9/11 or some other area. You know why? Because it's not useful feminist propaganda material. I have compassion for all the people who died, and don't need to use their gender to further my political agenda. I'm not the one being callous.

'playing down the significance of these disaster statistics for the sake of your own pro-men agenda.'

Wrong again. I am exposing the pro-feminism agenda in OLO and the general bias in researching gender effects only where women may be disadvantaged. How is that pro-men? Even if you think that is anti-feminism, for it to be pro-men, you are then saying that feminism is anti-men?

'Your male supremacist obsession is so bizarre that you must continually set up this weird competition to assert men’s superiority over women in absolutely everything, even victimhood.'

Just where have I asserted men's superiority over women? You're hilarious. Oh how scary it is for women's exclusive victim status to be threatened. I haven't attempted to place men as bigger victims, as I have said I don't find it relevant when men are significantly over represented in death statistics.

I maintain that a non-feminist wouldn't be looking for inequalities in disaster statistics, and a feminist wouldn't be interested if they turned out with men being worse off. This creates an inherant bias in research topics and articles.

But you keep on appropriating the hardships of poor people for gender political reasons, and be sure to keep a watch out for all those male supremacists.
Posted by Whitty, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 11:33:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy