18/11/02 

Feminism Causes Traffic Congestion?

Hi Angry Harry

Do you have many female fans? I am one, I especially like the tickertape section. My boyfriend works in Brtish family law and often comes accross various horror stories regarding the treatment of fathers and children from time to time. I was totally unaware that such a widespread abuse of human rights was occuring so it was like a cold shower when I woke up to the harsh realities.

A couple of questions:

How does feminism cause road rage, traffic congestion/pollution and the impoverishment of pensioners ??

Keep up the good work.

H

Hello H

A woman eh?

Invading this little plot of cyberspace reserved exclusively for AH and his chums, eh?

Not a real woman surely?

They don't exist any more do they?

Well OK. Just for you, I'll answer the questions briefly.

"How does feminism cause road rage, traffic congestion/pollution and the impoverishment of pensioners??" 

That's an easy one!

Feminist policies and attitudes discriminate against and demonise men. This results in a great deal of anger, frustration and criminality among men. The increased likelihood of road rage is just one consequence of this. And the same is true for intimate partner homicide and domestic violence etc. Indeed the huge costs that society has to bear as a result of the crime and violence that can be linked to feminism impact very heavily on those who have the least influence in society. And so, for example, there is much less money available for pensioners because of this - and they are mostly women you know!

Feminism also fuelled the western explosion in crime and violence through its disempowerment of the father within the family and through its distortion of the educational system to favour girls at the expense of boys. And the evidence concerning the poorer socialisation and education of boys as a result of these two factors is now so great that it is indisputable.

The valid research shows (as, indeed, do the experiences of professionals and ordinary people) that fatherlessness and poor education are the two most powerful predictors of crime, anti-social behaviour and violence in children and young adults.

Here are some recent findings from Civitas concerning this issue.

With regard to the traffic problems, in 100 years from now the history books will point out that traffic congestion and the resulting pollution increased enormously in the late 1970s and thereafter mostly as a result of greater numbers of women going out to work - and using their cars -  and because of the increasing breakdown of marriage and relationships - a specific aim of feminism - with the result being that many more men and women started to live alone - so more cars were needed.

Of course, when you first point out to people that feminism has resulted in a great amount of traffic congestion, they laugh - and think that you are mad. But it is the truth. This is what the history books will tell people in 100 years time.

I'm just telling people about it now. 

The costs of traffic congestion alone in terms of frustration, anger, pollution, misery, time, money, economic efficiency, road accidents and, of course, ROAD RAGE, etc, are ABSOLUTELY ASTRONOMICAL.

And No. I'm not suggesting that women should not be allowed to drive or to go out to work, and what have you.

I simply want to point out to people that feminism has brought about ENORMOUS negative consequences for all of us - and horrendous traffic congestion is just one of them.

That's all. 

I just want to point it out!

I want people to realise that feminism inflicts huge burdens on societies and people ought to be made aware of the connections that it has to some really serious problems that we face.

It is not a healthy ideology in very many ways. In fact, it is a very destructive one.

There are numerous negative consequences that flow from feminism and nobody in the public eye dares to talk about them. Feminists and feminism can rarely be criticised for anything, no matter what the cost, so scared are people of the feminists and their gullible supporters.

Feminism incurs huge costs without people noticing because most commentators are too brainwashed by them or too scared to point out the connections to the public.

Well, it is quite obvious, isn't it, that feminism increases pollution and hence, possibly, global warming?

The more that women go out to work, and the more that families break down, and the greater is the gender divide, the more traveling, heating, energy consumption, traffic congestion and pollution that there is going to be.

This is an important subject. It affects the whole planet.

And yet, if you take a look at all the books by the clever politically-corrected professors and review the Gender Studies Courses, I'll bet that you won't find one mention of the negative effects of feminism on the eco-system.

There is this huge monstrous effect of feminism, and these politcally-corrected nincompoops are either too stupid to even notice the connection or too deceitful and manipulative to even mention it!

This is who these people are. 

They are either stupid, or they are manipulative liars.

Mostly, they are stupid.

Also notice that the politically correct tend to hang out together. And yet they'll be complaining about the catastrophe of global warming and the demise of the eco-system on the one day, but, on the very next day, they will all be extolling the virtues of feminism - and never will the two parts of the same brains meet!

I, myself, do indeed worry about the eco-system - and this makes me loathe the feminists and their stupid/deceitful supporters even more!

Everybody who has ever studied under a politically-correct educationalist who extols the virtues of feminism has to ask themselves this question, "Why didn't they ever mention the deleterious effects of feminism on the eco-system through pollution? WHY!? Were they just too stupid? (probably) Or were they just trying to indoctrinate the students. (yes)."

Look back at their books. Look back at their coursework. Look back at their lectures. Where do they mention the eco-system? Eh? 

Look back and remember these people - because they are phonies!

We are not only wasting our money by employing these worthless academics to teach our students, they are causing a great deal of harm to all of us by their incompetence and/or their mendaciousness.

The whole damn country is more heavily polluted, more heavily congested, with everybody more stressed, more strained and unwell because of it, and not one politically-corrected academic notices the very simplest and most obvious of connections with feminism!

It doesn't even get a mention in their courses!

But that's feminists and political correctoids working together for you.

Goodness I hate them.

Best wishes

AH

(And - if you can believe it - in using the phrase 'unimaginably enormous', I am not exaggerating.)

20/01/03

Dear AH,

I found your site from a link on Dr. Warren Farrell's web pages and since then, I've been reading non-stop for over a week. Excellent stuff. I once used to consider myself a "feminist" and often frequented such sites as matriarch.com and femina.com. There's another one out there too, but it's name escapes me. All of them are filled with feminist science proclaiming how the world was once ruled by beneficent and magnanimous females. What's sad is that I once bought into this claptrap. Today, I found a great article that clearly stated what I could not articulate. It cleared up this nagging feeling I always had in the back of my mind that everything I was reading on those sites was a load of crap. I don't know if you already have this article linked from AH, but in case you don't, or you are interested, here's the URL and the title of the article. Great job.

Feminism against science Steven Goldberg National Review, Nov 18, 1991 v43 n21 p30(3)

C

Hi C

Thank you for those kind words.

Yep; I'm afraid that feminists do nothing but lie.

What people really need to understand is that feminists - and, indeed, the politically correct - actually believe that lying is completely justified if it serves their aims.

But the trouble is that far more negative consequences materialise from their lies than do positive ones.

One of the worst problems is caused by the fact that most people are not very bright, and even those who are bright do not usually investigate the issues very thoroughly and so realise what is going on. 

The result is that political correctoids and feminists gain huge popular support for their policies and notions - because they usually claim that they are defending 'victims' somewhere along the line - even though their ideas are worse than worthless. In fact, being based on lies, they are usually highly destructive - especially in the long run.

The actively politically correct are also usually not very bright. If you look at many of the academics in the politically-corrected social sciences, for example, you will mostly discover if you read their works that they are very third-rate - at best. Their notions about most things are chock full of contradictions and they seem completely blind to them.

They seem just to spin fairy tales on the basis of their whims and their gooey fantasies. And it seems to me that because they have gained some official qualification of some kind - often based on very little more than the production of a few very politically-correct essays - they suddenly see themselves as having been magically transformed into experts on anything even remotely associated with their subject area.

"I passed the exam so I must be an expert," is what they seem to believe.

Anyway. I'm waffling. But the point that I really wanted to make is that the feminists and the politically correct do not mind lying. They want to achieve something, and so they happily lie in order to get it.

It's as simple as that.

Here in the UK, nearly every single policy that the Labour Party advocated during the 70s, 80s and 90s was, quite simply, ditched, when New Labour wanted to gain power in 1997.

And the politicians who currently sit at the top of the Labour tree have been putting into practice policies and arguments which they fought tooth and nail against just a few years earlier, and well into the distant past.

How is this possible?

Well, the answer is simple.

Most politicians these days will say and do anything to get into power in order to further their careers and those of their cronies. They are public relations careerists for whom success depends on persuading people to vote for them. 

And that's it.

And when it comes to the left, and the politically correct, they will completely reverse even the most fundamental of their 'beliefs' in order to gain power. (In fact, Tony Blair pretty much admits to this.)

AH

Another price that women pay for supporting feminism! 

30 years ago women would have certainly been charged less than men.

The rising tide of hostility and lack of concern toward women is the price that they pay for supporting an overtly man-hating ideology such as feminism.

In the end, there will be a price that women have to pay - and the increased costs of their plumbing is just one of them. 

14/01/03

Group Living Better for Environment

Norma Greenaway 

The Ottawa Citizen

If you care about the environment, a new study suggests moving back in with mom and dad, getting and staying married or moving in with pals.

After all, households with fewer people are less energy efficient, says the study published online yesterday by Nature magazine. For example, just as a couple or a person living solo would typically be one-refrigerator households, so too would a household of five or six people.

The advice to band together is an outgrowth of the study's main finding that the growing number of households and the shrinking number of people living in each one is damaging the environment more than overall population growth.

"Some people have the wrong impression, and say, 'Oh well, no problem, our population growth is not that high,' " said lead researcher Jack Liu of Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan.

But more households mean more housing units, requiring more building materials, land and infrastructure, the study notes. It also means higher per capita resource consumption.

Mr. Liu and his colleagues calculated population growth, the number of households, and average household size in 141 countries. A total of 76 contained biodiversity hotspots, meaning regions where many native species are endangered or threatened by human activity.

The group counted 166 million extra households in hotspot countries in 2000 due to a drop in household size since 1985. It calculated there would be 233 million more households by the year 2015 if the trend continues.

The causes ranged from lower fertility rates and higher divorce rates to an aging population and a decline in the frequency of multi-generational families living under one roof.

"This is really significant because in the past when people talk about human impact (on the environment), they always talk about the population size, and the population growth rate."

Mr. Liu said there were dramatic increases in the number of households even in areas where the population is declining.

"This means even in the future if you have lower population, the impact on the environment may not be lower."

Mr. Liu said the findings are a "wakeup call" for people who don't realize the impact personal choices have on the environment.

Though the increase in the growth rate of households in Canada was lower than many other countries in the survey, it was still significant, he said. Between 1985 and 2000, the population growth rate was 1.4 per cent a year, whereas the rate of growth in households was almost twice as high at 2.58 per cent.

By comparison, the population growth rate in Brazil, one of the biodiversity hotspots, was 1.7 per cent and its household growth rate was 3.2 per cent.

Canada was not deemed a hotspot. But Mr. Liu said rapid household growth is damaging important forest and wildlife species, and adding to greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

Canada's latest census figures demonstrate the degree to which Canadians are opting to live in smaller households. The data for 2001 say households consisting of four or more people have shrunk to one in four, as opposed to one in three two decades earlier. Mr. Liu applauded one Canadian trend. The census data showed more young adults -- aged 20 to 29 -- are living with their parents. The percentage in 2001 was 41 per cent compared with 27.5 per cent 20 years earlier.

Mr. Liu suggested governments should encourage people to share resources by providing tax breaks to people living in groups.

19/01/03

Single Lifestyle Threatens Species 

Mark Henderson

The Times

THE single lifestyle popularised by Briget Jones's Diary and Sex and the City has become one of the most dangerous threats to the global environment, according to a new study.

An international trend towards living alone is accelerating the extinction of endangered species and eating up natural resources at an alarming rate. Rare animals such as the giant panda, the bald eagle and the golden lion tamarin are facing fresh risks as a result.

Scientists say the problem of shrinking family units has become so acute that it now poses a more serious challenge to conservation than human population growth.

Small households of just one or two occupants are very inefficient users of natural resources, when compared with the traditional nuclear family unit of five or more.

Declining household size means more homes have to be built to accommodate the same number of people, bringing urban sprawl and the destruction of vulnerable habitats, a study at Michigan State University and Stanford University has shown.

Small households use much more energy per head than larger ones and create more waste, making their ecological footprint worse. A one-person flat and a four-person house, for example, will typically each have one refrigerator, at considerable cost to energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions.

"This emerging fashion for living in smaller units has become one of the greatest challenges for conservation that we face today," said Jack Liu, who led the research.

"It starts a chain reaction of environmental damage. As well as land use, there are negative effects on greenhouse gases, waste and forest clearance. More roads are needed, which divide threatened populations. Everything is connected."

Late marriage, high divorce rates and ageing populations are largely responsible for the phenomenon in developed countries, while migration to cities in search of work is the prime driver of change in the developing world.

The impact is most serious in countries that contain "biodiversity hotspots" -- regions with many native species that are threatened by human activity -- because these can least afford the damage to their fragile ecosystems.

By 2015, another 233 million households will be set up in hotspot countries if current trends continue, according to the study published in the online version of the journal Nature.

In the Wolong Nature Reserve in China, giant pandas and red pandas live alongside human settlements that are growing more quickly than expected from population trends.

In the Cerrado and Atlantic Forest regions of Brazil, home to rare species such as the golden lion tamarin and the buffy-headed marmoset, a similar process is taking place.

Dr Liu called on governments to think of ways to persuade people to live in larger households.

"One thing we can do is to give tax incentives to people to share their houses," he said. "When a family's children move out, they could offer that space to a lodger. If governments provide economic incentives, people will think about it."