'Feminism Causes Global Warming' Says Angry Harry

[HumanBeast]

Mr. Angry Harry, who probably jacks off to the idea of women being "farmed" ( see my thread, Welcome To The Women Farm! (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=9961)) claims that the feminists started global warming......


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.
Source: http://www.angryharry.com/esFeminismCausesTrafficCongestion.htm



I thought it was the Industrial Revolution that started GW. Or maybe it was AH's flatulence from eating too many beans.

[Pookie]

Damn! Wait a minute! You're telling me I've been wrong all along and it wasn't cows with the methane thing? Geez, that's a real embarrassment for a liberal.
I'm going to go hug my tree and pout.
Purrs,
Pookie

[preservanation]

The mere fact that the debate on "Person Made" GW has come to this point is a sure sign that it has now become a joke.
The hoax is exposed.

[moses2792796]

IT WAS THE MUSLIMS!

[firefox]

This is entirely tongue-in-cheek I assume? BTW it was the communist aliens who built the pyramids!

[apdst]

You mean to tell me that peopel still believe there is a such'a thing as Global Warming?

It snowed in Central Louisiana, last weekend. I say bring on the Global Warming.

[preservanation]

They are hanging on by their fingernails like polar bear claws.
Soon Gore will be shown as the liar he is and man made GW will be shown as the hoax it is and they will move on to something else to perpetuate their Marxist agenda.

My guess is that it will be that the Magma Men are mad that we are stealing their grog by pumping oil.
These mad flaming suppressed beings are planning an invasion to the Earth's surface and we will all perish if Exxon/Mobile doesn't send them payments, through Reid and Pelosi of course.

[Elrathin]

Funny thing is those that are against Global Warming, cannot disprove it 100% either. They are morons for saying they can.

[preservanation]

So says El, King of the Magma Men.

[Elrathin]

And so Says Preservation, King of the Villiage People.

[apdst]

You're right, Pres. They did find something else. Now, we're running out of dirt. That's going to put a serious dent in treehugger's plans to plant trees.

The lowdown on topsoil: It's disappearing

Disappearing dirt rivals global warming as an environmental threat

By TOM PAULSON

P-I REPORTER

The planet is getting skinned.

While many worry about the potential consequences of atmospheric warming, a few experts are trying to call attention to another global crisis quietly taking place under our feet.

Call it the thin brown line. Dirt. On average, the planet is covered with little more than 3 feet of topsoil -- the shallow skin of nutrient-rich matter that sustains most of our food and appears to play a critical role in supporting life on Earth.

"We're losing more and more of it every day," said David Montgomery, a geologist at the University of Washington. "The estimate is that we are now losing about 1 percent of our topsoil every year to erosion, most of this caused by agriculture."

"It's just crazy," fumed John Aeschliman, a fifth-generation farmer who grows wheat and other grains on the Palouse near the tiny town of Almota, just west of Pullman.

"We're tearing up the soil and watching tons of it wash away every year," Aeschliman said. He's one of a growing number of farmers trying to persuade others to adopt "no-till" methods, which involve not tilling the land between plantings, leaving crop stubble to reduce erosion and planting new seeds between the stubble rows.

Montgomery has written a popular book, "Dirt," to call public attention to what he believes is a neglected environmental catastrophe. A geomorphologist who studies how landscapes form, Montgomery describes modern agricultural practices as "soil mining" to emphasize that we are rapidly outstripping the Earth's natural rate of restoring topsoil.

"Globally, it's clear we are eroding soils at a rate much faster than they can form," said John Reganold, a soils scientist at Washington State University. "It's hard to get people to pay much attention to this because, frankly, most of us take soil for granted."

The National Academy of Sciences has determined that cropland in the U.S. is being eroded at least 10 times faster than the time it takes for lost soil to be replaced.

The United Nations has warned of worldwide soil degradation -- especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where soil loss has contributed to the rapidly increasing number of malnourished people.

Healthy topsoil is a biological matrix, a housing complex for an incredibly diverse community of organisms -- billions of beneficial microbes per handful, nitrogen-fixing fungi, nutrients and earthworms whose digestive tracts transform the fine grains of sterile rock and plant detritus into the fertile excrement that gave rise to the word itself ("drit," in Old Norse).

As such, true living topsoil cannot be made overnight, Montgomery emphasized. Topsoil grows back at a rate of an inch or two over hundreds of years. Very slowly.

"Globally, it's pretty clear we're running out of dirt," Montgomery said.

Ron Myhrum, state soil scientist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's office in Spokane, agreed that global soil loss is a huge problem. But Myhrum said erosion rates in the Northwest region have improved recently because of better conservation farming practices, including federal payments to farmers to leave some natural ground cover in highly erodible areas.

"We don't have the kind of dust storms here we used to have," Myhrum said. "What's more alarming to me than erosion is conversion of farmland to urban use."

That is indeed another way to lose soil -- paving it over. Judy Herring, manager of King County's farmland preservation program, said the county has lost 60 percent of its farmland since the 1960s. In 1979, Herring said, voters approved a bond program that buys back farmland to protect it from development (and has done this for 13,200 acres so far).

But while some land is lost to development, pollution or changing weather patterns, Montgomery, Reganold and others say global soil loss is a crisis mostly rooted in agriculture.

"Erosion rates have improved here, but that doesn't mean they're good," Reganold said. Topsoil clearly is still being stripped off faster than it can be regenerated, he said.

Aeschliman, the Palouse farmer, a stocky and energetic man who doesn't seem to notice that he's in his 60s, stood on a dirt road looking at the difference between his land and that of a neighbor. Because most neighbors are relatives, he did not provide any names here.

"Just look at that!" he bellowed, pointing to a series of water-carved cracks and gouges running down a recently tilled field of wheat. Every year, he said, these fields are tilled and the rains come, washing the soil down into the road so deep the county routinely has to dig it out. The rest of the soil runs off to the Snake River and, eventually, to the Pacific.

"Here, look at this stuff," Aeschliman said as he held up a handful of the fine brown silt that had eroded off his neighbor's (cousin's) hillside. "Now, look over here."

He walked across the road to his no-till wheat field. Unlike the rolling hills of loose dirt on the tilled field, Aeschliman's field looks more like a shag rug, with its rows of dead wheat stubble. He reached down into the dirt and pulled out a coarsely textured, much darker clump of dirt, roots and debris.

"This soil is full of worms, bacteria and all sorts of life," Aeschliman said. "And it stays put. That stuff over there (waving his thick hand back behind him) is just powder, brown dust. It's dead. There's no worms, no life in it."

Thirty years ago, Aeschliman was one of the first in the Palouse to grow his grains using no-till farming methods. He's an ardent no-till proselytizer today, but he didn't abandon tilling the fields based on some organic epiphany or desire to save the world.

"I just got tired of all the mud," Aeschliman said. The family home, built in the 1880s, sits at the base of a long drainage off the rolling wheat fields. Every spring, with the tilling and the rain, his home would be a foot deep in muddy runoff.

No-till farming could do a lot to reduce topsoil erosion, Reganold said, but it's not without its downsides. Switching to no-till farming requires heavy upfront investment and learning new techniques, he said, and also tends to depend more on herbicides because the weeds are no longer controllable by plowing them into the soil.

Organic farming methods also can reduce soil loss, Reganold said. He cited his own research, which has shown a marked increase in soil health, water retention and regrowth when organic methods are used rather than the traditional methods.

A regional association of farmers and other proponents of no-till agriculture, also known as direct-seed farming, is holding its annual meeting in Kennewick next week. Aeschliman is one of the founders of the organization, the Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Association, and is happy to see that no-till farming is growing in popularity.

"It's both good for the soil and good for your pocketbook," he said.

[preservanation]

Well, apdst that fits right into their socialist agenda to rid us of oil and the use of autos.
How do we make dirt?
Why, go back to their phantasmal utopia of no oil use and us all riding horses.
What comes out of the back of horses, (besides their arguments)?
Dirt (topsoil)...Problem solved.
Saddle-up.
"Just me and my pygmy pony, over by the dental-floss bush."

[apdst]

I'm all for going back to horse shit and gun smoke. Most of the Libs wouldn't survive.

[preservanation]

Yeah...no kidding.
Also, life expectancy will drop back down to 47.
That's one way to fix the social security mess...