The British publication The Conversation, which claims to have “academic rigor” with “journalistic flair,” has published a woke article that describes any criticism of “women climate change leaders” as a “toxic brew of masculinity.” To reach this conclusion, the journal must reduce individuals to a single defining and all-encompassing dimension: gender.
To The Conversation, it is unthinkable that the people who criticize the likes of Greta Thunberg do so because they know that she and other climate activists are factually wrong. There can be only one explanation, and that is hatred of women for being women.
As evidence, the article cites a random comment on the internet that uses a gendered slur to describe female activists. The problem with this method is that there are eight billion people on the planet, and it is trivial to find a horde of lowbrow comments on virtually any topic. Rude people online are not a new phenomenon.
While the concerns of most climate activists are sincere, regardless of gender, their proposed solutions are conspicuously targeted toward certain groups of people: mostly men in Western countries, who they think should bear the brunt of the cost of climate action. Men have higher incomes, pay more in taxes, and engage more in business than women, so they would have to pick up most of the bill.
For some reason, these same activists do not target the most critical source of carbon emissions: the high birth rate of developing countries. Climate activists tend to focus on the carbon footprint per capita, which punishes those countries that have been responsible and chose to have few children that they invest in heavily but rewards the nations that preferred many children.
If we instead look at total carbon emissions, the US and the EU in sum only make up one-quarter of the world output. Furthermore, the developing world is accelerating its emissions due to industrialization and a rapidly increasing population, while Western countries are slowing theirs down. The quickest, cheapest, and most effective way to curb the carbon increase would be birth control assistance for poorer nations. When was the last time you heard an activist propose this as a solution to the alleged climate crisis?
It may, however, not be entirely a coincidence that climate-activist spokespersons tend to be individuals from groups that are regarded as weak, oppressed, or vulnerable. This is part of the progressive playbook: using some group as a human shield, thereby changing the topic from one of rational debate about facts to one of oppression and hate toward that group.
The article in The Conversation illustrates how advocates bait-and-switch to hate. If we are discussing toxic masculinity against alleged victim groups, our focus is diverted from the weak arguments and shoddy data of the climate activists. It only does a disservice to the truth.