Salon Magazine Claims Hypocrisy And Misogyny In Climate Change Clash

Salon Magazine Claims Hypocrisy And Misogyny In Climate Change Clash

Salon Magazine Claims Hypocrisy And Misogyny In Climate Change Clash

Salon Magazine has posted an article that is so angry woke it would get an A+ in a college freshman writing lab. The article is titled, “Misogyny, meet hypocrisy: Climate deniers go after AOC, Greta Thunberg with sexist attacks”. The AOC is, of course, freshman congresscritter Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The Thunberg is Greta Thunberg, a sixteen year old climate change activist who yachted to America, no lie. Victory Girls’ Lisa Carr wrote about Thunberg a couple of weeks ago. Read it here.

The author of this article, Amanda Marcotte, has a permanent knot in her knickers from her Trump Derangement Syndrome. She wrote a book “Troll Nation: How the Right Became Trump-Worshipping Monsters Set on Rat-F*cking Liberals, America, and Truth Itself”, which tells you just what a sexual intellectual the woman is. The subtitle for her “Misogyny” article today is: “Climate skeptics don’t have science, morality or simple decency on their side — so they’re leaning into sexism”. Oh, girlfriend, you are wrong on all four counts.

Now, I am officially able to clapback at Salon Magazine and writer Marcotte because I am a female. I am happily and joyfully female. I also love logic.

So, what has tightened the knot in Marcotte’s knickers? This tweeted video from Media Research Center:

Salon Magazine believes that is misogynistic and hypocritical. From the article:

It’s equally clear that Media Research Center doesn’t expect its conservative audience to actually listen to what she’s saying. Instead, sexist stereotypes are doing the heavy lifting here. Ocasio-Cortez is young, female and pretty, and as such, the target audience for this video is predisposed to think of her as a bimbo, and is ready to write off anything she says as dumb lady yapping, without bothering to absorb the actual contents of her speech.

Here is the Thunberg part from the Salon Magazine article:

Earlier this week, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted out a warm welcome to Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist, who arrived in New York Wednesday for a speech at the United Nations.

Unfortunately, Thunberg was also greeted by a wave of misogynist nastiness, largely coming from allegedly grown men in both Europe and the United States. The attacks on Thunberg were in the same vein as those on Ocasio-Cortez, accusing her of being too stupid to know what she’s talking about and denying that her voice is one worth honoring. A writer for the conservative Washington Examiner claimed that Thunberg is a victim of “child abuse” and that her mother “pimps their kid out,” explicitly drawing a line between forced sex work and climate activism.

Just so you know, I don’t know if either of these women is stupid in the intellectual capacity area. I do know that they are woefully uninformed and lack intellectual curiosity. Just like author Marcotte herself. This are the next paragraphs in her article:

These kinds attacks have no basis in fact. Thunberg’s views on climate change align with those of better than 97% of climate scientists. Thunberg is no helpless puppet, but a sharp and remarkably passionate young person who has sparked an international youth movement of climate activism with millions of participants. In order to give weight to these attacks, these critics rely on stereotypes painting women, especially young women, as infantile and idiotic. Without this kind of misogyny, they’d have nothing.

“While these examples might feel like mere coincidence to some,” Martin Gelin at the New Republic argues, “the idea that white men would lead the attacks on Greta Thunberg is consistent with a growing body of research linking gender reactionaries to climate-denialism.”

First of all, if there are no genders, seventy-five genders or only the two, lack of facts and data should always be called out. The two females could be of the male persuasion. If your feelings get hurt because you get called out, time to go back where you came from. Did I trigger you there?

Second, those of us who actually use our brains, agree that the climate changes. The climate has always and will always change. It’s called science. We disagree with the notion of human-made climate change.

Third, 97% of climate scientists are 100% wrong. That is not my idea. That is from a 2015 article in Forbes Magazine. You can read it here.

Fourth, that big old sun and the Earth’s orbit mostly decide the climate (there are other factors). NASA may sing the song of whichever political argument will get them more funding, but for forty years they have been studying the sun and it’s affects on the Earth’s climate. The article here is a little on the nerdy-side. If you have the intellectual curiosity of a petunia, you’ll find it interesting.

Here is the final paragraph from Salon Magazine:

But no matter who the right attacks, the premise remains the same: Environmentalists are female and/or effeminate, and therefore can be dismissed out of hand as stupid or crazy or driven by irrational emotion — in other words, not worth listening to. Women are so worthless in their eyes, it appears, that no amount of evidence will ever make women’s arguments hold merit.

Call the whambulance! At least Marcotte got that A+ from the freshman writing lab.

Photo Composite: Greta Thunberg by Anders Hellberg/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.cropped/mixed. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Official Congressional Portrait Public Domain

Written by

10 Comments
  • Cameron says:

    Well, their religion has been proven so wrong over the past few decades that it’s very tough to take them seriously. It’s got nothing to do with them being women; it has everything to do with them being idiots.

  • GWB says:

    Climate skeptics don’t have science, morality or simple decency on their side
    You wouldn’t know ANY of those three if they rose up and bit you on the behind.

    Instead, sexist stereotypes are doing the heavy lifting here.
    I’ll agree with that! Marcotte is using lots of sexist stereotypes……………

    accusing her of being too stupid to know what she’s talking about and denying that her voice is one worth honoring
    Because she IS. And it has nothing to do with her being a girl. And everything to do with being maleducated and immature.

    Thunberg’s views on climate change align with those of better than 97% of climate scientists.
    Patently not true. As is most of the other misinformation she regurgitates.

    stereotypes painting women, especially young women, as infantile and idiotic
    The stereotype is more young people than young women.

    women’s arguments
    That right there is the real sexism in this whole thing.
    Accept it, Marcotte.

  • Charles N. Steele says:

    “The alternative to spending money is death and spending even more money.” Go Sandy Ocasio Cortez!

    As for Greta Thunberg, she’s sad case. Powerline has a good piece on her and a revealing tweet of hers:

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/climate-theology-2.php

    These are girls who know essentially nothing,who cannot think clearly because of what mush *is* in their heads, and have never been taught right and wrong. Hence they’re destructive, and imagine this as some moral high ground. It’s unfortunate there are so many like them.

    • GWB says:

      That tweet is telling, isn’t it? It’s the problem with a generation raised on tales of “saving the world” while, at the same time, being taught nihilism in the form of evolutionary theory.

      They gotta have their crusade, and what’s more grotesque than a Children’s Crusade?

  • A correction – 97% of climate scientists are not wrong! Somewhat less than 30% have even expressed a conclusion about anthropogenic global warming, much less that it is “catastrophic.” Of those, about half actually buy into the notion (note, 97% of that group DO have a consensus – that government grants are wonderful things that they do not want to give up).

    This fraud will eventually join the same list as Piltdown Man, phrenology, Velikovsky, Lysenkoism, “Lost Atlantis,” tulip riches, etc. of insane things that people believed in the past.

    Undoubtedly to be replaced by something else of course.

    • GWB says:

      Whoah, whoah, whoah!
      I was nodding along, right up until the “Lost Atlantis” smear. Next thing you’re going to try to tell me is that Ancients did not come from outer space, seeding Earth with humans, and leaving a wormhole generator in Antarctica.

      (/ sarc – because, sadly, some will take me seriously….)

  • CaptDMO says:

    “The author of this article, Amanda M******e….”
    Full stop.
    Ms. M (as well as Salon) has a “history” ….
    No, I do NOT need to read every single thing written by a “source” to maintain an open mind, and “balanced”
    perspective.
    I KNOW how Goofus and Gallant (Highlights-written for children) is going to “summarize”.

  • CaptDMO says:

    ““While these examples might feel like mere coincidence to some,” Martin Gelin at the New Republic argues, “the idea that white men would lead the attacks on Greta Thunberg is consistent with a growing body of research linking gender reactionaries to climate-denialism.”

    “A growing body of research”….ok, got it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram