Previous post
I rolled my eyes so hard at this I got a massive headache. According to a researcher at Utah State University, it’s the toxic male who may be destroying our environment. Why? Because men just don’t cotton to the eco-friendly sustainability bullcrap that green types have been pushing down our throats.
According to Dr. Aaron Brough (yes, male. Beta male, I’m sure), the public identify doing something positive for the environment as being “more feminine.” Why does he know this? Because Brough, along with professors from four other universities, used data from seven experiments to learn how “gender norms affect sustainable decision making.” As a result they discovered a “Green-Feminine Stereotype.”
Wanna bet that our taxpayer bucks went to fund this bullshit?
So how did they find this “Green-Feminine Stereotype?” One of their “experiments” involved the use of Wal-Mart gift cards.
I’m not kidding.
The experiment went like this: men saw two Wal-Mart gift cards, one with a feminine floral design, the other more neutral. They were then asked which “green” or “non-green” items they’d purchase with the cards. So what happened? The men with the feminine cards gravitated towards the non-green items. Thus, these toxic men “asserted their masculinity” because they were threatened by flowers or something.
Are you laughing yet? Pundit Mark Steyn, no doubt a toxic male himself, mocked this foolishness:
I’ll tell you who some of the most pernicious people are around, and they’re not toxic males. They’re actually females.
Credit: gaelx @ flickr. (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Like the tattle-tale who destroyed the career of an 80-year-old radio host merely because he told an elderly colleague that she “looked great.”
Or the harpies who launched the hysteria of unsubstantiated lies in a desperate attempt to destroy Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
But the most toxic females are those who seek to kill unborn children, or even the newly born — no questions asked.
For example, take the Girl Scouts, who recently awarded a teenager for her campaign promoting abortion. And then there’s actress Alyssa Milano, a diehard abortion activist who misuses the Bible to justify killing the unborn.
But here’s the ultimate toxic woman: Dr. Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood. She bragged of PP’s “incredible life-saving work,” which is one of the most tone-deaf statements of the year.
Last night, I was on @TheDailyShow to talk about Planned Parenthood’s incredible life-saving work. @Trevornoah called me @realDonaldTrump's "nightmare" — a badge of honor I proudly wear as we fight for our patients, our rights & our future! https://t.co/hN4lzLAMWE
— Leana Wen, M.D. (@DrLeanaWen) March 22, 2019
The poison in America doesn’t come from toxic males who act like, well, like men when they don’t like frilly Wal-Mart gift cards. Or, more importantly, when they fail to wring their hands over “sustainability.” The real cultural poison comes from those women who despise the biology which would make them the bearers and nurturers of children, but instead seek to destroy them.
Featured image: cropped from pixabay/pixabay license.
GWB says: Nice scary pic at the top. Perfect for this post. 🙂
And I don’t buy into “sustainability” because most of it is NOT sustainable.
George V says: If I want the forests managed – dead brush cleaned up, trees thinned out, and harvested appropriately – instead of being allowed to burn at a rate of millions of acres per year, that makes me against sustainability?
If I want a managed hunt of whitetail, wild turkeys, wild pigs, and other game up to and including wolves and cougars, to prevent over-population which causes diseases in the animals and destruction of forest vegetation and farms due to over-feeding, and threatens livestock and even people, I am against sustainability?
If I want a properly managed fossil fuel plant or nuclear plant instead of clear-cutting hundreds of thousands of acres of forest and grasslands, cutting access roads, depositing thousands of tons of concrete and steel, with mechanisms that drip oil and other pollutants, and kill endangered birds, I am against sustainability?
If I am against killing the people in foreign nations through the practice of “artisianal mining” of cobalt and lithium, meaning poor Africans dig for toxic metal ore with their bare hands in hand dug tunnels with no safety practices at all and are paid a pittance by Chinese processing companies, I am against sustainability?
If I am against killing the land and the air in foreign nations through the refining of rare-earth elements needed in batteries and magnets for “green energy”, the refining processes of which produce pollution on a vast scale, I am against sustainability?
OK, call me toxic, I guess.
GWB says: A thorium reactor in every neighborhood!
Jim says: Well said George V. Here in Australia the leader of the opposition Labor Party has pledged that in ten years time he wants 50% of cars to be electric, yet no one has explained how such cars can be both economically and environmentally viable in terms of their construction, usage and ultimate destruction, especially the large battery packs. Is the total cost of these ‘virtuous’ devices – forget utility in distant country areas of inland Australia where re-charge points will likely never exist – worse than my petrol or diesel vehicles over their lifetime of existence? Then there is the drain on the increasingly unreliable electricity grid, powered by ”sustainable” sources such as solar or wind-power as coal-fired generators fall out of favour in the eyes of greens/socialists, mostly living in cities. To me it’s just another version of the Emperor’s new clothes.
4 Comments