Fellow travellers, I am not at all surprised that women are deemed to
be the greener gender. They are much closer to nature than men, and Gaia is a sassy sister, after all.
They are also more likely to believe in global warming, and that it is a serious problem. This shows that, contrary to so many sexist stereotypes, they are clearly much more rational than men.
But when I say rational, I don't mean the fake male kind of "rationalism". You know, the white coat-wearing, detached, cold, clinical kind; the kind that used to dominate in the sciences (and sadly still does in some quarters). I mean the sassy, passionate, genuine kind of rationalism championed by women (yougogirls!) and attitudinally reconstructed testosteroids.
Sadly, that outmoded male "rationalism" caused a lot of damage. Like so many other patriarchal constructions (
history, for example) it was erected by appalling white males primarily as a tool to oppress women. As some eco-feminists have so cogently argued, science itself is a dialectical structure with phallocentrism at its core. But the existence of such a fraudulent discourse is hardly surprising. Men are much more likely to create false dichotomies, after all.
Which is why we should support and affirm the new generation of
truly rational, Gaia-loving, feminist friendly scientists now sassily strutting the world's scientific stage. They're the kind of visionary rationalists working for the IPCC and the ABC, for example. And we should simply ignore the old, outmoded, "skeptical" scientists who are desperately trying to wreck their great achievements.
Why? Because climate change denialists are not only all evil, heartless, and on the payroll of Rupert Murdoch and Big Oil. Worse still, they are
sexist as well!
