Swedish Official on Environmental Problems: 'Women give priority to others – men invest more resources in themselves'
April 7th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
I recently debated Gerd Johnsson-Latham of the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs on her assertion that men are primarily responsible for global warming. Johnsson-Latham authored a 2007 study called Gender Equality as a Prerequisite for Sustainable Development. The carbon footprint diagram to the right--can you guess which carbon footprints are male and which are female?--is from the report.
Our debate was taped for a UK documentary called The Greener Gender. To learn more, see my recent blog post Glenn Debates Swedish Official Who Claims Men Are Primarily Responsible for Global Warming.
Johnsson-Latham makes several questionable assertions in her study. Some of the headings in her study include:
"Women give priority to others – men invest more resources in themselves."
"Women suffer more from lack of time than men – in other words, men have more leisure time than women..."
"Women have only a limited range of options – men have a wider range..."
"Women are poorer than men – in other words, men are richer than women..."
She also writes:
"A Norwegian study by Nyberg and Sto shows that a global ‘consumer class’, primarily middle class, is to be found worldwide, displaying similar preferences and consumption patterns – and gender specific differences.
"Like other groups, this large group of middle-class consumers is constantly influenced by commercials and by popular culture such as soap operas that are screened all over the world and that show what is expected of ‘a real man’ and ‘a real woman’ in terms of relationships, lifestyles and consumer choices.
"As it is vital to human survival to be socially accepted, we as individuals are prepared to confirm our affiliation, e.g. in the shape of gender. This means that we constantly reaffirm our gender roles, in our gestures, our clothing, our behaviour etc, on a daily basis, several times a day, as Judith Butler and others have pointed out.
"For men, it is often a question of affirming one’s masculinity in terms of power, authority, skills, risk-taking, and the potential use of violence etc.
"For women, it frequently involves being attractive and caring etc, and not questioning or being viewed as a threat to male authority."
"));
19 queries. 0.736 seconds.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:33 am
"Women give priority to others – men invest more resources in themselves."
A history of warfare and industry tells us otherwise.
"Women suffer more from lack of time than men – in other words, men have more leisure time than women..."
Which is why women have the time to spend all the money??
"Women have only a limited range of options – men have a wider range..."
What options? A woman can work full time, not work, work part time.
A man can work full time, work two jobs or work nights
"Women are poorer than men – in other words, men are richer than women..."
Again, women spend 86% of all wealth. The vast majority of homeless are men. The majority of recipients of government welfare are women.
'being viewed as a threat to male authority'
And yet in pop culture we are bombarded with women doing just that. Not for any justifiable reason, merely to laugh at the men. Secondly, since when have women not been allowed to question? Women ARE allowed to question. If men do they have to 'shut up and take it like a man'
How can blatant, deliberate lies like this be called media?
April 7th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I assume that in Sweden like the U.S that women spend the greater percentage of money.
I assume they also spend more on frivilous things such as cosmetics, health and beauty products, and unnecessary
items such as excessive clothing and shoes.
I assume women also live an average of 7-years longer than men.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:49 am
"Like other groups, this large group of middle-class consumers is constantly influenced by commercials and by popular culture such as soap operas that are screened all over the world and that show what is expected of ‘a real man’ and ‘a real woman’ in terms of relationships, lifestyles and consumer choices.
As it is vital to human survival to be socially accepted, we as individuals are prepared to confirm our affiliation, e.g. in the shape of gender. This means that we constantly reaffirm our gender roles, in our gestures, our clothing, our behaviour etc, on a daily basis, several times a day, as Judith Butler and others have pointed out.
For men, it is often a question of affirming one’s masculinity in terms of power, authority, skills, risk-taking, and the potential use of violence etc."
Ohhhhhhhhhh. So, when I do things in my daily life, like dress in my typical grungy, throw-together-whatever's-in-my-dresser outfits, go to class and do my work to the best of my ability, spend all my free time at home surfing the Net and watching movies, get prepared for my major, donate blood at the Red Cross, visit my therapist, etc...it's all so I can flaunt my power, look like a risk-taker, and give the impression that I can use violence at any random period of time. Thanks, Ms. Johnsson. I didn't know my own cognitive processes until now; now, I'm enlightened.
I'd call this "sexist" or "misandrist," but no, there's another synonym that works here: "Swedish."
April 7th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I can't get very far reading this "study." I am tasting vomit. Here's where I stopped: ". . . men are able to use their greater share of leisure time to pursue careers/work and to participate in decision-making at all levels of public life." (Page 17 of the report)
It is breathtaking, vapid assertions such as this that engender disrepute of the entire feminist movement. It would be difficult to fathom a statement more thoroughly grounded in either misandry or idiocy. Women are the selfless, angelic souls of planet earth, caring for everyone else at the same time they keep the planet green; men are the selfish, polluting monsters who only care for themselves and their evil "technology" while they use their "leisure" time to -- (heaven forbid) work and advance their careers, all the while defiling the environment.
Madam, you are absolutely sick.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
The term "Female Chauvinist" comes to mind.
What a dope.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Seems pretty clear to me.
We need to
1. euthanize all men, market their organs for cash to the government, who will give them free to women when they need replacement parts, and distribute the cash to the long-suffering females for having sent their male-slaves to slaughter,
2. prescreen and abort all new male fetuses, and
3. conduct large-scalce sperm extractions and banking from living males (prior to #1 above -- this would be the first part of the slaugher-house male body processing line) to create a donor bank, but then do cell-sorting to separate away any sperm cells harboring an evil, global-warming Y chromosome, destroying the Y-chromosome-harboring sperm cells in a nuclear furnace.
By following this prescription, we should be able to put an end to global warming and female suffering in one fell swoop.
Surely this brilliant lady social scientist will be properly awarded Sweden's coveted Nobel Prize at the next session.
Unfriggin' believable.
Get me off this planet now.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Hate Speech
This is hate speech, plain and simple. The fact that a government official is sanctioned to engage in such behavior is an indication that Sweden regards men as second class citizens and is well on the way to denying them human rights. Sadly, this also often applies in the USA as well.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
What planet does this woman live on?
April 7th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
If gerd were correct, males would not be the disposable sex. And if Gerd were right, women and children would be spared last, not first, in dangerous situations (i.e., chivalry would be an institution of female deferance to men).
The suicide rate and life-expectancy gap are sufficent alone to dispel the myth of male privilege. Also, the market value of female sexuality is sufficient evidence alone to dispel the myth of male power.
JRP said is best: what planet is she on?
MXY
April 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Glenn now you are just fueling the fire! We already know where sweden stands on the respect for men as humans. Why do we need to rub this in their faces? Maybe it will wake them up from their chivalrist dreams and demand fair treatment. Its ironic how much feminists project.
Maybe the other feminists ought to look at the Swedish feminists for guidance. That way they can escalate their hate-backed rhetoric and can romanticize women as a class (as opposed to individuals) even more than they already do.
Maybe if things keep going the way they are over there, one day they will have to fight a ban on "different-sex" marriages.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Sorry couldn't resist poking a little humor in there.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Well, considering that I counted three - yes, only three - citations to valid, peer-reviewed literature in her entire reference list (all 5 or so pages) I can see that what we're dealing here is not a scholarly work whatsoever. This is feminist propaganda, plain and simple, nothing more.
Junk in, junk out.
This woman earns a living producing this kind of bovine excrement? Unbelievable.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Pretty pictures sure, but I don't think she backs up any of her statements. This is a paper full of assumptions based not on objective analysis but ideology.
I'd be fascinated to know if this actually gets peer reviewed. Though when they send it back saying it's full of lies she would no doubt blame the 'patriachal institute of science' (considering most sociologists are female)
April 7th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
"For women, it frequently involves being attractive and caring etc, and not questioning or being viewed as a threat to male authority."
This is a reproduction strategy which may be applicable for some women at some period of their lives. It may be analogous to the aforementioned risk-taking demonstations of prowess by boys. I suggest that for both men and women, these behaviors are temporary. The researchers have conveniently omitted this possibility. Perhaps their grandfathers were great skater boarders...right to the very end.
Submissiveness may be followed by rebelliousness, which may be viewed as another reproductive strategy, one in which to gain reproductive freedom.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Micheal H: "This is a reproduction strategy which may be applicable for some women at some period of their lives. It may be analogous to the aforementioned risk-taking demonstations of prowess by boys. I suggest that for both men and women, these behaviors are temporary. The researchers have conveniently omitted this possibility. Perhaps their grandfathers were great skater boarders...right to the very end."
Please allow me to refine this. Perhaps some of the behaviors are not as temporary as the example of risky skateboarding, but because the behaviors are part of a strategy, they can and are turned on and off. I suggest that submissiveness to men is a behavior which is not internalized by most women.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
No surprise that a feminist government leader's attitude is that men are bad and women are good.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
The Monstrous Regiment of Women! by the Gunn Brothers
DVD documents the consequence of feminist leadership.
http://www.monstrousregiment.com/index.htm
April 7th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I am too lazy right now to read all 90 flocking pages of this thing, but it would be interesting to see how she plans on saving the environment by having women consume on par with men, if indeed men consume more.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
"For women, it frequently involves being attractive and caring etc, and not questioning or being viewed as a threat to male authority."
Someone tell me if I got this wrong. Here we have a feminist claiming that women only PRETEND to be caring and nuturing beacuse that is sociatally expected of them?
We now have a feminist saying out right that women are not naturally empathetic and caring of others. Will wonders never ceese
April 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
There is a term for this feminist journalist's perspective -- "clinically psychotic."
April 7th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Glenn,
This is the quagmire of radical feminism. She picked the battleground and you walked out to show her why it's safe. The next thing you know is you are waist-deep and sinking.
Her approach is to promote sterotypes that exploit the "women are better" myth. We know them well. Lets react by destroying these myths with proper context and facts. This happens all the time and we need a "squelch" for all them.
I'm on it Boss!.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
A world without men in charge...
Consider this line from The Matrix:
Agent Smith: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."
Men have used technology both in peaceful ways and yes, even war, to extend and improve living conditions for women and children. Other mammals develop a "natural equilibrium" with their environment simply because they lack the means to conquer it and wind up being at the whim of their environment rather than the other way around. Women gestate babies. Men create just about everything else.
Well, as far as we know anyway...
April 7th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Glenn thanks for shedding light on this one. Don't underestimate the impact of this report on UN pseudo policy- it was presented at the UN last year to widespread approval. The insipid stupidity of it all has been overlooked and serves as a cog in Global Climate Change discussions at the UN.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I've read reports that; hands down; women are more selfish and narcisistic than men.
certainly Esther vilar in her book "The manipulated man" seemed to think so..
April 7th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
There is a new book out by Dee Dee myer called, Why Women Should Rule The World.
Saw it on C-Span Sunday.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
"There is a new book out by Dee Dee myer called, Why Women Should Rule The World.
Saw it on C-Span Sunday."
David, I'll try to find the link, but I read an excerpt of that book on I believe MSNBC.com. It contained the typical feminist bullet points, such as:
- women are making so many advances these days
- men have cause a lot of trouble in the past
- women will solve things peacefully and will not go to war
- author repeatedly denies she has anything wrong with men or thinks lesser of them.
April 7th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
This isn't just an insult to men its an insult to science.
April 7th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Sewerage workers produce more CO2 than secretaries. Therefore if we have less sewerage workers and more secretaries we will have a better world.
That is all the report is saying?
Please tell me there is more to this than confirmation bias?
April 7th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Wasn't Dee Dee one of Clinton's fluffers?
April 7th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
"Women give priority to others – men invest more resources in themselves."
That must be why men set up charities that look after people and women set up charities that look after, uh, women.
You know what? This woman isnt even worth teh trouble of debunking.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Isnt a fluffer someone in the porn industry?
April 7th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
[...] Our debate was taped for a UK documentary called The Greener Gender. To learn more, see my recent blog posts Glenn Debates Swedish Official Who Claims Men Are Primarily Responsible for Global Warming and Swedish Official on Environmental Problems: 'Women give priority to others – men invest more resou.... [...]
April 7th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
That is laughably sad! Tell that to the firefighting community where nation wide only about 3% of firefighters are women and in the volunteer sector it is closer to 1-2%. Yep women give priority to others. UNBELIEVABLE!
This is an utter disgrace to my young friend that died in the line of duty NINETEEN days after he was a victim of a back draft and building collapse. My company at the time was the company called in to rescue the several firefighters buried a live.
I am so angry at this heinous statement I will not continue in fear that I will say something that I will NOT regret.
b
April 8th, 2008 at 2:16 am
@Bernie Misiura...
Women give priority only to those individuals they know personally. Men are more inclined than women to give priority to those they don't know. You know, "the greater good" and all that stuff.
Again, see Baumeister.
April 8th, 2008 at 6:28 am
"Women give priority to others – men invest more resources in themselves."
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements that I have ever heard! When I was married to my ex, my spending priorities were first for our child, second for my ex, and then if anything was left over for me. I would be willing to bet that this is the case for most married fathers in western society. With all of the clothes and shoes for my ex in our closet, we barely had room for any of my stuff in there and there certainly is no comparison between the few simple shaving and toiletry items that I had versus the vast array of cosmetics that she kept in our bathroom.
This doesn't even take into consideration the thousands of dollars that are spent on worthless pieces of jewelery by the typical male as gifts for the typical western female every year. Why don't we compare this with the amount that the average western female spends on their male counterpart? You could even take it a step farther and compare percentages of incomes that each group spends on the other.
With just a reasonable amount of scrutiny, this whole statement could easily be disproved. In fact, her whole argument is based on nothing more than anti-male prejudice and negative gender stereotypes with absolutely no credible evidence to support any of her absurd conclusions. Is this the type of "science" that feminists want to perpetuate?
April 8th, 2008 at 8:20 am
I`m tired of European feminist generalizations...
I work more hours, give more money, more quality time, get less sleep, and ask less of others than my daughters mother, and I`m not looking for recognition, but just want mindless people to stop making mindless comments about something they dont know anything about. I`d like to tell that lady to `shhooosh!` Stop trying to prove youre an idiot, we already know....
April 8th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I see there are no statistics where the increase in population has been awarded to a sex. The outcome of all female sexuality is, after all, more people. More people=more resources.
The fact that social welfare programs are simply men in disguise is obvious . At what point are men going to be taxed as a sex and legally held accountable for all the whims and children women as a gender might dream up?
Equality can not be found through legislation. It is a fact of nature that equality is not between sexes and not even between members of the same sex.
Equality can only be had in opportunity. Beyond opportunity there is what is called life and all it holds a surprise. Just because one may percieve his state in life to be unequal does not mean it is the fault of others. Might it be simply bad choice or fate that decides ones particular life? Why else would we all be uniquely different? To adapt to a very broad range of circumstances?Artificially narrowing those circumstances though deception and legislation is a utopian ideology. In utopia reality is missing as well as diversity, some life!
April 8th, 2008 at 9:01 am
The quickest way to end a debate is to discredit the basic tenet of the opposition, in this case global warming. It has so little credibility that the name has been changed to climate change. Man made global wraming is unprovable because it doesn't exist! I t is a product of the feminist, politically correct, communist, PETA type mindset. That is why men are completely at fault in these people's minds. Keep up the good work, Glenn!
April 8th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Ah, Gerd Johnsson-Latham is back again.
I'm getting in on this particular dicussion rather late, but, going back to Glenn's original debate with this woman(?), I took note of my fellow airline travellers and it turns out, at least for the flights I've recently taken, that they were about 40-45% women. Men may travel more, but appearantly not that much more.
Anyone else notice this in hteir travels?
April 8th, 2008 at 10:28 am
"Women give priority to others – men invest more resources in themselves."
That must be why, despite men earning slightly more money than women, women spend four times as much, and seven times as much retail floor space is devoted to women's products than men's.
April 8th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
feminism is like communism used to be, crazy, anti God, anti Good sense and just plain old hate mongering. The people who practice these "isms" need someone to set them straight. The good news is , feminism, like communism is a failure and will sooner or later be gone, just like the old race hatred has fade into history, a bad idea that failed because those that believed it and practiced it are foolish,egotistical and can't see past their noses.
All these "experts" well... just like the guy who want to prove that black people were closer to apes, shaved a gorillas hair off to try and prove his goofy theory and found out the gorilla was white!
April 8th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
(warning: this post is satire)
Hmm, my mirror neurons are firing....
Women are wasteful and stupid, reacting with their emotions rather than minds...
Women waste and destroy everything they touch;, they cannot be trusted with technology, the civilization, politics or morals...
gah, I can't do it anymore. I am not gonna make it as a hate-mongering political diatribe like Gerd. See, I lose interest after just two rediculous statements whereas she got out six and showed no signs of slowing down!
April 9th, 2008 at 12:50 am
G Johnnson-Latham should come to the UnitedStates if Sweden is so bad...."60 minutes" could use another useless commentator !
April 9th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Floyd suggests: "G Johnnson-Latham should come to the UnitedStates if Sweden is so bad...."60 minutes" could use another useless commentator !"
PK responds: Does anyone still watch 60 minutes? I thought it was just an infomercial for Medicaid supplements, clappers, colonial penn life insturance, etc.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
PolishKnight Says:
"Does anyone still watch 60 minutes?"
Not so much, at least not since Fox news began broadcasting. Guess most people really do prefer to just hear the news presented in an unbiased format so that they can make up their own mind about things.
"I thought it was just an infomercial for Medicaid supplements, clappers, colonial penn life insturance, etc."
Two words: Target Market
April 10th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Patrick Brown:
"That must be why, despite men earning slightly more money than women, "
On average, women now earn 117% of the salaries of their male counterparts in major American cities.
WOMEN, ON AVERAGE, ARE NOW EARNING MORE MONEY THAN MEN IN AMERICA.
I don't know how to drive this home without shouting at this point. It seems that some people suddenly loose their capacity to read or hear when this truth is stated.
Loose the propaganda and get with reality.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Metalman,
I think the statistic that women earn 117% of what men earn in major American cities is when the earnings of single women and single men (or single childless women and single childless men) are compared. I think this statistic may be among younger age demographics.
The important point is that it is mainly only married women who make less money than married men. The only women who make less money are those who are more likely to have a man who makes more and picks up more of the bills.
The other problem is that women are more likely to want to marry men who either earn as much or more than they do. So if single women are earning more than single men, they are likely to reject a larger number of the poorer men.
But if that happens, it will still be our fault. This will only prove what a bunch of useless commitmentphobic, feckless losers we men are.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I had to especially laugh when I got to the part when she says "Women are poorer than men – in other words, men are richer than women...", where is she talking about? In 1990 a Parade Magazine article about personal wealth in the U. S. indicated that 86% of personal wealth is controlled by women.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Nick s:
"So if single women are earning more than single men, they are likely to reject a larger number of the poorer men."
To carry this further: As more women continue to make more money than men, the marriage rate will decline. There will be far less men who make enough money to satisfy today's women. Most women will therefore have a choice: marry a man who makes as much or less money than them and shoulder and equal amount of the financial burden, or don't get married at all.
My prediction, as mentioned elsewhere on this site: the marriage rate is going to decline by a minimum of 15% over the next ten years. In addition, a large underclass of 'non-marriage material' men is going to be created. My comment to the new class of 'non-marriage material' men is: you dodged a serious bullet.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Speak of being slow . . . I just noticed the foot prints for the men vs women . . . well duh men leave bigger foot prints because we have bigger feet and wear boots . . . women have smaller feet and wear high heels . . .(-; (-; (-;
b
April 10th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Exactly Metalman,
The problem is that most women still want to marry a man who makes more money than they do. But they still want to have all the opportunities in the workforce and elsewhere. Today women have more opportunities than men. Girls and women get better education, while women benefit from affirmative action in the workplace. Even though men have fewer opportunities, they are still judged more according to their success and earnings ability than women.
There will be an ever-increasing number of poorer men who are no longer economically viable.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:25 am
[...] Debates Swedish Official Who Claims Men Are Primarily Responsible for Global Warming (Part I), Part II, and Part [...]
October 26th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
[...] may be typical right-wing nonsense, but it also seems like a bit of feminist spin at work as well, taking a situation that does not demonstrate discrimination—or demonstrates it in [...]