Do feminists feel liberal guilt about the fact that they have contributed so much to global warming?

Question

Feminists portray divorce as a necessary tool to free women from unhappiness (rather than working towards happiness in a continuing relationship). High divorce rates are even heralded as evidence that women who would otherwise be "trapped" in supposedly abusive or alcoholic relationships are experiencing improved lives. So it appears that, according to the link below, feminism is contributing to global warming which, according to Al Gore, will kill millions of women in decades to come. Are feminists plagued with guilt over what they have done, or do they rationalize their failures with obscure emotions unfelt by men?

http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20071204/ap_on_sc/divorce_environment.html

mintyminions: Good point. Feminine independence is another social factor that feminists encourage. Their contribution to global warming must be astounding.

bruce20705: King Henry didn't start divorce. He started the Church of England because Rome denied him a divorce. Divorce has always been permitted in the case of adultery.

Gnu Diddy!: It's not a reach if a causal link between divorce and energy consumption (and therefore CO2 output) has been established and feminists encourage divorce. That's a direct link.

Dialectic: Couples remained married far longer before feminism began encouraging divorce. It's obviously quite possible.

Tracey: And you're a mother earth-killer.

players2069: I used the word "contributed" which is not the same as being "responsible for" (which you suggested I said). Divorce is a policy actively endorsed by feminists which contributes to global warming. I don't actively endorse the consumption of McDonalds or use of aerosol sprays.

Secondly, divorce has nearly always been expected in abusive or adulterous relationships. The vast majority of contemporary divorces are for the sake of personal convenience. The "abuse" excuse is, like the abortion rape excuse, virtually irrelevant to the issue as a whole. It is simply used as an excuse to justify the situation where it is otherwise unjustifiable.

zeb6219: Please pick up a dictionary and review the difference between saying "contributed to" and "responsible for". You may shocked and awed to find out that they do not mean the same thing.

Cliffie: Yes, feminists ignore womens' suffering if that suffering happens to contradict their cause. Of course, that's kind of my point. If their policies supposedly contribute to global warming and global warming will supposedly kill millions, then feminists are contributing to the deaths of million.

Rio Madeira: Feminists are very flexible on their definition of "have to" when it comes to divorce.

Answer 1

I know I shouldn't flatter this with a response, but...
It makes more sense to blame overpopulation for increased housing demand - if that's what you're getting at.

Answer 2

So you mean those foam plates/containers from the 80s has got nothing to do with it? Or the tons of aerosol sprays from then and now? Just feminists and divorce? Cool.
And supposedly abusive/alcoholic relationships are fake? Oh, so she really did walk into that door with her neck. Ok, I get it.
Global warming happened because we as a planet, AS A WHOLE, f-d up. Because we didn't care enough about this planet to take care of it. There is no one group of people to blame. Did you go to McDonalds in the 80s? Do you use hairspray, room freshener? Do you drive a car/take a bus/train? Then you contribute too.

Answer 3

This isn't the fault of feminism. We aren't encouraging women to divorce unless they have to. Besides, people end up living alone before they're married, or even when they'll never be married. The solution is to reduce one's individual carbon output as best as possible. For example: recycle, use fluorescent bulbs, use energy-efficient appliances, drive a car with a decent fuel economy, and use as little electricity as you possibly can over the course of a day.

Answer 4

Wow. What a reach.

This is butterfly-effect research. The "so-what" leaves us with little more than an interesting talking point.

What are we to do about it? Apparently you've not been married for a long time if you think it's a simple choice between breaking up or "working toward happiness." Personally, I think the danger is in marrying before you're ready, rather than how you play damage-control after having prematurely tied the knot.

Is the point that we should think of the environment when it comes to our happiness with another person?

Answer 5

No, Feminists would not even think to feel guilty about their contribution to Global Warming. They would most likely find a way to twist things around and blame it on men.

Answer 6

I think individualism is more of an environmental problem than feminism. The article also says that in addition to divorce, the rise in more single family homes is due to: demographic shifts such as people remaining single longer and the demise of multigenerational households.

Furthermore, there are a large number of "ecofeminists" who are aware of the links between the oppression of women and degradation of nature.

Environmental issues are social issues.

Answer 7

C'mon man! I can appreciate deft trolling, but this is some clumsy stuff.

Nutcase feminists don't even feel guilty about hurting their own cause by using misandry (as if that isn't sexism), so why would they care about the environment?

Egalitarian feminists are the more thoughtful variety, and are therefore also more likely to not pollute, etc. They wouldn't have any particular reason to be guilty.

The answer is no. Good or bad, feminists don't feel environmentalist guilt.

I'm afraid that is as scientific as it is gonna get.

Answer 8

I've been wondering about this one myself and was glad to see the article, 2 adults with 2 kids in two houses with two sets of bills. Pretty flamboyant for a country which is already the worlds biggest consumer of energy pp. As well as global warming there is the current "credit crunch", bad debts, as I said 2 adults, two kids, two houses with two sets of bills.
Leaders can say nothing bar mention "family values" or "back to basics" a couple of times a year for fear of being branded misogynist and losing their jobs.

Answer 9

I cannot believe that you are serious about the premise you allude to. Liberal women are responsible for global warming??? You must certainly be a republican christian. Global warming is a cumulative result of industrial production.This includes clear cutting techniques of the lumber industry which callously destroyed 10's of 1000's of acres of trees to provide lumber and wood for the development of more industry that required more lumber. The demand for more energy that required ever more production and consumption of fossil fuels. Sure, it's women who are responsible for these dynamics. Shame on them for needing fuel to cook the food for their families. Shame on them for asking their husbands for a refrigerator that required the escalating demand for electricity. Or, for an electrically powered washing machine to replace that efficient scrub board to do laundry for families including up to and probably even more than 7 children. NOW HERE THIS, oh liberal females of today. Here is another silly male suggesting that females are responsible for the impending demise of our species.

Answer 10

I've actually had more than one feminist tell me that MALE science, MALE technology, and MALE greed have RAPED MOTHER Earth (Not that calling science and technology "male" would be acceptable if one was making a claim about women's abilities in those fields), so I doubt it.

Your argument is a reach though.

Answer 11

Yes, let's blame global warming largely on the feminists who wanted divorce and not on the "great, wonderful, superior-thinking" men who invented the automobile, discovered electricity, and invented, styrofoam (to name a few ecological hazards).