Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists

[subSTRATA]

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/


Why don’t people behave in more environmentally friendly ways? New research presents one uncomfortable answer: They don’t want to be associated with environmentalists.

That’s the conclusion of troubling new research from Canada, which similarly finds support for feminist goals is hampered by a dislike of feminists.

Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted,” reports a research team led by University of Toronto psychologist Nadia Bashir. This surprisingly cruel caricaturing, the researchers conclude, plays “a key role in creating resistance to social change.”

Writing in the European Journal of Social Psychology, Bashir and her colleagues describe a series of studies documenting this dynamic. They began with three pilot studies, which found people hold stereotyped views of environmentalists and feminists.

In one, the participants—228 Americans recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk—described both varieties of activists in “overwhelmingly negative” terms. The most frequently mentioned traits describing “typical feminists” included “man-hating” and “unhygienic;” for “typical environmentalists,” they included “tree-hugger” and “hippie.”

Another study, featuring 17 male and 45 female undergraduates, confirmed the pervasiveness of those stereotypes.

http://youtu.be/G880gxjj9dI

environmentalists and feminists  has negative connotation  on people's mind because of their lunatic behaviours on subjects which they support . that makes them illogical human beings.

completely untrue. conserving the environment and attaining equal (emphasis on equal) rights for both sexes has nothing even resembling a negative stigma attached to them. both are reasonable and pretty good things to support. however, it is the manner in which the extremist supporters of these views act on advancing their respective agendas that the environmentalist / feminist movement gets put in a bad light. and 'makes them illogical human beings?' what? stop spamming.

that aside, there are perfectly reasonable methods in which the activists of said movements could further their agendas, but they typically get labelled as 'tree huggers, environmental terrorists, feminazis,' etc. and for good reason, some of the extremist supporters of these movements are completely insane.

[Wilikon]

The Devastating Silence From Labour ‘Feminists’ On Cologne

On the night of the Oldham West and Royton by-election result I accused the Labour Party of engaging in “dangerous identity politics.” The result of me uttering this sentence on TV was that the political journalists both local and national went into a spin. Labour politicians were also horrified and tried to suggest I was being racist, which of course I wasn’t, and they knew it. Indeed, calling someone is a “racist” is the fall back tactic for Labour politicians when they know they’ve been rumbled.



By “dangerous identity politics”, I meant ditching one’s own values and pandering to the prejudices of others. And the Labour Party is doing this on an increasingly regular basis, which I maintain is dangerous politics.

They did this on a minor scale in Oldham when Labour politicians (both Oldham MPs and local councillors) attended a meeting that was segregated on the basis of gender.

This meeting was organised by the Labour Friends of Bangladesh and was a political meeting, not a religious one. Labour of course denied the meeting was gender segregated, but it was obvious to anyone who saw the photos that men and women were sitting on opposite sides of the room. More evidence then came to light that the Labour leader, hard left London luvvie Jeremy Corbyn, had also been addressing gender segregated meetings.

Now one would think such gatherings would vex Labour feminists like Harriet Harman, but she has never publicly said a thing. Maybe this was because her husband, Labour MP Jack Dromey, was also caught addressing a gender segregated rally in Birmingham last year.

The question surely must be: Why do Labour politicians agree to address such meetings? The answer is simple: votes.

They cast aside their so-called profoundly long held beliefs and values to appeal to the Muslim community in areas like Oldham and Birmingham because they are reliant on their votes.

They need the community leaders to sign people up in large numbers to postal votes and they need the Imams to tell those who attend the mosques to vote Labour. It is an unholy alliance of the Left and Muslim community, but interestingly it is only the Left that panders, making it an uneven relationship.

But gender segregated meetings in Oldham are only the thin end of wedge of “identity politics”.

We’ve already witnessed the thick end in towns like Rotherham where a Labour-run council turned a blind eye to the rape and molestation of up to 1,400 girls (some as young as 12) by men from within the Pakistani community. And why did the council and the police ignore what was going on? Because they did not want to “rock the boat” and upset “community cohesion”

And one does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that the Muslim votes mattered too to the local Labour Party. It is disgusting and embarrassing to think that things like this happen in 21st century Britain.

We heard very little from the Labour feminists regarding the Rotherham grooming scandal, but we should not be surprised as they have form for this. Note their lack of condemnation of polygamy, forced marriage, the oppressive burqa and female genital mutilation. Their silence on these subjects has been deafening for years. Barbara Castle would be turning in her grave.         

And now they have done it again in 2016. Last week I decided to look at the social media accounts of the self-professed Labour feminists to see what their reaction was to the New Year’s Eve sexual attacks in Cologne. Let’s not forget that up to 250 women were sexually assaulted so you would think that the Labour feminists would be up in arms speaking up on behalf of their beleaguered German sisters. But no, not a peep.

I scoured through the social media accounts of London Labour MPs Harriet Harman, Diane Abbott, Emily Thornberry and leader Jeremy Corbyn and there was not even a mention of these grotesque assaults.

Now, I wonder why the Left wing feminists have refused to say anything? Perhaps it’s because the attacks were committed by more than one thousand men of “Arabic or North African” appearance who were undoubtedly Muslim “refugees”? It’s just a hunch. I also have a sneaky suspicion that these same people would have been at the forefront of the condemnation if these attacks were committed by white, Christian, German men.

This is just another in a long line of examples of Labour politicians turning a blind eye to unacceptable behaviour because it is coming from a certain section of the community. This is what I meant when I accused the Labour Party of engaging in “dangerous identity politics” and I can assure you now, it will only get worse.   


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/18/where-are-labours-feminists-on-cologne/

[Wilikon]

Feminist Blog Suspends New Content After Running Out of Kickstarter Funds in Less Than a Year

Feminist blog Femsplain has announced that they will cease publishing new content after running out of funds from their Kickstarter campaign in 2015.

Femsplain promised “feminism full time” in their successfully funded Kickstarter last March, raising over $30,000.


Among certain promises, the campaign blamed the online consumer-revolt movement #GamerGate of “going out of their way to make women feel unsafe,” and their team included a former creative strategist for Tumblr, a Rutgers graduate, and various others. Despite publicly describing themselves as a “diverse collective,” no males were involved in the project out of a team of 15.

In a blog post published on Saturday, founder of Femsplain Amber Gordon wrote:

    When we brought Femsplain into the world, we never thought it would become as big as it is today. I never dreamed I’d be running a company at 24, but we did it because someone had to and we really believe in what we’re doing.

    With that, it’s important that we be transparent on where we’re at as a company and what we need to be doing in order to succeed. Starting next month, Femsplain will be taking a break from publishing new content. This by no means implies we’re going anywhere, but rather in the meantime Gabriela and I will be focusing efforts toward expanding our future vision while dedicating more time to our daily newsletter, Femsplainer. We’ll also continue to update our social accounts with older stories and inspiration, organize events and meet-ups, be on slack, etc. We just won’t be publishing new content.

    As you know, Femsplain is mostly self-funded and our Kickstarter funds are nearing the end. We pride ourselves on being able to pay our writers, and unfortunately it’s something we can’t continue doing without proper funding.

Gordon then finished the post with a plea for more money: “It would mean so much if you could continue supporting us during this time and we hope to emerge even better soon enough! Only if you can, if you have an extra few dollars and want to help us out, you can do so monthly through Patreon or one time through PayPal.”

Pleading for more donations is not a new tactic among feminist outlets and organisations. Most writers tend to have Patreon accounts where they digitally beg for money, and feminist video series Feminist Frequency serves their name true by frequently asking for donations despite raising $158,000 through Kickstarter in 2012 and charging $10,000 for public appearances.

Users on Twitter both defended and criticised Femsplain’s sudden decision to stop publishing new content, with Business Insider’s Technology Editor James Cook set upon by a mob of Femsplain supporters for his criticism.

    Weird that Femsplain is stopping publishing. Did they not realise they would get through all of their money?

    — James Cook (@JamesLiamCook) February 20, 2016

    @Nero "I never thought I'd be running a company at 24."

    Apparently, you were right.

    — Jacob Ritter (@Mornscreek) February 21, 2016

    @JamesLiamCook I'M SAYING YOU SOUND LIKE A SHELTERED LITTLE BITCHBOY

    — CLAUDIA (@literalporn) February 21, 2016

    WHITE GUYS TRY TO CONDESCEND WHEN THEY FEEL DUMB LOL

    — CLAUDIA (@literalporn) February 21, 2016


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/22/feminist-blog-suspends-new-content-after-running-out-of-kickstarter-funds-in-less-than-a-year/

[designerusa]

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/


Why don’t people behave in more environmentally friendly ways? New research presents one uncomfortable answer: They don’t want to be associated with environmentalists.

That’s the conclusion of troubling new research from Canada, which similarly finds support for feminist goals is hampered by a dislike of feminists.

Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted,” reports a research team led by University of Toronto psychologist Nadia Bashir. This surprisingly cruel caricaturing, the researchers conclude, plays “a key role in creating resistance to social change.”

Writing in the European Journal of Social Psychology, Bashir and her colleagues describe a series of studies documenting this dynamic. They began with three pilot studies, which found people hold stereotyped views of environmentalists and feminists.

In one, the participants—228 Americans recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk—described both varieties of activists in “overwhelmingly negative” terms. The most frequently mentioned traits describing “typical feminists” included “man-hating” and “unhygienic;” for “typical environmentalists,” they included “tree-hugger” and “hippie.”

Another study, featuring 17 male and 45 female undergraduates, confirmed the pervasiveness of those stereotypes.
















http://youtu.be/G880gxjj9dI

environmentalists and feminists  has negative connotation  on people's mind because of their lunatic behaviours on subjects which they support . that makes them illogical human beings.

yes, i agree with you  .. they dont know anything about the world.. they are living in their delusional life.. they suppose that they can save the world but not...

[Wilikon]

Slate Calls Breast-Feeding Unnatural, Says Women Are Guilted Into Doing It…



    Public health advocates often use the phrase natural in their attempts to promote breast-feeding. As a marketing strategy, it’s a shrewd move. Most mothers will feel at least a little bit guilty about going the “unnatural” route and will be too tired to question the speciousness of what’s being implied. But as a public health strategy, this use of natural may not be a very wise move at all.

    In a new paper recently published in Pediatrics, bioethicists Jessica Martucci and Anne Barnhill argue that the emphasis on the “natural” aspects of breast-feeding can easily backfire. By endorsing breast-feeding as natural, they say, breast-feeding advocates are reinforcing the idea that natural is A) something that actually exists and B) healthier. By setting up this dichotomy, these pro–breast-feeding campaigns might serve as unintentional fodder for concerns against “unnatural” interventions like vaccinations.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/03/08/calling_breastfeeding_natural_may_be_fueling_anti_vaccine_fears.html



---------------------------------------------
This is when you know 3rd wave feminism has bitten its own tail...

[BARR_Official]

Slate Calls Breast-Feeding Unnatural, Says Women Are Guilted Into Doing It…

Why not?  They're already acting like marriage, sex, and abortion have nothing to do with babies. 
Oh, and gender and social roles have nothing to do with babies either.  Men can get pregnant, not all women have vaginas.
So breastmilk probably has nothing to do with babies either.

[tvbcof]

Slate Calls Breast-Feeding Unnatural, Says Women Are Guilted Into Doing It…

    Public health advocates often use the phrase natural in their attempts to promote breast-feeding. As a marketing strategy, it’s a shrewd move. Most mothers will feel at least a little bit guilty about going the “unnatural” route and will be too tired to question the speciousness of what’s being implied. But as a public health strategy, this use of natural may not be a very wise move at all.

    In a new paper recently published in Pediatrics, bioethicists Jessica Martucci and Anne Barnhill argue that the emphasis on the “natural” aspects of breast-feeding can easily backfire. By endorsing breast-feeding as natural, they say, breast-feeding advocates are reinforcing the idea that natural is A) something that actually exists and B) healthier. By setting up this dichotomy, these pro–breast-feeding campaigns might serve as unintentional fodder for concerns against “unnatural” interventions like vaccinations.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/03/08/calling_breastfeeding_natural_may_be_fueling_anti_vaccine_fears.html

---------------------------------------------
This is when you know 3rd wave feminism has bitten its own tail...

These people will stop at nothing to get whatever they and big pharma want mainlined into the systems of infants early and often.  It's creepy.

Word of advice:  The whole vaccination thing is a so crazy and there is so much information about how devistating it is to so many people that you don't want to explore that rabbit hole if you don't have a rugged constitution.

An infant's developing immune system actually does rely significantly on the mother's through breast milk.  This has been basically understood at all levels for a long while.  When I was in the military, one of the drill sergent's favorite insults was to postulate that "You must have been one of them Similac Babies" when someone was weak and sickly.

Basically, with vaccinations, the whole population outsources their health as it relates to immunity to the government.  The ecological factors at play over generations is utterly fascenating for those who enjoy science and numbers, but the TL;DR version is that we as a population become increasingly reliant on 'the system' for survival and protection.  This is exactly what the system wants for obvious reasons.  In the mean time more and more of us become mysteriously sick with weird ailments that cannot be cured but can be treated at significant expense which makes big pharma/med a gigantic amount of money.  It's pure unadulterated evil!

I've posted this already on various threads, but it's so worth contemplating that I'll do it again:

Diet, injections and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.
  -- Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society 1953

I muse that 'injunctions' could map to such things as mandatory vaccinations of mandatory curriculum a-la 'common core'.

[coinits]

Feminism goes hand in hand with Liberalism. They are both mental illnesses. Nothing that mace and tasers can't fix.

That is a very fascist thing to say.

Would you want to live in a society where maces and tasers are used to "fix" everything?

No. Just feminists and environmentalists. Oh, and by default...Liberals.

[tabas]

dont include me , not everyone. I love environment and i love environmentalist.

[tvbcof]

dont include me , not everyone. I love environment and i love environmentalist.

Today's 'environmentalists' are the single biggest threat to the environment.

Remember what I said when you find that the resources are exploited all the same but for the benefit of a different group of owners than would have been the case without their 'environmentalism'.  And probably with less concern for the environment than under the current ownership structures.  If you are young, you will probably have an opportunity to see what I'm talking about in your lifetime.  (I'm making this statement/prediction from a U.S. perspective, BTW, but it stands for many 'developed' countries.)

[Wilikon]

dont include me , not everyone. I love environment and i love environmentalist.

Today's 'environmentalists' are the single biggest threat to the environment.

Remember what I said when you find that the resources are exploited all the same but for the benefit of a different group of owners than would have been the case without their 'environmentalism'.  And probably with less concern for the environment than under the current ownership structures.  If you are young, you will probably have an opportunity to see what I'm talking about in your lifetime.  (I'm making this statement/prediction from a U.S. perspective, BTW, but it stands for many 'developed' countries.)

Yep.

[Wilikon]

UofM Q&A #2 Milo Yiannopoulos on why Feminists are Silent on Migrant Sexual Assault

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtTjtwhCX_U

[Wilikon]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3503928/Two-explosions-heard-Brussels-Airport.html



----------------------
Mentally ill.

[samlanhan1]

This has been one of the most interesting reads I've found so far on here.

[Wilikon]

This has been one of the most interesting reads I've found so far on here.

I will have to agree with that statement.

 

[Wilikon]

 

[EUROPEANTURK]

Both these movements are artificially driven by the state. Basically an excuse for socialism; increased state power.

Lol, more paranoia please
You might dislike it, but girls got paid less than boys and they are not more stupid.


I think that it is kinda unfair.

yes , you are completely right..althoug women are more educated and more succesful than men, they are paid less than men ..  because we are living in a male-dominant society.. this is so unfair..

[TECSHARE]

Both these movements are artificially driven by the state. Basically an excuse for socialism; increased state power.

Lol, more paranoia please
You might dislike it, but girls got paid less than boys and they are not more stupid.


I think that it is kinda unfair.

yes , you are completely right..althoug women are more educated and more succesful than men, they are paid less than men ..  because we are living in a male-dominant society.. this is so unfair..

The wage gap has been completely discredited yet people still parrot it endlessly. Women "get paid less" than men because when you take  the total income of men and compare it to the total income of women without accounting for men working longer hours, working more dangerous jobs, and working in higher paying fields that in general women are not interested in you get your alleged "wage gap". The wage gap is a lie, stop repeating it.

The Gender Equality Paradox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

[Das]

I think nowadays, women can get to whatever position they wish to attain without a man so feminist have achieved their goal, what they need to do now is relax and stop working everybody up!


Environmentalist still has some work to do till automobiles start working on electricity instead of gasoline or diesel.

[JesusHadAegis]

I think nowadays, women can get to whatever position they wish to attain without a man so feminist have achieved their goal, what they need to do now is relax and stop working everybody up!


Environmentalist still has some work to do till automobiles start working on electricity instead of gasoline or diesel.

Isnt it ironic that only women has this movement? True we have history about women discrimination but i think its not good to go around telling people that about feminist agenda, if they want the society to see there worth then just do things because women are really awesome in their own ways they may be fragile but its what they are.

The same there is no need to brag that u support environment. and just do you ow thing.