Source

The linked article discusses how a Canadian cabinet minister was surprised by the twitter backlash when she claimed that climate change affects women more. She wrote these people off as grouchy climate deniers, beautifully hamstering away the fact that she said something dumb.

Whatever your views about climate change, the key takeaway here is for us to see yet another example of how SJWs hijack issues to justify why the group they belong to are victims and should be given more stuff.

Looking at this situation, we see some typical moves from the SJW playbook:

1) A privileged female uses the plight of women in poor countries to justify why her group should be given more stuff

"it’s time the world recognize that as we develop polices, we look at how do we support women, how do we support women’s rights."

Look at those women over there. They are poor. Now give me stuff.

Question: Even if we accept the ridiculous premise that climate change disproportionately affects females in poverty, shouldn’t the policies be aimed at those females? Note how she doesn’t even consider the group of men who are also in these countries and equally vulnerable, even though most of them are way poorer than the average woman in a developed country.

2) There is no data to back up her claim

The article cites how studies from the UN, London School of Economics, and the World Bank do not support her claims that there are more women in poverty than men. The one study cited which seems to back up her claim is also based on the unproven assumption that there are more women in poverty than men.

But elements of the argument do not hold up well to scrutiny, including the notion that women are poorer than men, and therefore more vulnerable.

3) When pushed to explain her reasoning, we get no clear argument, just empty assertions:

On the gender dimension to climate change, Ms. McKenna echoed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s blunt statement that he selected a gender-balanced cabinet “because it’s 2015.” “It’s just true,” Ms. McKenna said.

4) There is no consideration that men can suffer too

As the writer points out:

And in some calamities, women fare better. Droughts, for example, tend to kill a disproportionate number of men, since woman, according to the natural disaster study, “can better cope with food shortages due to their lower nutritional requirements and higher body fat.”

This would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. This person has a seat at the table when important decisions are being made in a G8 country.

Lesson learned: When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.