GUEST POST from Don – Saw This Headline…

SAW THIS HEADLINE
and scratched my head…

“Women are 14 times more likely to die in a climate disaster than men. It’s just one way climate change is gendered”
Published: May 29, 2024 8:28pm EDT in The CONVERSATION

https://theconversation.com/women-are-14-times-more-likely-to-die-in-a-climate-disaster-than-men-its-just-one-way-climate-change-is-gendered-230295

The purpose of a headline is two-fold.  It is to grab your attention AND frame the story.  Anyone who has studied STATISTICS knows it is less about math and more about “framing the issue.”  The question, as a reader, is “how accurate is this headline.”  In this case, I didn’t have to go far to find that it is questionable and probably inaccurate.    

So, how have they “framed” these statistics?  
1. They aren’t only talking about women.  The second paragraph of the article says: “But a growing body of evidence demonstrates women and gender-diverse people are disproportionately vulnerable to the changing climate and the consequences it brings.”  Did you see it? (“and gender-diverse people…”)  Unfortunately, the term is broad based, meaning that the article was referring to both men and women and not women only.
2. They have broadly defined “climate disaster.”  I ask, how many “climate disasters” have happened in the last year?  Where did they happen?  Do you know?  Probably not, because there haven’t been many.  Further, this story attaches LOCAL climate issues to GLOBAL climate issues.  Thus, you may be thinking this is about Global Warming (which the article misnames “climate change”), when what may have happened was a drought in an area which has experienced droughts through many centuries.  Thus, they aren’t really talking about “climate change” as it is currently understood.
3. They have put a value on the “statistic.”  It is “gendered.”  However, since the “statistic” and the circumstances have been skewed, one wonders if the value hasn’t been skewed as well.  Keep reading.

These are the premises.  If you do NOT challenge the premises you must agree with their conclusion.  However, the premises deny several truths.  When readers see the word “women” they think the article is only about those born as women and who continue to look and act like women.  Let’s separate the statistics into women and not-quite (gender-diverse people).  Now what do we get?  We don’t even know how they define the sex of “gender-diverse” people.  Why would anyone want to conflate “gender diverse people” with gender stable women?  Non-women are actually what?  Men, or women who don’t look or behave like women … right?  That is a separate category from “women.”  Thus, with the water sufficiently muddied the statistic is automatically and undeniably false.  

I could go on, but why?  I’ve already proved the lie.  If men are included in the statistic about “women,” then it has been inflated.  

I failed to mention one weensy fact which got buried in the article.  Most of these “women” were attacked by their own people.  Wait!  What?  What was going on that the community decided it was “fair game on their own women” time?  Does that make any sense to you?  I can’t imagine that to be true.  Thus, what they are claiming in the article is that women are more at risk because their own tribesmen took this opportunity to abuse and kill them.  That should be looked at with cautious eyes, don’t you think?  What is clear to me is that there was the breakdown of law and order… Which raises the question in my mind, “Why are the liberals in our cities (like Boston) trying to break down law and order?”  They are opening opportunities for the abuse and murder of women?  Clearly then, it wasn’t the climate disasters that caused the “risks” to women, but the breakdown of law and order.  THAT is what is “gendered.”  Thus, to prevent risk to women we should be finding all the ways we can support law and order.  They, in the article, misidentified the CAUSE of harm.  We may have far less control over climate than we do law, so we should concentrate of that which is in our control.

Whatever causes the breakdown of law and order will cause disproportionate damage to “women.”  So, what kinds of things cause this breakdown?  War, civil unrest, high numbers of illegals, defunding the police, and climate disasters.  

If you ask the wrong question you always get the wrong answer.  Their question is the wrong one because of those 4 reasons.

Here’s a tiny secret:  MISINFORMATION WORKS!!!

If you think about it for a mere second you understand exactly the importance of those two words.  Why do advertisers spend so much money creating billboards, TV commercials, radio ads, and website pop-ups?  BECAUSE ADS WORK!  Misinformation works for exactly the same reason.  The more often you see the lie, the more you believe it to be true.  You “buy” the lie.  

So, if you are truly aware you will not merely skim the news headlines, you will explore them carefully.  What “misinformation” is this writer spewing today?  Is it a repetition of something which has never been proven?  I see that quite often, especially when talking about some politician or political opinion.  Just think of 2 words and you will see the whole idea:  “Russian Collusion.”  It was a lie from the beginning, but it was repeated so often that at one point nearly half of Americans thought it really happened.  Some still do.  That’s the power of misinformation.

So, the headline I referenced at the beginning of this post, if you hadn’t gone on this short journey with me … would you have merely “bought”it as fact?

[PLEASE NOTE that Don is always open to discussing the thoughts and opinions he shares here and welcomes comments as shared in the comment section. He doesn’t use other social media platforms and won’t see whatever you’d like to share with him if you post it elsewhere.
ALSO, Don is always open to offer his thoughts on various topics. If you have a specific request, you can let him know in a comment; he reads – and replies to – them all. ~ Sherry]

See more GUEST POSTS from Don!