Mann Tweets Study Claiming Climate Deniers Are Misogynist Authoritarians • Watts Up With That?

The study abstract;

Misogyny, authoritarianism, and climate change

Nitasha Kaul, Tom Buchanan
First published: 18 May 2023

Abstract

Globally, democratic politics are under attack from Electorally Legitimated Misogynist Authoritarian (ELMA) leaders who successfully use misogyny as a political strategy and present environmental concern in feminine and inferior terms. The ascendancy of such projects raise questions involving socioeconomic structures, political communication, and the psychological underpinnings of people’s attitudes. We offer misogyny, conceptualized in a specific way – not simply as hatred or disgust for women, but as a way of accessing a gendered hierarchy whereby that which is labeled “feminine” is perceived as inferior, devalued, and amenable to be attacked – as a relevant transmission mechanism in how ELMAs like Trump may connect with public opinion by systematically investigating the interplay between misogyny, authoritarianism, and climate change in the context of the United States. Using a survey methodology (N = 314) and up-to-date questionnaires, we provide a concrete empirical underpinning for recent analytical and theoretical work on the complexity of misogyny. We analyze how misogynist and authoritarian attitudes correlate with climate change, adding to the literature on opposition to climate change policy. An additional exploratory aspect of our study concerning US voter preferences clearly indicates that Trump supporters are more misogynist, more authoritarian, and less concerned with the environment.

And so, it is 100% clear that there is this toxic package or bundle of right-wing ideology, nationalism, exceptionalism, racism, sexism, anti-immigrantism, and anti-climate-change that goes with it. That is what drives many of them.

[Katharine Hayhoe, interviewed by Bjork-James & Barla, 2021, p. 389]

Gender is a game-changer, like the Archimedean fulcrum, with the potential to shift economic logics from profit-exploiting systems of injustice to functional praxes of life-affirming care for ecosystems, human others, and planetary co-habitants.

[Glazebrook, 2015, p. 126]

Sustainability is considered to be a ‘feminine’ project.

Climate change is a man-made problem and must have a feminist solution.

[Mary Robinson, in Allen et al., 2019]

Read more: https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/asap.12347

The study authors have a problem with climate skeptics “targeting” female leaders like AOC and Greta, arguing the motivation is misogyny.

… The most upfront manifestation of this is the ways in which outspoken female advocates of addressing climate change in substantive ways are targeted. Gelin (2019) referred to the “gender reactionaries to climate-denialism” with reference to the attack on figures such as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg.  …

Read more: same link as above

The study is based on a sample of 400 people, whom after deleting a bunch of answers was whittled down to 314. They claim most of the discarded answers had zero variation on answers – but given the in my opinion poor quality questions, the lack of variation could have been an artefact of the survey rather than a conspiracy to rig the result.

The study authors draw inferences based on their misogyny theory, like blaming Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 on sexism amplified by climate denial.

The authors redefine “misogyny” as being something other than hatred and / or disdain for women – crypto misogyny? – which makes you wonder why they tried to shoehorn everything into the label “misogyny”, instead of using a different word. “… We depart from the typical understanding of misogyny as hatred and disgust toward women by men, it is far from straightforward in how it functions as part of psycho-political processes. …“.

My favourite paragraph though is this one;

… In a similar vein, Stanley et al. (2019), in their 5-year cross-lagged analysis of the influence of SDO and RWA on environmentalism conclude that, “the relationship between ideology and environmentalism across time could be explained by a third variable. Specifically, it is possible that something related both to ideological and environmental attitudes could drive changes in each variable independently, hence explaining the apparent causal relations” (p. 7). They invite future research to explore the potentially causal nature of the ideology-environmentalism association. We surmise that misogyny could be that third variable. …

Read more: same link as above

If there is such a hidden third variable, why do the authors automatically assume the hidden variable is affecting the judgement of climate skeptics? Why are they so sure they are the objective party?

Because there is a much more obvious candidate for a hidden variable which biases belief in climate change: enthusiastic political support for socialism.

Is it a coincidence that most climate activists (though not all) also seem to have very left wing political views?

Why is climate activism be so attractive to socialists?

A fervent communist who used to be a friend once explained to me it doesn’t matter if climate science is wrong, because restraining capitalism with more regulation is socially desirable, even if the climate science rationale for advancing green restraints on capitalism turns out to be wrong.

I don’t think my former friend was deliberately lying about his climate beliefs, but in my opinion my former friend pretty much admitted he had no incentive to rigorously review the supporting evidence for his climate alarmism.

Left wing biases clouding the judgement of climate alarmists might also explain why most greens reject nuclear energy. Nuclear energy should be the obvious zero carbon compromise – a scalable zero carbon energy solution which the Right would accept.

We have unequivocal proof nuclear is affordable and safe, once you cut the red tape – France decarbonised most of their electricity generation with affordable nuclear power. Yet greens consistently choose endless political conflict instead of accepting a viable nuclear powered path to reducing CO2 emissions. They choose endless energy stalemate instead of embracing a solution to their alleged climate crisis which would leave Capitalism intact.