I think I question both the thesis of this article as it relates to Paglia's statements as well as Paglia's statement as a whole.
First off to address the thesis of the article. The only thing connecting Germany's dumb decision to shutdown it's nuclear power plants and it's even dumber decision to become dependent on Russian fossil fuels and Paglia's statement is that Angela Merkel was the head of state during that time. Since Germany is a liberal democracy this hardly counts as a woman making unilateral decisions, these decisions were not made in a vacuum by one person alone.
Secondly these decisions certainly did not resign Germany to "hut-living" and if you are to criticize these decisions you also have to give credit to the fact that Germany during this time period had quite a bit of growth and became arguably the most powerful country within the European Union.
It's not like Germany is now collapsing, in fact it's doing pretty well comparitively to other countries around the world. Think about all the men that made far worse decisions during this time period. Like ummm. Putin who invaded Ukraine, or the President of El Salvador who hilariously made BitCoin an official currency right before the crypto currency collapsed. Or the catastrophic economic decisions made by Maduro/Hugo Chavez leading to Venezuela going from a developed country to a developing one. Or all the Democratic backsliding done all over the world. All of this perpetrated by male leaders.
Then you have the statement itself or female leaders trying to return to "Gaia" or whatever. Did Catherine the Great or Queen Elizabeth do that to their countries? They seemed pretty ruthless.
I don't buy it the idea that women are all that much different than men when put in a place of power. There isn't much evidence that they are particularly different.
To your last point discussing that men would go out and do the hard work to restore power in case there was an attack the knocked out the electrical grid. This just speaks to divisions of labor that have developed over time not inherent bravery. Who over the years have taken on the task of giving birth, caring for children etc?
Actually, Merkel was responding to the climate-crisis hysteria that dominates German culture. So, it's a group effort. Suggesting that a people might have to stock firewood to stay warm and go to community "warm centers if they're without a wood-burning stove or fireplace is a serious breakdown of the basics.
You're right about Germany's economic condition, but like the US, they have a lot of wealth to destroy before real hell brakes loose. How long before bad ideas and bad decisions return them to the 18th century?
Another bad idea--started by the Dutch and perhaps spreading to to other EU country's--is that fertilizers are destroying the planet through nitrous oxide emissions. So, the Dutch government wants to shutdown one-third of their farms. Germany and many other countries would be affected since the Dutch farmers ship their agricultural products worldwide. And Germany's powerful Green movement is chomping at the bit to after their own farmers.
Both male and female have a tyrannical side to their spirit. A country could be run entirely by men and also be paying homage to the tyrannical female when worshipping the planet. A state that has an authoritarian masculine center will run over whoever gets in the way of material and societal progress; just as a state that has an authoritarian feminine center will destroy whoever gets between the state and the sanctity of the planet.
Well I don't really see German energy policy like that at all. Their decision to close down nuclear power plants was an overreaction to Fukashima. If they were serious about global warming they wouldn't have shut down their nuclear plants...they also wouldn't have signed on to a pipeline that made them dependent on Russian fossil fuels.
At the same time these two very dumb ideas were being done Germany was also one of the most successful countries at adding new sources of renewable energy to the point where 45% of their energy is renewable. To me this is an amazing accomplishment that could have been even better if they simply did not shut down their nuclear plants.
Also Germany through this same period developed one of the most strong financial systems made their government more efficient and had strong GDP growth compared to their neighbors.
I don't know anything about the Dutch farming situation aside from the fact that this country punches way above it's weight in agricultural exports.
Both Germany and the Netherlands are liberal democracies meaning that all these decisions have to go through a process and they have the ability to be nimble and change course. In theory.
I don't think that any of these countries are going back to the 18th century. Germany wasn't even a country in the 18th century. It was a mixture of Prussia and countless other German speaking states and principalities, it wasn't even particularly wealthy and late to industrialize. Then their economy was decimated twice by two world wars. The leadership through both of those wars and through this entire time period was strikingly patriarchal.
I just don't see the connection between energy policy and femininity or backwards momentum for civilization. I mean global warming or not energy independence from largely authoritarian Petro-States is good for the world. Just don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater" like shutting down nuclear energy. There is a path forward with both growth and renewable energy. And growth and protecting the environment.
I reject the notion that there is no way to "save the planet" while also maintaining high standards of living in fact I think spreading wealth and economic growth is the best pathway towards ultimately "saving the planet." Clearly neither does Germany or the US, or any of the major economies. Very few people actually want to purposefully promote "de-growth."
That is quite frankly insane considering how small the Netherlands is and how dense the population in that country is.
Apparently pollution is a very big deal and is far higher than the rest of Europe, this is due mainly because of agricultural practices and just the simple fact that the Netherlands is so active in agriculture while being so small and dense. Farms are super efficient and super close to high population areas. It looks like without technological advancements and reforms they will very quickly reach the limits of their growth.
A "High Court" ruled that fertilizer and other mainly agricultural pollution would need to be reduced. Farmers have thus clogged roads with their tractors and driven to the Hague to ask for government assistance in upgrading their practices so they can continue to grow and expand.
What does the government of the Netherlands do? Agriculture is clearly a big element of their economy and also there is clearly an issue with various pollutants. Apparently there are ways to reduce pollutants and continue on, it just costs money. Do they make that investment or do they allow for farms to close?
It's also seems much more than just an insane attempt at "de-growth" or going backwards.
It looks like the farmers protest worked and enough votes exist to block proposed legislation from the center-right government that would impose heavy restrictions on farmers.
But there is still the fact that this was all done to comply apparently with a "high court" decision.
Ray, thanks for the comment. I don't remember the company of that specific commercial. But for many years now males, especially of the white persuasion, are either clowns or scary dudes like the guy "Mayhem" in the All State commercial.
I think I question both the thesis of this article as it relates to Paglia's statements as well as Paglia's statement as a whole.
First off to address the thesis of the article. The only thing connecting Germany's dumb decision to shutdown it's nuclear power plants and it's even dumber decision to become dependent on Russian fossil fuels and Paglia's statement is that Angela Merkel was the head of state during that time. Since Germany is a liberal democracy this hardly counts as a woman making unilateral decisions, these decisions were not made in a vacuum by one person alone.
Secondly these decisions certainly did not resign Germany to "hut-living" and if you are to criticize these decisions you also have to give credit to the fact that Germany during this time period had quite a bit of growth and became arguably the most powerful country within the European Union.
It's not like Germany is now collapsing, in fact it's doing pretty well comparitively to other countries around the world. Think about all the men that made far worse decisions during this time period. Like ummm. Putin who invaded Ukraine, or the President of El Salvador who hilariously made BitCoin an official currency right before the crypto currency collapsed. Or the catastrophic economic decisions made by Maduro/Hugo Chavez leading to Venezuela going from a developed country to a developing one. Or all the Democratic backsliding done all over the world. All of this perpetrated by male leaders.
Then you have the statement itself or female leaders trying to return to "Gaia" or whatever. Did Catherine the Great or Queen Elizabeth do that to their countries? They seemed pretty ruthless.
I don't buy it the idea that women are all that much different than men when put in a place of power. There isn't much evidence that they are particularly different.
To your last point discussing that men would go out and do the hard work to restore power in case there was an attack the knocked out the electrical grid. This just speaks to divisions of labor that have developed over time not inherent bravery. Who over the years have taken on the task of giving birth, caring for children etc?
Actually, Merkel was responding to the climate-crisis hysteria that dominates German culture. So, it's a group effort. Suggesting that a people might have to stock firewood to stay warm and go to community "warm centers if they're without a wood-burning stove or fireplace is a serious breakdown of the basics.
You're right about Germany's economic condition, but like the US, they have a lot of wealth to destroy before real hell brakes loose. How long before bad ideas and bad decisions return them to the 18th century?
Another bad idea--started by the Dutch and perhaps spreading to to other EU country's--is that fertilizers are destroying the planet through nitrous oxide emissions. So, the Dutch government wants to shutdown one-third of their farms. Germany and many other countries would be affected since the Dutch farmers ship their agricultural products worldwide. And Germany's powerful Green movement is chomping at the bit to after their own farmers.
Both male and female have a tyrannical side to their spirit. A country could be run entirely by men and also be paying homage to the tyrannical female when worshipping the planet. A state that has an authoritarian masculine center will run over whoever gets in the way of material and societal progress; just as a state that has an authoritarian feminine center will destroy whoever gets between the state and the sanctity of the planet.
And yes, both men and women are brave.
Well I don't really see German energy policy like that at all. Their decision to close down nuclear power plants was an overreaction to Fukashima. If they were serious about global warming they wouldn't have shut down their nuclear plants...they also wouldn't have signed on to a pipeline that made them dependent on Russian fossil fuels.
At the same time these two very dumb ideas were being done Germany was also one of the most successful countries at adding new sources of renewable energy to the point where 45% of their energy is renewable. To me this is an amazing accomplishment that could have been even better if they simply did not shut down their nuclear plants.
Also Germany through this same period developed one of the most strong financial systems made their government more efficient and had strong GDP growth compared to their neighbors.
I don't know anything about the Dutch farming situation aside from the fact that this country punches way above it's weight in agricultural exports.
Both Germany and the Netherlands are liberal democracies meaning that all these decisions have to go through a process and they have the ability to be nimble and change course. In theory.
I don't think that any of these countries are going back to the 18th century. Germany wasn't even a country in the 18th century. It was a mixture of Prussia and countless other German speaking states and principalities, it wasn't even particularly wealthy and late to industrialize. Then their economy was decimated twice by two world wars. The leadership through both of those wars and through this entire time period was strikingly patriarchal.
I just don't see the connection between energy policy and femininity or backwards momentum for civilization. I mean global warming or not energy independence from largely authoritarian Petro-States is good for the world. Just don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater" like shutting down nuclear energy. There is a path forward with both growth and renewable energy. And growth and protecting the environment.
I reject the notion that there is no way to "save the planet" while also maintaining high standards of living in fact I think spreading wealth and economic growth is the best pathway towards ultimately "saving the planet." Clearly neither does Germany or the US, or any of the major economies. Very few people actually want to purposefully promote "de-growth."
So reading about the situation in the Netherlands. It's very interesting. Way more interesting than I thought.
After the United States the largest exporter(in dollars) of agricultural products is the Netherlands.
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0712/top-agricultural-producing-countries.aspx
That is quite frankly insane considering how small the Netherlands is and how dense the population in that country is.
Apparently pollution is a very big deal and is far higher than the rest of Europe, this is due mainly because of agricultural practices and just the simple fact that the Netherlands is so active in agriculture while being so small and dense. Farms are super efficient and super close to high population areas. It looks like without technological advancements and reforms they will very quickly reach the limits of their growth.
A "High Court" ruled that fertilizer and other mainly agricultural pollution would need to be reduced. Farmers have thus clogged roads with their tractors and driven to the Hague to ask for government assistance in upgrading their practices so they can continue to grow and expand.
What does the government of the Netherlands do? Agriculture is clearly a big element of their economy and also there is clearly an issue with various pollutants. Apparently there are ways to reduce pollutants and continue on, it just costs money. Do they make that investment or do they allow for farms to close?
It's also seems much more than just an insane attempt at "de-growth" or going backwards.
Here is an interesting development as well.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/farmers-protest-party-set-shake-up-dutch-political-landscape-2023-03-15/
It looks like the farmers protest worked and enough votes exist to block proposed legislation from the center-right government that would impose heavy restrictions on farmers.
But there is still the fact that this was all done to comply apparently with a "high court" decision.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/farmers-protest-party-set-shake-up-dutch-political-landscape-2023-03-15/
Kenneth, you make some interesting points that I plan on tackling in my next piece on Paglia.
Kenny is a good guy with thoughtful views even though he and I don't always agree.
Excellent post! Anyway you might add link to that commercial you referenced in paragraph 3?
Ray, thanks for the comment. I don't remember the company of that specific commercial. But for many years now males, especially of the white persuasion, are either clowns or scary dudes like the guy "Mayhem" in the All State commercial.
Hey, I prefer Mayhem to the oafs absent testosterone.
Ray, you make a good point.