Feminism : a short story for Big Profits. Just a byproduct of Globalisation
Some dates to remember :
1971, President Nixon decided to stop the Gold Exchange Standard..
In september 1972, he went for an official visit in China and met Mao Zedong the Chairman of Communist Party. American buisenessmen considered investing in China.
Globalization gets starting slowly. Unnoticed at first, it grew faster soon.
China will soon become the World Factory, but for Big profits you must export in rich countries, where women are the best consumers.
But they are engaged in homecare,
If they were feminists they would be free to work outside, get paid and buy more goods. The urgency was to spread a new « Victimism » ; .A new « feminist wave » popped up. Suddenly all politicians were feminists.
Women should leave their homes in which they are men’s slaves and employed in well paid jobs. The urgencies is in Justice for women judges and lawyers for easy divorces, (at the expense of husbands).
No more babies, thanks to « family planing » and abortions laws, plenty of administratives jobs organised by politicians and paid by men’s taxes.
August 1973 Supreme Court rule : » Roe and Wade » abortion is authorised in all states…
Besides CEDAW there's also different Gender Equality Indexes that the UN and EU have that only measure things that women are interested in. For example, participation in government. If they look at something that interested both men and women they only collect data on women. And they ignore issues like incarceration rates, life expectancy, literacy rates, access to education that impact men more.
But I recall that when they measured how well a country was doing in terms of development they did have all these measures. But not anymore.
So when they complain about something like medical misogyny, and how women are missed out, I ask myself what about gender equality measures,
The power to define the metrics we use to guide policy and investment is a very important power.
Check out this research from the Unuversity of Essex
Oh yes, we are doing an excellent job wreaking vengeance for past injustices - even though, as Janice Fiamengo explains, the feminist version of history is an absolute distortion. Good article, Tony.
So for the injustices of the coercive control of the white feather campaign during WW1, are our daughters and granddaughters being required to front the class rooms and apologise for what their great great grandmothers did?
This is a great summary of everything that is wrong with human rights today. One of the many swindles perpetrated on men is the idea that wrongs of the past can somehow be “corrected" by exacting retribution today. But if you read commentators like Thomas Sowell you will realise that history is far more complex than what these radicals would have you believe. It is at least arguable that the supposed wrongs of the past never actually occurred in the way that is being portrayed. In effect, you are having a “correction” being made to something that never actually occurred in the first place. We are far too accepting of crackpot interpretations of history which are open to challenge at the most fundamental levels. What we’ve ended up with is a bunch of incompetent individuals like Kamala Harris for example: who have been artificially installed in high places; chosen on the basis of what they look like; whose personal prejudices have been allowed to override reality entirely unchecked; at a stupendous social and economic cost to everyone and society as a whole.
Feminism : a short story for Big Profits. Just a byproduct of Globalisation
Some dates to remember :
1971, President Nixon decided to stop the Gold Exchange Standard..
In september 1972, he went for an official visit in China and met Mao Zedong the Chairman of Communist Party. American buisenessmen considered investing in China.
Globalization gets starting slowly. Unnoticed at first, it grew faster soon.
China will soon become the World Factory, but for Big profits you must export in rich countries, where women are the best consumers.
But they are engaged in homecare,
If they were feminists they would be free to work outside, get paid and buy more goods. The urgency was to spread a new « Victimism » ; .A new « feminist wave » popped up. Suddenly all politicians were feminists.
Women should leave their homes in which they are men’s slaves and employed in well paid jobs. The urgencies is in Justice for women judges and lawyers for easy divorces, (at the expense of husbands).
No more babies, thanks to « family planing » and abortions laws, plenty of administratives jobs organised by politicians and paid by men’s taxes.
August 1973 Supreme Court rule : » Roe and Wade » abortion is authorised in all states…
Julock39
Legally men are f…ed when accused by women
Even if not in legal environment.
Besides CEDAW there's also different Gender Equality Indexes that the UN and EU have that only measure things that women are interested in. For example, participation in government. If they look at something that interested both men and women they only collect data on women. And they ignore issues like incarceration rates, life expectancy, literacy rates, access to education that impact men more.
But I recall that when they measured how well a country was doing in terms of development they did have all these measures. But not anymore.
So when they complain about something like medical misogyny, and how women are missed out, I ask myself what about gender equality measures,
The power to define the metrics we use to guide policy and investment is a very important power.
Check out this research from the Unuversity of Essex
https://www.essex.ac.uk/news/2019/01/03/new-measure-for-gender-inequality-suggests-many-disadvantages-for-men
One of the authors of that paper is on substack as @gearydavidc
He's written an interesting paper on the WEF index and the assumptions behind it. Recommended reading: https://open.substack.com/pub/straighttalkonsexdifferences/p/the-world-economic-forum-and-the?r=u1h8n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Oh yes, we are doing an excellent job wreaking vengeance for past injustices - even though, as Janice Fiamengo explains, the feminist version of history is an absolute distortion. Good article, Tony.
So for the injustices of the coercive control of the white feather campaign during WW1, are our daughters and granddaughters being required to front the class rooms and apologise for what their great great grandmothers did?
This is a great summary of everything that is wrong with human rights today. One of the many swindles perpetrated on men is the idea that wrongs of the past can somehow be “corrected" by exacting retribution today. But if you read commentators like Thomas Sowell you will realise that history is far more complex than what these radicals would have you believe. It is at least arguable that the supposed wrongs of the past never actually occurred in the way that is being portrayed. In effect, you are having a “correction” being made to something that never actually occurred in the first place. We are far too accepting of crackpot interpretations of history which are open to challenge at the most fundamental levels. What we’ve ended up with is a bunch of incompetent individuals like Kamala Harris for example: who have been artificially installed in high places; chosen on the basis of what they look like; whose personal prejudices have been allowed to override reality entirely unchecked; at a stupendous social and economic cost to everyone and society as a whole.
D'oh. How come I'm only now finding out that Women's Rights aren't actually human rights?
Thanks for finally explaining!
How embarassing.