The Killing Power of Feminism
Election 2014 for New Zealand is over.
It’s been an interesting election in many ways, some of which are discussed on this site in posts over the last 6 months while others are so not relevant to us here; collectively this has been overwhelming, in the media and on the outcome of the election, but what should not escape us is the dramatic and very real depiction of political feminism in action.
It has been history in the making and in time to come this election will be seen as a point of feminism reaching a critical mass and ignition – we’ve got a crash site to inspect.
It centres on the NZ Labour Party, which has suffered a crushing defeat – the party, the home of the left, hasn’t been this low for almost a century. The post NZ Labour Abandons Men, will take you through a brief outline of the formation of the Labour Party.
The Party began to morph from its traditional roots during the Lange Ministry back in the 1980s, following the Muldoon era. As women began to venture into politics Labour increasing became the home of the feminist, then the Red Fems.
By 1999 (the devil had risen) with Helen Clark at the helm of a victorious Labour Party the country was taken to a place it had never been – the new era of women. It lasted 3 parliamentary terms, which is 9 years in our political landscape, and we saw a dramatic feminisation of government, police, education, and family law.
Something else was also happening within the confines of the party – the feminists were now in control – and the white knights were emerging. Anyone already in the party who did not drink from the Holy Grail of feminism was increasingly isolated (Refer the Jones Boy) and anyone not prepared to worship the hallowed ground had little chance of getting anywhere near the greater power base of the party.
Labour lost the 2008 election and Clark immediately abandoned the party for a job at the United Nations. She’s not a silly person, she had been the single voice of Labour for nine years, and she knew the quality and competence of those she had gathered around her – a bunch of loyal idiots.
To a certain extent it had been a one-woman crusade to the top – to be the first woman Prime Minister, and what she left behind was a unstable mess. One that would continue to pursue more radical feminist policies, encourage more marginal thinking, and a narrower range of feminist compliant members throughout the party.
When it came to the election build up this year, we saw the usual doggy research promoting the usual doggy legislation and it looked like business as usual, until party leader David Cunliffe opened the campaign with his apology for being a man.
The day had come – radical feminism was about to take a shot at leading the country.
Cunliffe talked about turning the Office of the Prime Minister into a cross-ministry headquarters, to stamp out the existence of all sexual and domestic violence against women. The great white knight had arisen, the former diplomat on his path to fulfil his dream of being Prime Minister, or so he thought.
Cunliffe, a former minister in the Clark government had long been flipping the bird at men – there’d been a decade of very visible feminist arrogance, but now he was leading an even bigger mess than Clark had left. He wasn’t leading a party, but a gaggle of marginalists, and a collection of policy that wouldn’t constitute a school play, let alone a platform on which to run a country.
In fact he wasn’t even leading a party, the party was leading him; he was trying to sell us the beliefs of the feminist congregation in the back room (they’ve bought themselves to the point of religious bigotry) – he is the son of a preacher man. It didn’t work. As noted above the party returned its worst result in almost a century.
Now, there’s a massive mess, the party is in meltdown, the caucus is in crisis mode, there’s desperation from the feminists and naturally they have turned on Cunliffe for the failure. He doesn’t want to go, stop living his dream; it’s beyond farcical – it’s an embarrassment to the political credibility of the country.
It’s too late, ‘mate’, you’ve shown us what you’re made of, you’ve cut your cloth, and you got what you deserved.
But where has that left us?
Right back where we started from?
The unrepresented man fighting a growing aristocracy?
Not quite.
The aristocracy looks a little different, visually and dynamically with women in a different place, but it’s the same pattern of history.
And are men fighting for their families, political representation, and a fair go?
No, this time we are fighting for ourselves. Women have abandoned us for what they think is a better offer. They’ve got the political representation that we haven’t.
What of the Labour Party?
There will be a new leader, or new leaders if speculation is correct. But don’t for a minute think the tiger is about to change its stripes – no it’s the girls and gays party now.
So watch this space.
Related post: Feminist adjustment in New Zealand Election
femini$$m is antisocial&destructive, the making of sociopaths, the making of evilish narcists/borderliners, by definition femini$$m is fascism-sexism worse than racism, femini$$m is a hate crime against humanity, by choice!
Comment by Ad Verdiesen — Fri 26th September 2014 @ 11:18 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/61630202/us-girl-missing-for-12-years-found-in-mexico.html
Comment by Kumar — Thu 2nd October 2014 @ 10:36 am
5 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die by Christina Hoff Sommers
The Times.com
Sept. 2, 2014
If we’re genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women, we need to get the facts straight
Much of what we hear about the plight of American women is false. Some faux facts have been repeated so often they are almost beyond the reach of critical analysis. Though they are baseless, these canards have become the foundation of Congressional debates, the inspiration for new legislation and the focus of college programs. Here are five of the most popular myths that should be rejected by all who are genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women:
MYTH 1: Women are half the world’s population, working two-thirds of the world’s working hours, receiving 10% of the world’s income, owning less than 1% of the world’s property.
FACTS: This injustice confection is routinely quoted by advocacy groups, the World Bank, Oxfam and the United Nations. It is sheer fabrication. More than 15 years ago, Sussex University experts on gender and development Sally Baden and Anne Marie Goetz, repudiated the claim: “The figure was made up by someone working at the UN because it seemed to her to represent the scale of gender-based inequality at the time.” But there is no evidence that it was ever accurate, and it certainly is not today.
Precise figures do not exist, but no serious economist believes women earn only 10% of the world’s income or own only 1% of property. As one critic noted in an excellent debunking in The Atlantic, “U.S. women alone earn 5.4 percent of world income today.” Moreover, in African countries, where women have made far less progress than their Western and Asian counterparts, Yale economist Cheryl Doss found female land ownership ranged from 11% in Senegal to 54% in Rwanda and Burundi. Doss warns that “using unsubstantiated statistics for advocacy is counterproductive.” Bad data not only undermine credibility, they obstruct progress by making it impossible to measure change.
MYTH 2: Between 100,000 and 300,000 girls are pressed into sexual slavery each year in the United States.
……..
MYTH 3: In the United States, 22%-35% of women who visit hospital emergency rooms do so because of domestic violence.
……….
MYTH 4: One in five in college women will be sexually assaulted.
……….
MYTH 5: Women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns-for doing the same work.
FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.
Wage gap activists say women with identical backgrounds and jobs as men still earn less. But they always fail to take into account critical variables. Activist groups like the National Organization for Women have a fallback position: that women’s education and career choices are not truly free-they are driven by powerful sexist stereotypes. In this view, women’s tendency to retreat from the workplace to raise children or to enter fields like early childhood education and psychology, rather than better paying professions like petroleum engineering, is evidence of continued social coercion. Here is the problem: American women are among the best informed and most self-determining human beings in the world. To say that they are manipulated into their life choices by forces beyond their control is divorced from reality and demeaning, to boot.
Why do these reckless claims have so much appeal and staying power? For one thing, there is a lot of statistical illiteracy among journalists, feminist academics and political leaders. There is also an admirable human tendency to be protective of women-stories of female exploitation are readily believed, and vocal skeptics risk appearing indifferent to women’s suffering. Finally, armies of advocates depend on “killer stats” to galvanize their cause. But killer stats obliterate distinctions between more and less serious problems and send scarce resources in the wrong directions. They also promote bigotry. The idea that American men are annually enslaving more than 100,000 girls, sending millions of women to emergency rooms, sustaining a rape culture and cheating women out of their rightful salary creates rancor in true believers and disdain in those who would otherwise be sympathetic allies.
My advice to women’s advocates: Take back the truth.
Christina Hoff Sommers, a former philosophy professor, is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of several books, including Who Stole Feminism and The War against Boys, and is the host of a weekly video blog, The Factual Feminist. Follow her @CHSommers.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 16th April 2015 @ 2:05 pm