Grants should be given to women and not men because ‘women look to fix the whole problem, while men tend to reinvest in other men’
This outrageous story is based on one unqualified opinion. Helen LaKelly Hunt claims grants should be given to women and not men because ‘women look to fix the whole problem, while men tend to reinvest in other men’ which is quite bizarre given she got her privileged start in life from her oil tycoon father.
From: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4736549/Money-safer-in-womens-hands
Money safer in women’s hands
BRIDGET JONESGrants given to families should be made to women, not men, because they make better decisions on how to spend the money, a visiting philanthropist says.
Helen LaKelly Hunt, the daughter of an American oil tycoon, is the co-founder of Women Moving Millions, an organisation set up to encourage wealthy women to donate money to women in need.
Hunt, who was in New Zealand last week, believes women look to fix the whole problem, while men tend to reinvest in other men.
“I just know that women’s hearts are all about a healthy community for their children to be held by. They want the whole community to be healthy,” she said.
“There is some research out that money in a man’s hands goes to what interests the man. But when it gets into a woman’s hands, if she gets educated, she wants her family to get educated and the whole community to get educated. Once women get access to resources, they want to spread them through the community.”
“Women and girls have the solutions to so many of community problems, but only recently have women and men begun writing cheques to women and girls.”
Her mantra is: If you want to invest wisely, invest in a woman. She says that is the secret to turning around struggling communities.
“Around the world, less than 10% of foundation grants go to women and girls, but they have requirements that shouldn’t be overlooked.”
Hunt says her point of view is starting to be backed by the United Nations and the World Bank, which last year documented the way women had transformed urban slums in Vietnam by borrowing to invest in toilets and water.
“The UN has started to emphasise if you want to help the world, stabilise the women in communities. If the women become stabilised, then they help their families, and the whole community gets stabilised.
“If you want to move into the poorest parts of the world and help financially, put money in the hands of a woman, because that is the smartest investment you can make.”
Once a woman was helped financially, they often passed it on. “It’s just their nature to make sure the giving keeps going.”
Letters may be sent to: [email protected]
Remember to use your real name, include your address and telephone number and don’t go over 200 words.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 7:05 pm
Gotta admire the chutzpah.
A puff-piece aimed squarely at benefiting women, and the by-line is “men tend to reinvest in other men”.
Sheer, bald-faced, projection. With one hand picking someone’s pocket and the other hand pointing at a man, she’s yelling “stop thief!”.
You’ve gotta larf.
Comment by yeah right — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 10:45 pm
NZ has been putting money “into the hands of women for decades now” as the story goes.
DPB, study grants, women only healthcare schemes and training, accommodation allowances,scholarships etc etc.
And we’re supposed to believe according to some rich Oil heiress that they in turn beneficently minister to the whole community!
Bizarre.
All the while virtually EVERY NZ index of distress is over represented by men.
Odd that the menfolk didn’t benefit from such a huge billion dollar multi-decade handout eh?
Oh, and let’s stay mindful – to a large extent the female only handouts continue although thankfully at a lesser rate than under Uberfemcommerad Clarkski.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 7th March 2011 @ 11:49 pm
Wow! That’s a great description of the behavior. Classic psychopathy.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 8th March 2011 @ 12:22 am
I’ve made some bold predictions about the US and its economy as a result of institutionalized feminism, Skeptik (even though many economists have come to the same independent conclusion as myself, they’re afraid to implicate feminism, despite its obvious contribution to the problems). Any thoughts about NZ and future of its economy – and I’m thinking, as an example, preparation for the two big quakes there and response to them, as well as other less acute developments. Thanks in advance.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 8th March 2011 @ 12:27 am
Well my x must be one for not following suit then.
She had saved over $5,000 for around a year by not paying her share of the bills and having refused to pay any of the visa bill for 5 months. She entered into a defrauding scam and was in the end caught. She of course said it was my idea (the fact I made nothing out of it).
Before she got caught, she was netting just under $400/wk and I was getting around $175/wk. We have since separated (with a battle) and of course she is claiming I have been not paying my share.
And then you read stories like this and think, “So whats the real truth”. My x even rang her counselor when she got her first grand and her counselor said “good on you”.
Doesn’t sound to me she was fixing the whole problem but was in it to make money.
Its interesting that a woman will always blame the guy for all the problems and is believed without question or even investigated.
Comment by Jono — Tue 8th March 2011 @ 7:27 am
Actually she is right – sort of. In the 3rd world aid organisations and microfinancers prefer to give/lend to women because they are tied to the family and tend to use the money to benefit the family, and if you give it to the men there is more chance of them p*ssing it away at whatever the local equivalent of a pub happens to be.
If she really said that in relation to NZ then that’s just dumb and shows her as an activist with an agenda who is quite happy to quote out of context to achieve her aims. We have controls here that don’t exist in the countries she talks about.
At least it makes her easy to spot, it’s the sneaky ones you have to be afraid of.
Comment by Dan — Tue 8th March 2011 @ 12:11 pm
Yeah I heard that too. According to every feminist, the micro-financing guy in Bangladesh didn’t lend to men because they’d go boozing. You’d think when making up stories, they’d do a little research first to make it believable. Bangladesh is a Muslim country – alcohol is banned.
Comment by yeah right — Tue 8th March 2011 @ 12:52 pm
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
For the past fifty years billions of dollars has been given to womens groups to provide “services” in our communities. How many of those groups provide said services ONLY for women?
Comment by gwallan — Tue 8th March 2011 @ 1:18 pm
Except that we tend to be misinformed of the realities in those third world communities.
Typically the only males in those communities are those unable to work. If they were they would be elsewhere engaged in virtual slave labour or fighting and dying in somebody else’s war.
It will come as no surprise to many here that that aid will never be spent in any way that would allow their menfolk to come home.
I highly recommend the writings of Adam Jones.
Comment by gwallan — Wed 9th March 2011 @ 2:34 pm
So let me summerise
The author is saying that when men (who are better earners than women) get given money (usually by other men) they invest in other men, who can then earn more money. Somehow this is not ok.
But when women are given money, (usually by men) they give it away to as many people as possible, as a way of helping the community?
So men earning more money that can be spent on various projects is somehow not ok, but women spending more money on projects is?
She then uses the input from a woman who is the daughter of a rich MAN, in order to support her examples. Where exactly does she think the money comes from?
.
.
.
She has the audacity to accuse men of “only investing in other men”, where did she get the idea that INVESTING is a bad thing? And why is investing in men a bad idea?
.
She then says that:
This sounds remarkably like women investing in other women to me. So it’s ok for women to invest in women, but not men to invest in men?
This stinks of discrimination and BS; you can’t stabilise any community while ignoring around 50% of the adults in it because of gender.
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Thu 10th March 2011 @ 8:16 am
BRIDGET JONES should go back to writing diaries…
Comment by One man's Perspective — Thu 10th March 2011 @ 6:57 pm
If Women solve problems and have empathy with the suffering and underpriveliged then why dont they marry blue collar men, If the world is about inclusiveness and social cohession.
Comment by Dan — Sat 19th March 2011 @ 6:02 pm
I suppose because biologically they’re hard wired to be predisposed towards being hypergamous.
Many would rather ‘marry’ the DPB and other forms of the state as provider than have to deal with a blue collar guy.
Funny thing is increasing numbers of men are twigging on to their disposability and are going their own way, consciously cutting back on productive work (and hence tax paying).
The feminists just don’t get it at all.
They can’t see how ‘equalizing’ destroys incentive.
Why bother as a bloke to try and get ahead if you’re going to be stymied every step of the way by a feminist culture including massive transfer of wealth via government from men to women? And not a word of thanks for your efforts to boot! Indeed seeing cultural messages daily that you being male are ——- SHIT.
Ah the justice of it though!
They’re so hellbent on getting ‘equality’ they can’t see how it’s increasingly biting women on the arse.
As the imbalance in Universities whereby more and more women than men graduate works it’s way through it will be women who earn the most.
(It already is in places like Manhattan New York).
Therefore women will increasingly be the ones paying the bulk of taxes through income taxes and taxes on purchases they make.
As more and more men simultaneously drop out of the provider/protector role (realizing it’s an extremely hazardous occupation to be in a relationship with a woman under feminism) it’s going to be interesting to see employed women starting to do the numbers and realize roles have in essence reversed.
I imagine they’ll get pissed off about the fact that increasingly they’re paying through the nose (as men have since modern day blame and drain men feminism took root) for many of their sisters sense of entitlement.
Going John Galt anyone?
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 19th March 2011 @ 10:09 pm
We have to keep in mind that women have much higher income than men.
Women predominate in luxury retirement homes and rec clubs – and men in homeless lines. Women have 4 types of income:
1) Own earnings
2) Exploitation of husbands
3) Exploitation of taxpayers
4) Women inherit everything because live longer.
[email protected]
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Sun 20th March 2011 @ 12:15 pm
women do not fix the whole problem..they are the cause of the problem and PC says we cant tell them the truth for fear it may be abusive and/or offensive to them..they cant handle the truth
Comment by Ford — Sun 16th October 2011 @ 12:24 pm
women talk a load of shit dont they
Comment by Ford — Sun 16th October 2011 @ 12:29 pm