Why Psychologically Men Don’t Exist - UN Documentation *

Wise Up Journal
10.09.2010
By Greg O’Brien

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) is a body of 22 experts that monitor member states’ compliance with the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). On reading it’s policies misandry (hatred of men) becomes apparent. At present 21 of the committee members including the chairperson are women, however most men in positions of power are fully onboard. National governments must report every four years to this committee on their progress towards full compliance. You read that right, a committee of 22 people setting a worldwide agenda which national parliaments of almost every country in the world must report to and spend huge resources to ensure their agenda is progressed.

Some of the 29 far-reaching recommendations of the committee include:

Inequality to men by preferential treatment towards women:

No. 5: “Recommends that States Parties make more use of temporary special measures such as positive action, preferential treatment or quota systems to advance women’s integration into education, the economy, politics and employment.”

When it comes to making decisions about having children it’s a woman’s sole privilege according to the committee:

21. “The number and spacing of their children have a similar impact on women’s lives and also affect their physical and mental health, as well as that of their children. For these reasons, women are entitled to decide on the number and spacing of their children.”

The committee doesn’t believe men do anything in the home or that their household activities should be recognised in the ‘facts’. It is not pushing equality; it’s about upgrading women and in the process brings about the downgrading of men.

No. 17: “Measurement and quantification of the unremunerated domestic activities of women and their recognition in the gross national product”

“Recommends that States parties:
“Encourage and support research and experimental studies to measure and value the unremunerated domestic activities of women; for example, by conducting time-use surveys as part of their national household survey programmes and by collecting statistics disaggregated by gender on time spent on activities both in the household and on the labour market”

When you see throughout the UN documents you understand that “gender-based” refers solely to women and women’s privileges and their exclusive role as victims.

No. 19: “Violence against women

“The Convention in article 1 defines discrimination against women. The definition of discrimination includes gender-based violence, that is, violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately. It includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty.”

Gender-based violence against men is out of sight and thus doesn’t exist in the eyes of the UN. This goes against every objective survey on the matter. The UN recommendations and treaties get put into law globally: west, east, north and south. The committee is quite open in its misandry (hatred of men):

“23. Family violence is one of the most insidious forms of violence against women. It is prevalent in all societies. Within family relationships women of all ages are subjected to violence of all kinds, including battering, rape, other forms of sexual assault, mental and other forms of violence, which are perpetuated by traditional attitudes. Lack of economic independence forces many women to stay in violent relationships. The abrogation of their family responsibilities by men can be a form of violence, and coercion.”

The committee does not shy away from using media propaganda for behavioural engineering:

“24. (d) Effective measures should be taken to ensure that the media respect and promote respect for women”
“(r) Measures that are necessary to overcome family violence should include:
” (ii) Preventive measures, including public information and education programmes to change attitudes concerning the roles and status of men and women

Again, they are very unequal in compiling the ‘facts’:

“(u) States parties should report on all forms of gender-based violence, and such reports should include all available data on the incidence of each form of violence and on the effects of such violence on the women who are victims

More misandry:

No. 21, 19: “[…]where the mothers are divorced or living apart, many fathers fail to share the responsibility of care, protection and maintenance of their children .”

The western European Union is fully onboard with the UN (CEDAW) agenda with endless reports and committees to enforce the privilege of being born a woman. In 2006 the European Institute for Gender Equality was established with the following aim (keep in mind that we’ve already seen from the UN documents ‘gender equality’ simply means privileges for women):

“The European Institute for Gender Equality is a European agency to support the Member States and the European institutions (in particular the Commission) in their efforts to promote gender equality, to fight discrimination based on sex and to raise awareness of gender issues.”
- http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=732&langId=en

From the European Union’s “Council Conclusions on Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in Society”:

“In order to improve the status of women and promote gender equality , gender stereotypes that shape the identities of girls and boys have to be tackled from early childhood , paying special attention to the structures and mechanisms that reproduce and reinforce traditional gender roles and stereotypes;”

The council put the word “girls” before “boys” despite the letter “B” alphabetically coming before “G”. The agenda for the latter part of the 20th century and for the 21 st century being misandry.

A 2007 report from the European Commission on equality between men and women states:

“Major gaps remain, and they are always to women’s disadvantage . Labour market segregation and inequalities in working arrangements are proving to be persistent, and this is reflected in a significant and stable gender pay gap.

“The female labour force continues to be the engine of employment growth in Europe. Since the launch of the Lisbon Strategy in 2000, six of the eight million jobs created in the EU have been taken by women . In 2005, the rate of female employment rose for the twelfth consecutive year, to stand at 56.3%, i.e. 2.7 points above its 2000 level, compared with a 0.1 point rise in the rate of male employment. If this favourable trend continues, the Lisbon objective of 60% female employment by 2010 will be attained.

“[…] increasing demands for labour flexibility are having a disproportionately large impact on women. Almost one-third of women work part-time (32.9% in 2006), compared with just 7.7% of men; 14.8% of female employees had a fixedterm contract, i.e. one point more than their male counterparts.”

“In order fully to exploit the potential of European workforce productivity, it is essential to promote women’s long-term participation in the labour market and to eliminate the disparities between men and women right across the board.”

“One of the consequences of the differences and inequalities which women face on the labour market is the persistent gender pay gap . Women earn an average of 15% less than men for every hour worked.”

“In most Member States, more women than men reach a high level of education. However, once graduated, the presence of women clearly decreases at each step of the typical academic career. Indeed, women are more numerous and more successful than men at first degree level (59% of ISCED5a graduates) , but their share decreases amongst PhDs (43% of ISCED6 graduates), and reaches a minimum amongst full professors (15% of Grade A full professors).”

This report contains all the myths and conclusions of misandry/feminism, including that women are paid less than men for no other reason than their gender. It also ignores the lifestyle choices made by women to take up part-time instead of full-time employment, or to take short-term contracts. It fails to address why, if women now account for 59% of graduates, their share reduces to 43% of PhDs and so on. Are they seriously suggesting that women are excluded from further education? It seems more likely it is merely a lifestyle choice ignored by the ‘facts’.

Warren Farrell, in his book “The Myth of Male Power” highlights 25 reasons why men earn more than women. These factors include career choices, hours worked, hazardous work practices, willingness to work unsocial hours, exposure to weather, willingness to sacrifice job satisfaction for pay etc.

Farrell’s conclusion was backed up in a report by the U.S. Department of Labor in 2009 entitled “An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women”, which contains the following dramatic statement:

“However, despite these gains the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap . The purpose of this report is to identify the reasons that explain the wage gap in order to more fully inform policymakers and the public.

“Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action . Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choice s being made by both male and female workers.”

The discrimination against men has never been more apparent than during the current recession and the gender based response.

In 2009 we had the following news release from the European Commission:

“The recession could hit working women harder than men, an EU study warns, underscoring persistent disparities between the sexes in the European labour market.”

The study entitled “The Gender Perspective on the response to the economic and financial crisis” completely failed to provide any evidence of how the recession affects women more than men, however it didn’t stop the authors making a list of 33 recommendations to the Commission and Member States on gender based unemployment and allocating resources for women. While at the same time completely ignoring massive job losses experienced by men.

The following 2010 report undermines everything that’s previously been reported regarding the recession and the ‘vulnerability’ of women’s employment contracts and casual employment in the EU. EU labour market behaviour during the Great Recession:

Workers with weaker work contracts (e.g. temporary contracts, on-call jobs), the less qualified and the less experienced workers have borne much of the brunt of the current recession (Table 1). Men, especially young, tend to be overrepresented in these categories. Conversely, women have been so far less affected than men . Yet, for the first time since the fourth quarter of 2005, female employment was in the first quarter of 2009 below the level of one year earlier (though by only 0.1% ).”

However we will be waiting a long time for the actual Commission to highlight this fact and make a list of recommendations for an appropriate response. Don’t expect the mainstream media news to release weekly reports that “the recession is hitting working men harder than women”, after all that truth would be going against UN policy.

It’s apparent that misandry/feminism is not just about getting the other 50% of the population (women) into the tax-net and distancing them from their children in state ‘education’. It’s about the destruction of the majority of males in society by economic and social revolution/quiet-warfare. To alienating men from their families and dramatically reduce male role-model leadership that has in the past threatened an elite hierarchy system of governance.

Men today, and particularly young men, are in a very vulnerable position. The majority of women in the west now have an exaggerated sense of privilege and self-worth from decades of misandry/feminist ideology and behavioural-education/brainwashing starting at early childhood resulting in treating men like second-class citizens. We only have to look around at the attitudes and behaviours of women today to see that something has gone radically wrong. Men’s worth and role in society has been reduced to ridicule. Alcoholism, drug abuse, homelessness, suicide, social alienation are all predominantly male problems.

However this Forbes columnist has a particular place for men in society. She believes the Dutch forces, i.e. men, should remain in Afghanistan to die for women’s rights:

“Of course, that the Dutch would retreat in the face of such aggression should hardly be surprising: This, after all, was the country that reduced its military after World War I, relying on other countries to come to its defense if needed”
“But it is our fight. That fight belongs to every country of the world where women live.”

I suspect the irony of sending men to fight and die to protect women’s rights does not enter her mind.

For more details check out the online documentary entitled “Misandry – Men Don’t Exist”.

Related:

Why do my son’s books tell him all men are useless? *

Factsheet: Male Infertility - The Disappearing Male *

Soya-based foods (chocolate products…) lowers male fertility *

Canada bans ‘gender-bend baby bottles’, putting Britain under pressure to follow suit

Alan Watt - Lesson on Gender Conflict Manipulation:
MP3 - LISTEN / DOWNLOAD First Hour

MP3 - LISTEN / DOWNLOAD Second Hour
MP3 - LISTEN / DOWNLOAD Third Hour

End of Nations - EU Takeover and the Lisbon Treaty