…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger
Work for the greater glory of global economy and defeat sexism at the same time!
Malicious gnomes of The Economist, for decades fastidiously promoting the global rule by the rich and the enlightened, like themselves, are turning their attention to one of the last outposts of family unity, South America. They are in the “good” company: Marx, Mao, Soros, Obama, Francis II, all with their own agendas and explanations, all were or are hoping to abolish raising children in a stable family surroundings and replacing it by the uniform, government regulated politically correct educational camps. In the Western world they have already succeeded.
Thus now The Economist ( August 22, 2015) claims Gender equality is good for economic growth. Gender equality equals the women workforce participation rates. If the gap were closed, the Latin America’s Gross Domestic Product per person would be 16% higher, decreed the expert economists, D Cuberes of Clark University of Massachusetts and M Teignier of the University of Barcelona. Somehow, Latin America would be 4.7% richer per person. (The Economist believes that they understate the economic benefits.) Amazing – would it be everybody, i.e. 588,019, 503 people, almost 5% better off, or would the same handful benefit disproportionally? One would hope that nowadays only experts believe in that idiotic clintonism about raising tide raising all the boats. Firstly, no tide can raise hollowed out or stuck in the mud dingies, secondly ocean raises and then falls with certain predictable regularity, hardly affecting secure, offshore yachts.
Facts on the ground do not support the theory. Apparently, “the smallest gaps in participation rates are in some poor African countries”, the computer modelling notwithstanding. Hmm. Should they stop discriminating against men and actually ask them to work?
Belarus, Scandinavia are cited as examples of approximately equal participation rates, but there is no mention of the suicide rates, alcoholism, criminality – and the general emasculation of the society. Intriguingly, in USA “relatively wide gap may reflect women’s preferences rather than sexual discrimination”. The experts must believe that the Latin American women are inferior to the North American ones and do not know what their preferences are.
The notion that the more women working would mean higher GDP is primitive, albeit theoretically sound. More people in employment produce more, at least by the skewed method GDP is measured – so should we have more lawyers, social workers, police officers, prison guards? That’s what we get when we break the family structure and create parent-less children. The society is not better off.
I am not suggesting that the female employment is the only cause of disembowelling of families, but that it is a significant contributor. In the Soviet Russia and its socialist satellites the women were coerced into the workforce by various means. The women who experienced those times resented it, and, mostly, envied the Western women, for whom, at least in the fifties and early sixties, the outside work indeed was a matter of choice. As we know, that changed as Marxist ‘intellectuals’ took over the public debate and started shaming motherhood. Unfortunately, women by and large accepted the narrative of “independence”, “empowerment” and similar garbage.
Returning to Latin America and to that Economist article, apparently the necessary part of the fight for women rights is a fight to decriminalise abortion. According to the feministas, all enlightened women want to abort their child every two month so that they can go to work. If, despite of all that a child is born, the government will provide the expert care, the experts being, mostly, the maternising, childless, lesbian, socialist harpies.
The family is in the way of the New World Order. Soros does not like it. What chance we have?