The WEF's "Global Gender Gap Report" is outstandingly deceptive. It only reports disadvantage experienced by women. It goes as far as penalising nations on their "parity" index if men are not dying at least five years younger than women.
As the feminists were screaming in the seventies..."Nothing less than equality for women and nothing more than equality for men."
yes it is interesting hey when the 'disadvantage ' is only reported.. when I see tables in restaurants here in Switzerland that filled with only females I have to wonder. Especially when they are paying 48 Swiss Francs for Cheese Fondue. That is an acceptable price here and whilst we can afford it, it is also a little bit of a luxury given that you are only eating 'cheese' and potatoes and bread PLUS drinks.. so it is not the most expensive restaurant I've eaten in and not the cheapest. If my point is taken..
I still don't understand your stance. I have an ADVO against me. I'm a highly educated north shore mum. Go to the Downing Centre on any day of the week and you will find just as many women as men with claims of being abusive, having drinking problems, and more often than not, it is men that call the police on their wives to pre-empt the domestic violence claims they think women are going to put on them if they break up. It's all so tiresome.
I'm anti-Family Court. I used to be a Fiamenco fan girl. Not before I got an abusive claim - but in order to understand why he would put it on me. How on earth could a man be scared of a woman? How could he accuse me of being an abuser when I clearly was not. Yes, I did hit him. So I began to see that yes, I suppose - in the same way that feminism does, that I was equal to a man. I'm not allowed to hit a man in retaliation just because I'm virtually incapable of doing any damage to him or hurting him physically. There is no difference, because it hurts his feelings.
If a woman hits a man, it is no different to a man hitting a woman. Which is bullshit. It's similar to the trans lobby. The men want to claim similarity to women, in order to deny women their own claims. If given the choice, would these men you claim to respect and feel are being hard done by, honestly go back to the old days where they had to 100% provide for women and their children and with no state to fall back on? The failure of their marriage was then left to them. When there was no family court, a man could still be sued for a lifetime of damages for failing to uphold the deal - if he was lucky - in most places and times, he would simply be murdered by the lady's male relatives.
Why, because everyone - over every time and place, knows that women have physical attributes that render her weaker. She has reproductive capacities that make her vulnerable to rape and also give rise to traits that have evolved alongside that. Traits which the wisest of cultures make allowances for, because they know it's for the greater good. To protect the resources for their young by securing their mates.
You can't change nature by political means. You are the other side of the feminist coin.
And, I'm sorry but a man who takes a woman to family court is the loser, pre-emptively.
The Swiss have a problem as outlined on the news the other night: 68% of Teachers in Primary Schools are Women!!
I'm not sure how this works as I thought that Equality was the go all over the world and it seems that the Swiss are failing the rule and even fail at having 1.3 million children living in poverty in such a rich country... totally astounding I must say...
Just for the records.. because even here DV is becoming a little bit more pushed...
The other thing I noticed and is not Bettina's focus really but the Advertisements show mostly females now.. some might cry 'fantastic' but I wonder if all these women wonder how used they really are..... to sell consumer products...
In Australia the disparity from Early Learning, Primary and Secondary Schools is even worse and it is now possible for a student to go from Pre-school to University without ever having had a male teacher.
As a mother of two sons, an anti-feminist and a history scholar, it's not 'feminism''- it's left wing, socialist feminism that is the problem, and Arndt and Fiamenco only fuel the flames of division.
Nobody is saying what Arndt and Fiamenco claim that all women are saying.
Frankly, read the bloody Female Eunich!!! It's on my bookshelf, and I read it recently. It doesn't say anything like what people think it says. It's got a picture of a skinsuit female on the cover. She doesn't believe in Simone dB but was the sexy face of the Women's Lib movement who refused to be part of the socialist 'feminists'. But even Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon, Shulamith Firestone, they were all warning at the time that the women's movement was bound to be co-opted by men to blame women for taking away women's rights.
There's a 2 hour redscare podcast done last month. Listen. Not by a massive feminst, by a flawed person who leaves stuff like this on the internet:
re your DV Industry vid...
The WEF's "Global Gender Gap Report" is outstandingly deceptive. It only reports disadvantage experienced by women. It goes as far as penalising nations on their "parity" index if men are not dying at least five years younger than women.
As the feminists were screaming in the seventies..."Nothing less than equality for women and nothing more than equality for men."
yes it is interesting hey when the 'disadvantage ' is only reported.. when I see tables in restaurants here in Switzerland that filled with only females I have to wonder. Especially when they are paying 48 Swiss Francs for Cheese Fondue. That is an acceptable price here and whilst we can afford it, it is also a little bit of a luxury given that you are only eating 'cheese' and potatoes and bread PLUS drinks.. so it is not the most expensive restaurant I've eaten in and not the cheapest. If my point is taken..
I still don't understand your stance. I have an ADVO against me. I'm a highly educated north shore mum. Go to the Downing Centre on any day of the week and you will find just as many women as men with claims of being abusive, having drinking problems, and more often than not, it is men that call the police on their wives to pre-empt the domestic violence claims they think women are going to put on them if they break up. It's all so tiresome.
I'm anti-Family Court. I used to be a Fiamenco fan girl. Not before I got an abusive claim - but in order to understand why he would put it on me. How on earth could a man be scared of a woman? How could he accuse me of being an abuser when I clearly was not. Yes, I did hit him. So I began to see that yes, I suppose - in the same way that feminism does, that I was equal to a man. I'm not allowed to hit a man in retaliation just because I'm virtually incapable of doing any damage to him or hurting him physically. There is no difference, because it hurts his feelings.
If a woman hits a man, it is no different to a man hitting a woman. Which is bullshit. It's similar to the trans lobby. The men want to claim similarity to women, in order to deny women their own claims. If given the choice, would these men you claim to respect and feel are being hard done by, honestly go back to the old days where they had to 100% provide for women and their children and with no state to fall back on? The failure of their marriage was then left to them. When there was no family court, a man could still be sued for a lifetime of damages for failing to uphold the deal - if he was lucky - in most places and times, he would simply be murdered by the lady's male relatives.
Why, because everyone - over every time and place, knows that women have physical attributes that render her weaker. She has reproductive capacities that make her vulnerable to rape and also give rise to traits that have evolved alongside that. Traits which the wisest of cultures make allowances for, because they know it's for the greater good. To protect the resources for their young by securing their mates.
You can't change nature by political means. You are the other side of the feminist coin.
And, I'm sorry but a man who takes a woman to family court is the loser, pre-emptively.
The Denmark laws are very encouraging !
The Swiss have a problem as outlined on the news the other night: 68% of Teachers in Primary Schools are Women!!
I'm not sure how this works as I thought that Equality was the go all over the world and it seems that the Swiss are failing the rule and even fail at having 1.3 million children living in poverty in such a rich country... totally astounding I must say...
Just for the records.. because even here DV is becoming a little bit more pushed...
The other thing I noticed and is not Bettina's focus really but the Advertisements show mostly females now.. some might cry 'fantastic' but I wonder if all these women wonder how used they really are..... to sell consumer products...
In Australia the disparity from Early Learning, Primary and Secondary Schools is even worse and it is now possible for a student to go from Pre-school to University without ever having had a male teacher.
I wonder what the outcome will be in twenty years!
I notice the following more and more in life: right hand screams 'X' while the left hand does 'X'...
Second wave feminism and incel; almost identical movements. Reject the family and your place in it, do not reproduce, only look after yourself.
If I knew what was coming in the next 20 years, I'd probably get myself committed to a psych ward claiming a "Cassandra" complex
ha ha.. it sure is a worry.. mmmm
As a mother of two sons, an anti-feminist and a history scholar, it's not 'feminism''- it's left wing, socialist feminism that is the problem, and Arndt and Fiamenco only fuel the flames of division.
Read https://fairerdisputations.org/ or anything by Erika Bachiochi
https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268200824/the-rights-of-women/; or
https://www.louiseperry.co.uk/
https://www.maryharrington.co.uk/
Or if you want old school; even Camille Paglia.
Nobody is saying what Arndt and Fiamenco claim that all women are saying.
Frankly, read the bloody Female Eunich!!! It's on my bookshelf, and I read it recently. It doesn't say anything like what people think it says. It's got a picture of a skinsuit female on the cover. She doesn't believe in Simone dB but was the sexy face of the Women's Lib movement who refused to be part of the socialist 'feminists'. But even Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon, Shulamith Firestone, they were all warning at the time that the women's movement was bound to be co-opted by men to blame women for taking away women's rights.
There's a 2 hour redscare podcast done last month. Listen. Not by a massive feminst, by a flawed person who leaves stuff like this on the internet:
https://x.com/PerryALPHA/status/1914749737191821325
https://redscarepodcast.libsyn.com/dwork-more-correct