The UN’s War on Gender

Wow!!! This is something that really needs to be understood.

First I'm confused about the dichotomy in the article created between CEDAW, which "calls for the complete elimination of sex roles, and all policies –no matter how effective –recognizing gender differences" and egalitarian Feminism, which support "hard-won and generous maternity rights" and other female only benefits. (We know there are a lot of them via Feminism).

The confusing part is this: According to feminist author Christina Hoff Sommers, if implemented in the United States, CEDAW “would be a weapon for hard-line feminists in groups like NOW to wield against the rest of us.” The Treaty’s egalitarian feminist provisions threaten both the advancement of women and “the privacy, well-being, and basic freedoms of Americans.”

Why would CEDAW contain "egalitarian provisions"? Earlier in the article it was stated the Treaty harshly condemns societies like France for allowing sex roles to persist ("sex roles", referring to Frances extra benefits to women only).

Does CEDAW support egalitarian Feminism or does it not (and actually put an end to female only privileges and policies). Would CEDAW be used for egalitarian Feminism in the US. Is Christina Hoff wrong?

If nobody has the answer I will email the writter, and explain it here.

(Sorry but I don't have time right now to do my own research).

I have the small worry CEDAW is about social engineering in the sense that it expects equal outcomes. 'If more women are working, but working and making less than men in order to be at home with the children, the UN Treaty monitors will demand a “solution."'

However reading this "In a misguided attempt to promote equality, the UN Women’s Treaty calls for the complete elimination of sex roles, and all policies –no matter how effective –recognizing gender differences" I wonder if there talking about sex roles supported/provided by the government as apposed to sex roles that organically (or incidentally) come about. If policies trully do not recognize gender differences they you could not implement gender engineering. In other words you would not target one genders victimization (vawa) or one genders working habits, via quotas, (which would do ALOT of work for the MRM). This analysis would fit with equal opportunity.

An alternative interpretation is that the policies recognize genders but assume there they should be acting the same.

If CEDAW made policies gender neutral that would have HUGE potential for the mrm. Feminists do not want the sexes to be treated equally as they have vilified men and given women a wealth of state power and benefits.

I'm a little confused by it as well. For a college grad I am embarrassed to admit that I don't have a clear understanding of "egalitarian", as the article keeps referring to "egalitarian feminist beliefs". I know it refers to "equal" but I am not sure if it means equal treatment, equal outcome or equal respect. (Maybe it is because I don't have a high school diploma- LOL).

BTW- in the USA we have no gender specific maternity benefits (we have no paid maternity leave). What we have is "family leave" which is available to both genders which allows an employee to take up to 12 weeks off WITHOUT pay with the guarantee that the employee can return to the same position. This "family leave" is what new mothers commonly refer to as "maternity leave". I know many new fathers that have taken "family leave" as well. Would CEDAW change this or keep it the same?

I think the article is shedding light on how contradictory NOW is. On one hand they are supporting France's liberal maternity benefits, and on the other hand they are also supporting the treaty which could take away those benefits. (At least I think that is what the article is saying).

From the UN website here, on CEDAW. Here are some key quotes:

it defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination.

That sounds one sided, and it technically is, but wait.

The Convention defines discrimination against women as "...any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field."

This sounds like it supports (or enforces) gender neutral laws which don't support gender targeted roles (man as villain, mother as more important, woman as struggling 1000 years of oppression, etc.). This would appear to be great news for MRMs overall because policies like VAWA, separate female tax, male only draft, greater spending on women's health and research, women only parental leave or leave with pay, discrimination in family court based on gender, discrimination in sentencing For crime, extra spending on girls in school, quotas for women in the workplace and so on. This appears to be more along the lines of equality via equal opportunity. If I am correct I'd expect most feminists in power to not like this (maybe unless they somehow ratified it) as they mostly support double standards.

There are a few catches I can think of for us. One is that their are much less men in primary schools which is a problem for the students own learning and development and for men's involvement in their own community. If what I said above was correct then CEDAW would prohibit a quota for males teachers in primary schools. It appears to me that you would have to go to the root cause, pedophelia paranoia towards men. Hiring tendencies would have to be addressed if there is discrimination based on gender, firing policies (I expect this would apply), and create an environment which doesn't make men specifically easy prey to suspicions and false accusations.

Another issue is boys poor performance in school and how to address it within CEDAW. I'm not sure but I think it would be fairly easy to prove discrimination is taking place and correcting that problem should be entirely compatible with helping boys in school.

My interpretation might be false hope but I do remember some MRA talking about a law that would give true equality and that feminists didn't want it. I'm thinking maybe this is it.

Here are some things that scare me on the UN CEDAW page. But KEEP IN MIND THIS IS A DESCRIPTION FROM THE PAGE not the actual text of the proposition.

The Convention is the only human rights treaty which affirms the reproductive rights of women and targets culture and tradition as influential forces shaping gender roles and family relations. It affirms women's rights to acquire, change or retain their nationality and the nationality of their children. States parties also agree to take appropriate measures against all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of women.

I have an issue with targeting culture and tradition as it seems to go against freedoms of speach and assembly. I don't like the one sided description or the assumption of women being exploited (but understanding "appropriate measures" is the key). Would poor vulnerable men get the same treatment and support?

I'd be thankful for any help in understanding CEDAW