Applying Feminism to Third World Countries Is Problematic

You have said a lot in this small article Pelle.Good thinking for sure.

But in reality, feminism gets alot of money through funding. This means women (non feminists) can put forward a project in a third world country. When it comes to third world countries women are not very much into the ‘me, me, me’ attitude of the west because they don’t have the luxuries. So they go for community projects like sewage systems and fresh water, health and education for all. You’d be surprised how far third world countries are behind the west.

I think that Christian’s travelled to these countries as missionaries and did a lot of good for the people while teaching their religion. In the same way feminist power travels to these countries and does a lot of good things for the people while teaching their ideology.

We think everything is just for women and we hear all the complaints for women but we don’t hear how men and children receive the same benefits overall. For instance, when health centres are opened with feminist money, men’s health also does well in third world countries. It really depends on what the women put forward for projects needing funding. Women centres for parents do include fathers. It was jut funded through feminist outlets.

It isn’t right for feminism to have the power to brainwash everyone to follow their ideology but the world isn’t kind and most people who work in third world countries don’t care how they get the funding to progress, they just want to progress and care for their people.

I think we need to ask ourselves whether we are willing to use something that is not perfect for the greater good. And if we are, maybe, we can think of a way to counter the bad parts of the not so perfect thing.

Pelle,

A cogent and concise summation of why both men and women in more “backward” countries should resist Western feminism with all their might. Why allow your society to be infected with a pathogen that has proved to engender only hostility and mistrust between the sexes, all while expressly seeking the destruction of the traditional family structure?

Men in those societies will be told not to worry, that feminism will eventually lead the way to a better life for men as well as women, so they should remain quiet, and be patient. But we men in the West, still waiting, and suffering, after 40 years (and still mostly quiet), know this is a lie. The folks in those emerging societies may be “backward,” but they are far from stupid, and they can see what has been happening to men and their families under the iron boot-heel of feminism in the West.

Julie makes some very thoughtful comments and concludes by saying, “I think we need to ask ourselves whether we are willing to use something that is not perfect for the greater good. And if we are, maybe, we can think of a way to counter the bad parts of the not so perfect thing.”

My response? How DARE we consider using those vulnerable societies as experimental laboratories when the West has itself been so UNsuccessful in countering the bad parts of feminism — which continue to wreak havoc with our family structure, and indeed with our entire social fabric. It is utter nonsense to think that there are no other ideologies or practices besides feminism which are capable of bringing improvement to an emerging society. The basic Judeo-Christian-Greek democratic principles that allowed the West to flourish had nothing to do with “feminism” — thank God! In fact, it is hard to see how feminism (or Gender Marxism, as it has been actually implemented in the West) could possibly play any postive role in facilitating a traditional society’s detente and engagement with the more “modern” world. (Maybe they’ll decide not everything “modern” is all that great!)

Feminism is born of the arrogance of a too-rich society — and less-rich people are certainly capable of perceiving this.

Feminism will be a disaster for poorer countries – in much the same way that, in the west, it is our poorer communities that have suffered the most from feminism.

Indeed, only rich people can ‘afford’ feminism without suffering too much from it.

One big mistake, however, is to assume that the powers-that-be are foisting feminism on to poorer countries in order to benefit the populations therein.

Not so.

They are doing this in order to benefit themselves.

Julie said: “For instance, when health centres are opened with feminist money, men’s health also does well in third world countries.”

Why should anyone believe this? Look at the US- women’s health centers all over, federal, state, local offices for women’s health, NOTHING for men. Huge resources for breast cancer, NOTHING for prostate cancer. Flu shots- plenty for nurses, teachers, and other women, none for me! DV racket- same thing. NOTHING for men who are victims. Wherever and whenever women are in power, men suffer.

We don’t hear about how men receive the benefits because men DON’T receive the benefits. Women in 3rd world countries initiate large infrstructure projects?! Sure they do, just like they do here. Women open nail salons and Pilates studios- not municipal water systems.

this was an interesting read.

feminists helping men? creating infrastructure?
i got a good laugh out of that one.
keep it up. i love sci-fi.

Jay R, …

Excellent comment. IMHO.

***Men in those societies will be told not to worry, that feminism will eventually lead the way to a better life for men as well as women, so they should remain quiet, and be patient. But we men in the West, still waiting, and suffering, after 40 years (and still mostly quiet), know this is a lie.***

And this is why you and every other man taking the time to speak up on the net and off is wonderful for doing so. What you say is read all over the world.

***My response? How DARE we consider using those vulnerable societies as experimental laboratories when the West has itself been so UNsuccessful in countering the bad parts of feminism — which continue to wreak havoc with our family structure, and indeed with our entire social fabric.***

This sounds like you are thinking in the present. Feminism is already in the third world countries.

***Feminism is born of the arrogance of a too-rich society — and less-rich people are certainly capable of perceiving this.***

I think it is too late now but I have noticed a move to counteract it’s power so it doesn’t completely take over.

BTW, thank-you for saying I made some very thoughtful comments.

Lie Detector,

“Why should anyone believe this? Look at the US- women’s health centers all over, federal, state, local offices for women’s health, NOTHING for men. Huge resources for breast cancer, NOTHING for prostate cancer.”**

There was a Wall Street man who donated US$40,000,000 to prostate cancer a few years ago and that is what got the US government involved. Now it is a matter of lobby and using research to prove to governments around the world that the medical treatment available actually works. BTW, I hope you get involved with Movember and seek sponsorship while you grow your moustache for the cause.

As for the centres. Well, I am not sure what American men are like but men in NZ don’t like going to the doctor very often so we are targeting the wives and daughters to push them to use them more often. We even have weeks in the year where men don’t have to pay any money to see a doctor and we have a bus that travels around the country giving free health checks to men in all sorts of areas, even on work sites and at shopping centres and railway stations. We also have campaigns using Rugby players to encourage men to reach out for mental health problems. This is not as cut and dry as one might think yet I believe the younger generation of men will care more for themselves and consider themselves less disposable.

***We don’t hear about how men receive the benefits because men DON’T receive the benefits. ***

It is a real shame there is nothing for men as a collective to help men in third world countries because feminists want complete power and control. IMO

They don’t even want cultures to be recognised as oppressed groups in their own right because they don’t want them to be empowered away from feminist ideology. I suppose it is as the saying goes, “Whoever holds the money, holds the power”.

So far, women’s international groups do the research on men under gender research on topics including poverty, health, marriage, education and work. If in fact, helping men has a spin off effect to help women and children, women’s funding will fund it.

Hey, they even consider men not marrying an issue. lol The below site might give some new information. (if you are interested)

http://tinyurl.com/yg5u6m8

***”Women in 3rd world countries initiate large infrstructure projects?! “***

Absolutely they do and they have been doing it ever since women got organised on a global level. How can women have businesses and good health and maternity care if they don’t have the basics? It is very likely the men in the communities would do the labour work and designs and it may be that women just apply for the funding.

Always the great ‘copycats,’ former colony Philippines has passed several laws shamelessly favoring women, similar to Joe Biden’s Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), using all the same language and definitions as their western counterparts. Its obscene considering most college students are women and unemployment for men is much higher.

With family and cultural expectations, few women use these laws for personal gain…EXCEPT the ones living with foreigners. Most laws like this are ignored or laughed at here, but there’s been a huge increase in the number of expats forced out their own (paid for) homes by “live-in partners” in cahoots with corrupt attorneys and law enforcement.

But thats always been the trouble with liberals, hasn’t it? When passing feel-good legislation, they never take human nature into account, as evidenced by the blowback from many of America’s social programs.

Matriarchy is the natural state. With Patriarchy comes civilization. Patriarchy is what third world countries need, and the lack of it is the very reason they are third world countries. So-called “developing countries” may be patriarchal, but they typicallly lack Capitalism, and so, while advantageous over matriarchies, remain limited, because although a man may have motivation, Socilalist and Communist government caps advancement potential with “redistribution” schemes.

Destroying Patriarchy is to return Matriarchy, an uncivilized state. When a man becomes a father to his own children with a loyal wife, he solves problems for everybody. Western nations have embarked on “empowering” women to have choices, in disregard of fathers and children. Children cannot be born alive today unless that is the mother’s convenience-for-her “choice”. Fathers cannot be fathers unless that is the mother’s “choice”, yet he is still forced to be her provider while we congratulate her for being “independent”, and imprison him if he fails to maintain her “independent” status. When we say “indpendent”, which she is clearly not, what we really mean is self-centered. Women don’t solve problems for men, and when they embark on solving problems for children and society, they tend to go back to promoting the matriarchy, such as Hillary’s village full of idiots. Perhaps someday most women will evolve beyond espousing the matriarchal model, or at least women who have evolved beyond matriarchy can overcome the vast obstacles laid before them to stregthen something other than the matriarchal nanny-state state.

We may delay uncivilization temporarily by forcing men to take responsibility for women’s poor choices, or belittle men when a woman makes a good choice (for her own selfish benefit), but it is the fast track to uncivilization. Unfortunately, it is not fast enough for most to recognize the cause and effect, particularly when PC and government-run education demand silence, misinformation, concealment, and persecution even, on this subject.

Now, the sole remaining virtue of what made America great, Capitalism, is under assault, like a vast horde of starving lions decimating the sole remaining herd of beasts upon which they feed, and need, to survive. We are going backwards in time with reckless abandon, purposely forgetting what got us here in the first place.

[...] Margot Wallström, EU-kommissionens vice ordförande, skriver i Sydsvenskan om att kvinnorna behövs i klimatkampen och att kvinnor kommer att drabbas hårdare än männen av klimatförändringarna. Detta fastslår hon utfrån att endast göra en konsekvensbeskrivning för kvinnor, och genom att säga att kvinnornas röst måste med i beslutsfattandet. Mycket av det hon säger stämmer säkert, men samtidigt undrar jag varför hon avstår från att göra en konsekvensbeskrivning över männens situation. Är inte männen värda samma uppmärksamhet? Och att kvinnornas röst ignoreras motsägs av det faktum att det blir allt större fokus på kvinnorna när det handlar om situationen i tredje världen. [...]

DCFather,

While I do agree with the meat of your comment, and find myself typically in agreement with your stances overall…you’ve missed something in your definition of Patriarchy.

There never WAS a patriarchy. That is more nonsense contributed by the feminists and such. Men still served women in the past, in the ‘old-school’ as it were. The main difference was that in that time, men’s rights were primarily both protected and respected. A good father was a pillar of the community, and it was incredibly difficult for anyone to take that away from him. He exchanged his hard work, money, and yes sometimes even death….to provide for a woman who would give him love, obedience, a family and a home. This was considered to be a relatively fair arrangement and division of labors.

What has happened here is that the old Matriarchy has been attacked by the new Gynarchy where women do not expect to meet any of those obligations that were placed on them in the past, and yet receive all those benefits that were offered prior. Note the difference in the use of the terms. The Matriarchy of the past was when mothers were treated as goddesses and protected. The new Gynarchy expects all those benefits with or without being a good woman and/or mother.

Men still bleed and die in wars to protect women. Men still die in vast numbers working in hard and dangerous jobs to keep society running and the lights still turned on. 93-94% of workplace deaths are men, and even though there are much larger numbers of women in our military they still account for less than 5% of soldier deaths.

The difference now is that those protections and respects which used to be in place for men have been systematically stripped away, and the complementarity that used to be there has been shattered.

There was a relative understanding before between men and women, and it worked as it had for a very long time. Now there is a new breed of ‘understanding’ and men are beginning to wake up and realize we are getting an extremely short end of the stick.

Currently there is frantic drive to support women in developing countries. Just like environmentalism and green movement, it is everywhere.

This strong feminist push in my view comes from some reasons.

First, there is western feminists’ fantasizing of building a feminist utopia in a developing world, a world which has not yet experienced an modernization or even industrial evolution and thus has not been tainted by patriarchal gender system that accompanies the modernization and industrial revolution, according to feminist theory. Western feminists who find it quite difficult to break into and eventually dominate the already developed social and economic institutions in the developed world would find it much easier to do so in developing States, where such institutions are weak or non-existent. For example, if your goal is to increase the number of female politicians by whatever means necessary (after all, it’s supposed to be good), it’s much easier to march into a post-conflict country, and amidst all the chaos and confusions, furtively impose a gender quota on national parliament, than to support women candidates in elections and campaign district by district in western developed states. This is why countries like Rwanda have THE highest ratio of women in parliament – higher that US or even Sweden (Rwanda is surely a feminist heaven – I suggest feminists whiners to move to Rwanda if they feel their daily lives are so miserable just because they don’t see many women politicians in US).

There is also a hint of racism or colonial mentality in western feminists’ promotion of feminism in the third world. Just like feminists’ great-great grandfather (or great-great grandmother’s husbands, if we were to take women-centric worldview) did in the 18 th and the 19 th centuries, today’s western feminists tend to think westerners (this time women!) would be in a better position to think what’s best for the people (especially the kinder, gentler half of it) in the Third World and benevolently (or so they think) provide assistance to realize their plan. According to feminists, those poor women in developing countries were so uninformed to realize that women’s real place is in workplace, and family is not a bedrock of society but a place of oppression for women.

Of course, all these efforts to build feminist utopia in the third world is going to do no good.

For one thing, micro-financing to women is not going to lift the country out of poverty, contrary to what well-meaning western intellectuals want you to believe. Bunch of women selling gums, soaps and other household items with the money borrowed from microfinance scheme organized by western feminists is NOT going to pave a way for country’s rapid economic development. While feminists’ strong wishes that women become, for the first time in human’s history, a driving force for strong economic development is understandable (after all, they are feminists!), wishes alone do not make people richer.

No country in the history of the world has had strong economic development by relying on women’s power. It has always been, and by always I mean without a single exception, men’s ingenuity and hard work that drove economic development. This is probably why Bangladesh, now a world center of microfinance, is still stuck near the bottom of economic development and GDP per capita in the world, whereas China, a country not especially known for being nice to women, is poised to become the second largest economy in the world next year, in a matter of just a few decades after adopting a de-facto capitalist economy.

To DC,

***”When a man becomes a father to his own children with a loyal wife, he solves problems for everybody.”***

Can you please explain to me how this works? How much do men who have children and a loyal wife give to third world countries? History shows a whole different story.

@samhaine #11:

Point it out if I missed it, but I don’t see where I defined Patriarchy. Sounds like your definition is similar at least to mine. Patriarchy, as defined by feminists, may well never have existed. I would define Patriarchy as the traditional family, with the father having both authority and responsibility, to a loyal wife and his own children, without undue interference from government.

Today we have a lot of her authority, his responsibility, children who are hers, but not his, while he supports an ex-wife who gives nothing but problems for him in return, especially problems in remaining a father to children who actually are his, while she claims to be a victim because she doesn’t get enough in return for giving nothing.

Matriarchy is when women are loyal to no man, nobody knows who is the father of which child, but women are responsible for the children or they die. Everybody, even Hillary, knows that matriarchy is a complete failure. So we force men, not necessarily fathers, to support the destruction of their own family, and hold women doing whatever they want while children and fathers face the consequences as our virtue. Men need to be uninformed or delusional for this model to succeed for very long.

@ Julie:

***”When a man becomes a father to his own children with a loyal wife, he solves problems for everybody.”***

***”Can you please explain to me how this works? How much do men who have children and a loyal wife give to third world countries? History shows a whole different story.”***

Sure. By “everybody”, I am referring to himself, his wife, and his children, i.e. his family, maybe his neighborhood somewhat too, and, if it is commonplace, not just an exception, his/their society. Third world countries need to follow the model themselves, not rely on others.

Surely you don’t expect one family man to provide for the entire world, although, in an effort to benefit his family, under Capitalism, he might invent something, a cure for a disease for example, that benefits the entire world. If he must not only invent the vaccine, but manufacture and ship it worlwide, vaccinate the global population, feed them, clothe them, house them, and accept all liability for any grievance they have with him or anybody else about anything, all for him to be considered as solving problems for everybody, and therefore worthy of retaining his fundamental rights as a father, well then it’s no wonder the family is being destroyed by big government con-artists who manipulate people into believing that is what they can do if only they concede their liberty.

Realistically, he might donate to a charity that helps a poor child living in a third world matriarchy, and solve one problem for one such unfortunate child. The point is, under the traditional family, everybody benefits, but the traditional family must be the rule, not the exception, for it to benefit that particular society at large. With the family strong, we have very little need for government, which explains why those who favor government control over everything in your life attack the traditional family any way they can.

Please clarify your question if I misunderstood your question.

The feminists that are trying to “prescribe” feminism to under-developed countries are in reality doing no such thing.

If they were to pull the usual feminist routines in this country (or other western countries) their rhetoric would be meaningless.

No woman in any western country can claim that she has been oppressed by society anymore. The grim fact is, they have been placed on pedestals by such societies.

The feminists, and feminist web-sites are now all primarily focused on obscure lawless third world countries.

Why?

Screaming opression would be a total joke coming from them – AND:

If they focused on their own countries, they would be forced to deal with the messes they have made.

Um, Julie…..please give me the name of one, JUST ONE, American company that pays women less then men for the same job, same senority, same hours worked….that hasn’t been sued and corrected.

I’ve had a lot of different jobs in my life and they ALL had one thing in common. Women got out of the heavy lifting, dirty, undesirable parts. They were “covered for” by the boss or chivalrous co-workers more often then her male counterparts when there was problems at home. Their mistakes and/or bad behavior was often overlooked. And they came to work with a warm confidence (or should have) that they were members of a protected victim class. STFU.

DcFather # 14,

Thank-you for your comment back to me. I knew I asked the question but I couldn’t remember the article it was on.

Anyways, I can see where you are coming from and I do agree with you.

Mike S. # 16

I don’t know what you are on about.

*** STFU ****

*sigh*

Dear Author,

Well of course Feminism is not applicable to third world countries. Were you referring to “Western Feminism”? Just to be clear because there are many.
Perhaps if you maybe did some of your own research before asserting such “ground-breaking” statements, you would have found that many women from a variety of ethnic backgrounds across the world have created feminisms to meet their own needs. It is quite a substantial literature pool.
African women, African American women, Arab women have made attempts to reach out to their own communities and made changes. Not all women, but literature has been written about their political involvement within their own cultural contexts.

How can you argue that the third world doesn’t need feminism when there are still countries in the world where women can’t vote, can’t receive the same education as men, aren’t allowed to drive and are forced to be covered from head to toe. It’s easy for you to say how negative feminism has been as a man, and it’s not at all surprising when you’re finally faced with the threat of being beaten by women in the public sphere that men have been dominating for so long, not because of their better intellectual abilities, but because of their ability to convince women that their ability to give birth means they must be the one to stay at home. Glad to see you feel so threatened by us.