Labels are telling, quite telling. Especially when people choose strictly positive labels to cover their true aims. The labels say nothing about the aims, but they say a lot about the people, that these people have no qualms with generally deceiving the public.
Example: "Women's Rights." Who, besides misogynists, are truly opposed to women's rights? Every human is born with rights, and it is our job to see that they are not trampled. But what does "Women's Rights," really mean today? It means that grown females should have the full opportunity to plan and execute the murder of their female (or male) unborn infants. The little girl in the womb isn't benefitting much from "Women's rights," is she?
Yes, infanticide is one of the most horrible evils of the millenium (maybe the worst? after all, what did the babies do?) but I want to discuss the deceit involved in calling this "Women's rights."
I can imagine some Southerner in the 1850's promoting "White Rights," such as, the right to own another human being. That is no true right at all, and neither is the "right" to kill another human being. I'm sure if you opposed that Southern KKK forerunner, he'd tell you that you were against white people.
Since I oppose murder of infants, am I opposed to the rights of women? This is what they would have you think, in order to discredit my position before I can even explain it. I really have no tolerance for dishonesty, and I give these murderers and their propaganda no quarter.
Samantha Singson writes:
Last week, a coalition of U.S.-based women’s groups sent a letter to the United Nations to demand that the world body "more powerfully represent women’s empowerment and gender issues" and specifically to ask for a new UN agency dedicated to feminist issues.
In an open letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan on International Women’s Day last month, the coalition of international women’s groups wrote, “We are disappointed and frankly outraged that gender equality and strengthening the women’s machineries within the U.N. system are barely noted, and are not addressed as a central part of the U.N. reform agenda.”
There are already several U.N. bodies which focus on issues affecting women, including the U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues (OSAGI) and the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW).
The women’s groups complain that none of them, with the exception of UNFPA, is a principal agency that could equate to the fully-resourced agencies such as UNICEF, the U.N. Development Program or the U.N. High Commissioner for
Stephen Lewis, U.N. special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa and a former top official of UNICEF, has vociferously called for the creation of a new agency for women. Last month Lewis stressed that an international women’s agency, within the United Nations, was needed to advocate for women the way UNICEF does for children. Many may recall that it was during Mr. Lewis’ stint UNICEF that the Vatican decided to withdraw its annual symbolic donation because of mounting evidence that the agency was promoting abortion.
In a March press release, Mr. Lewis stated, “What we now have in place – whether it’s UNFPA or UNIFEM or the Division for the Advancement of Women – cannot do the job that needs to be done. This is not to disparage their good work; this is only to say that it has to be combined and then enhanced a hundred-fold.”
Not all women's groups are supportive of the new initiative. Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, which is the largest women's public policy group in the United States said, “A UN women’s agency – particularly one created in response to radical feminists – would not advocate for women but for certain ideologies espoused by those in charge. They will claim to represent ‘all women of the world’ as they work for the abolishment of respect for motherhood, the killing of unborn babies, prostitution as a women’s right to economic empowerment, and sex-based quotas that disadvantage women who rely on their husband’s income.”
Discussing religion in the workplace.
Why is it that people are scared to discuss religion? Or try to be as nondescript as possible? I briefly overheard two people talking, and the woman said in response to the man's question: "It's kind of a, Judeo-Christian festival weekend?"
A Judeo-Christian festival weekend???? Sounds like a klezmer Grateful Dead weekend campout!
First of all, if someone doesn't know either that Passover began last night, or today is Good Friday, or Sunday is Easter, well they shouldn't be working here, as they are obviously out of touch with society as a whole!
But why can't the woman say "The Jews celebrate Passover and the Christians celebrate Easter this weekend." Why "a Judeo-Christian festival weekend?" Perhaps if you heard the tone (one of those "I'm telling you what my name is but for some reason I'm unsure of myself and am telling you my name as if I'm asking you a question?" kinds of tones).
Well, I suppose there are bigger things to complain about.