Tuesday, October 29, 2013
The Feminist Movement's Claim About Women in the Third World Having no Basic Rights is Bogus
In this blog post I will be presenting clear, concrete, documented, evidence refuting the idea that most of the women in third world countries do not have property rights, that women in third world countries cannot travel overseas without a man, that women in third world countries cannot open a bank account without a man, that women in third world countries are not allowed to work, and that women in third world countries do not have constitutional protections against sexual assault. And I will be doing this by linking you to direct documentation from the constitutions of these Third World Countries via the World Bank. I will also be illustrating a clear example of the mainstream media telling a dramatic bold faced lie about the rights women are given in one Third World country in particular.
What inspired me to look into this and indirectly led me to the information was a post on Exposing Feminism's facebook page where they were countering the claim made in a Time Magazine article about how a google search of terms related to women proved that women were all second class citizens across the world and a conversation with a fellow MRA on the phone who was researching the lies the feminists were telling about Brazil. It's amazing what brainstorming can bring up. Here's the fantastic post Exposing Feminism made countering their claim:
And here's the Time Magazine article where they claim women are all second class citizens:
Now if you click on that first hyperlink in that Time Magazine article you will be led to a Discovery Channel webpage which they use as proof of their claim that the men in the third world have all turned women into second class citizens. Well if you go to reason #6 for why women are supposedly all second class citizens in the third world countries they state that women in Chile do not have the right to own property/land:
"6. Restricted Land Ownership
In some countries, such as Chile and Lesotho, women lack the right to own land."
But if you read the comments under that statement by the readers you will notice a person who lives in Chile tells them they're lying:
" .... I'm from Chile... I don't know where you got this information, but when my grandfather passed away my grandmother became the new owner of the house and land. My mum bought a piece of land a few months ago and now is building herself a new house. My step mum's mother owned a dairy farm that she inherited from her dad when he passed away so...."
So me being the curious guy that I am I went and looked up everything I could find on Chile and Lesotho and after a substantial amount of searching I found the World Bank's information on these countries and the constitutional rights of women there and guess what? The Discovery Channel, the UN and Time Magazine were lying through their damned teeth. Women in Chile and Lesotho do have the right to own property and sons and daughters have equal inheritance rights:
The idea that women have no property rights would make no sense whatsoever in countries where historically men have been drafted into the military and left their wives behind. Why would anyone leave a wife on their land when they could die in the war and that property would just be stolen by any man who came by? Does this make any sense? Do you know how destabilized a region would be due to this?
But not only do women in Chile have property rights but their testimony in court constitutionally holds the same value as a man's, they have protection under the constitution from sexual violence, domestic violence, the law mandates maternity leave over there for women and actually the GOVERNMENT pays their maternity leave not the employer! Women are allowed to retire at 60 and receive full retirement pay from the Government but men have to wait until 65 even though the life expectancy for men is only 75 while the life expectancy for women is 82. Take a look for yourself:
India is the other big country the feminists like to demonize as a place where all the men are oppressive monsters and the women have no rights. Well guess what? Women in India have full property rights, sons and daughters have equal inheritance rights, the law mandates paid maternity leave but not paternity leave, a woman can retire and receive full benefits at age 58 from the Government, the women have constitutional protection from domestic violence, sexual violence, emotional abuse, sexual harassment, and a woman's testimony carries the same evidentiary weight in court as a man’s:
But according to MS Magazine which is feminist pioneer Gloria Steinem's publication, India hates women:
"India hates women. That is the ugly, unvarnished truth."
If they hate women why give them all these constitutional rights?
Let's go to Africa since the feminist movement LOVES to claim that men are just slapping women around in the streets there left and right and that they have no rights. Let's look at Rwanda which is a low income country. First of all a whopping 88% of the women are employed people there, women have equal property rights to men, the law mandates paid maternity leave, women can retire at 55 and receive full retirement benefits, women have the right to work the same jobs as men, a woman's testimony carries the same evidentiary weight in court as a man’s, the constitution guarantees equality before the law, women have constitutional protections from domestic violence, sexual violence, emotional abuse and sexual harassment:
Let's look at Nigeria which is another one of the feminist movement's favorite targets to symbolize male oppression. In Nigeria women are provided a non discrimination clause in the constitution, the constitution guarantees equality before the law, women have full property ownership rights, girls have equal inheritance rights, the law provides paid maternity leave BUT NOT paid paternity leave, women can retire and receive full benefits at 50, a woman's testimony carries the same evidentiary weight in court as a man’s, women have constitutional protections from domestic violence, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse
Let's go to Ethiopia. 81% of the women there are employed, they have non-discrimination clauses in the constitution that specifically covers women, women have full business ownership rights, women have full property ownership rights, girls have equal inheritance rights, maternity leave is mandated by the Government BUT NOT paternity leave, a woman can retire and receive full benefits at 60, a woman's testimony carries the same evidentiary weight in court as a man’s, and women have protections from domestic violence, emotional abuse, and sexual harassment:
In Ghana it's the same thing:
Some of these third world countries actually have quotas where the Governments are forced to be a certain percentage of the federal and or local Government:
In Columbia the local Governments have to be at least 30% women:
In Bangladesh the local Governments have to be 21% women and the Federal Government has to be at least 14% women:
In Kenya, a country the feminist organizations love to bash, the Governments are forced to have at least 33% women in both local and Federal Government:
The federal Government in Nepal is forced to be at least 33% women:
In Niger they have to be at least 10% of the federal Government:
In Pakistan they have to be at least 17.5% of the federal Government:
In Rwanda not only do women have to make up at least 30% of both federal and local Governments but they also have to make up at least 30% of all Corporate boards BY LAW:
In Tanzania women have to make up at least 30% of the federal Government:
In Uganda women have to make up 30% of local and Federal Government:
And in Zimbabwe women have to make up 20% of the federal Government:
The idea that women in Third World countries have no basic rights is the feminist movement's most powerful claim in demonizing men collectively and as we can see it's yet another bogus instance of empty rhetoric.