Swedish Feminist Ministers Want Companies to be More Female or Suffer Consequences.

In the same spirit of the recent U.N. declaration that women need more privileges and special treatment than men, Sweden is on the verge of punishing firms that do not make their boards more female with at least 40% of women in the staff. They even threatened these firms with dissolution, which after he back pedaled from in Twitter. The Local reports:

"The warning comes off the back of a government plan to introduce a quota law to ensure companies have a greater representation of women on their boards.Gender Equality Minister, Asa Regnér, told Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet earlier this year that she believed a gender balance bill could be introduced by 2017. 

But she did not mention what the sanctions would be for failing to comply with any new quota. 

On Friday, Justice and Migration Minister Morgan Johansson told Swedish Radio that there could be a number of punitive measures to ensure companies take the legislation seriously. 

'The company could be dissolved or fined heavily,” Johansson said. He suggested that any penalty payment could be related to the company’s size.

“The company could be dissolved or fined heavily,” Johansson said. He suggested that any penalty payment could be related to the company’s size. 

Johansson went on to say: "I think that every party that wants to call itself feminist must also be involved to tear away this glass ceiling [on female advancement in the workplace] - otherwise it will be just empty words."

           But he later retracted his comments that companies might be wound up.

"Hold your horses,' he wrote in English on Twitter. 

'Before you run the campaign too far I want to clarify that I am not currently proposing the dissolution of companies,' he said."

 However he wrote that a "substantial penalty" could be imposed on firms that failed to demonstrate greater gender balance.

This is his post in Twitter where he back pedals from the claim of dissolution, but still affirms that companies could face penalties.

The U.N. Wants to Impose Feminist Draconian Policies to Promote "More Equality".

The U.N. now wants to implement world wide draconian policies because having equality for women, doesn't mean having equality for women, in their Orwellian style rhetoric. They now claim women need " different treatment" than men; which means give women preferential treatment to achieve more equality...This is where faith in humanity dies once again, and here's Time Magazine reporting on it:

"Equal opportunity is not enough to ensure gender equality, according to a groundbreaking new report from U.N. Women. Instead, governments must commit to social policies that treat women differently in order to help them achieve economic parity with men.'We must go beyond creating equal opportunities to ensure equal outcomes,” the report says. “‘Different treatment’ may be required to achieve real equality in practice.” This report, called Progress of the World’s Women 2015–2016, is one of the first major international reports to acknowledge that legal equality for women does not translate into actual equality, and that governments must make substantial social-policy changes that enable the redistribution of domestic duties in order for women to play a truly equal role in society.'
It’s the global version of what Sheryl Sandberg has been saying all along with Lean In — women will never be equal unless workplace policies adjust to fit their needs, and men need to step up to help at home...
...Removing legal barriers to female employment is not enough, the report says, noting that “we also need measures that free up women’s time.”

The U.N wants governments to basically dictate how home chores are divided, and eliminate more of our rights in the name of feminism, and women's time are more important than men's. This is social Marxism by the U.N. once again with its ideological wife Feminism walking hand in hand on this.

The Historical Revisionism by Feminist Academia on Female Achievement.

      One of the most repeated claims from feminist academics is that along with women being subjected to men, they had no rights, including property rights, and that the inventions or discoveries made by women are hijacked by the patriarchy. Yet when these claims are further investigated, not only do we find women were filing for most of the divorces, had inheritance and property rights, but also had thousands of patents given to them. For example, the University of Indiana claims that before 1936, only 20 women were given patents in the U.S.:

"Before a fire destroyed the U.S. Patent Office in 1936, only about 20 of the nearly 10,000 patents had been granted to women."

Yet when we look beyond the number of women in old magazines and newspapers of the times, such as "Scientific American: Supplement, Volume 47", we find that not only only more than 20, but thousands of women were awarded patents and credited with the most important inventions of day-to-day basis uses. And whatever invention that held a man's name that was based on a woman's idea, had so with the full consent of the woman.

                             

So how can feminists claim this supposed lack of considerable female contribution due to systemic patriarchal oppression through restrictions? 

Women back then not only were inventing, but also being leaders of businesses and employers themselves, influencing by being pioneers in introducing new products and methods as we read in "Westering Women and the Frontier Experience, 1800-1915 By Sandra L. Myres".

     According to the same survey " R.G Dun & Company", illustrates the financial and influential power women had since back then by buying out other businesses and making them flourish. This information can be found in the book, "Capital Intentions: Female Proprietors in San Francisco, 1850-1920 By Edith Sparks":

      It is clear by the astounding evidence that women were powerhouses in their own merit as business and invention pioneers without the help of feminism under the so-called patriarchy, yet we are told by mainstream feminists that women back then were nothing but chattel for their husbands and male family members; that they were helpless victims who according to Susan B. Anthony, were just as oppressed as black slaves lacking even basic rights.

Ask yourselves this question, who is profiteering from making women damsels in distress with paranoid/schizophrenic tendencies for their unsolicited fear of men?

Women Most Unhappy for the Last 40 Years Despite Women's Liberation.

Women were told ad nauseam that they would find happiness and fulfillment outside the home and traditional marriages by the feminist movement during the 60's and 70's. The home and traditional marriage, as these feminists preached, were the centers of oppression for women and were to blame for women's physical and emotional detriment. Here we are in the 21st century, and women report less satisfaction as they did 40 years ago despite out competing men in education and work:

"Women are less happy nowadays despite 40 years of feminism, a new study claims.
Despite having more opportunities than ever before, they have a lower sense of well-being and life satisfaction, it found.

The study, The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, said the same was true for women of different ages and whether or not they were married or had children.
It said the results appeared surprising given that modern women had been liberated from their traditional 1950s role of housewife.

Instead, their earning power has soared, women are doing better than men in education and they are in control of decisions over whether to start a family.
The findings were released as Sir Stuart Rose, chairman of Marks & Spencer, claimed that women 'have never had it so good'.

Insisting neither gender nor motherhood is now a barrier to career to success, he said: 'You've got real democracy and there really are no glass ceilings, despite the fact that some of you moan about it all the time.

High-flyer: Sir Stuart Rose, chief executive of Marks & Spencer, says many women are breaking through the glass ceiling 

'Women can get to the top of any single job that they want to in the UK. 'You've got a woman fighter pilot who went on to join the Red Arrows.. Women astronauts. Women miners. Women dentists. Women doctors. Women managing directors. What is it you haven't got?'

Sir Stuart's comments in The Observer were contradicted by Dr Katherine Rake of The Fawcett Society, which campaigns for gender equality.
She said there was still 'no flexibility' for women at high levels of business.

'Women tend to have greater commitments at home and so need flexible working arrangements,' she said. 

'While some organisations are prepared to enable this at less senior levels, many will not at the top.
'Second, there is no change at the top. Because the top of organisations are generally white and male, they stay white and male.'

The study by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found that while post-war era happiness surveys found women were noticeable happier than men, the difference had eroded to 'zero'.

Its authors, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the University of Pennsylvania, found that in the U.S., women's happiness had fallen 'both absolutely and relatively to that of men'. 

In Europe, they found people's sense of happiness has risen slightly, but less so for women than for men.
In 12 European countries, including Britain, the happiness of women has fallen relative to that of men."

Gotta love when a feminists' retort is nothing but ad hominem coupled with extreme self entitlement, as if women in positions of power should be awarded because vagina, but are also supposedly not in such positions because...vagina...
Notice how she expects businesses to hire based on charity and gender quotas, rather than achievement and experience.
A follow up article after such findings, holds feminists accountable for women's misery, and also places blame on women overall for allowing feminism to be the mouthpiece for their gender, and also calls out the fact that it were MEN who gave feminists the so-called rights they apparently lacked: 

"You've got what you want, girls, stop whining: Has feminism made women unhappy? (well THIS certainly will) "

"One of these days, women really ought to make up their minds about what it is exactly they want. Then they could do us all a big favour by stating, unequivocally, what they have decided it is they want. And then they could cover themselves with glory by sticking to what they say.

In other words, it's about time women - especially their self-appointed mouthpieces - started behaving like fully grown-up adults and citizens. Or is that asking too much? Apparently, it is.

A survey published this week tells us that women today are far from happy with their lot and wish they could live more like their mothers and grandmothers - not having to work so much and free to spend more time with their children.

The survey, The Paradox Of Declining Female Happiness, reports that women of all ages and income are less happy than women of 40 years ago and less happy than today's men.
Despite sexual and marital liberation, massively increased career opportunities and earning power, educational privileges and the wholesale demolition of the inhibiting conventions that restricted the lives of women in the past, today's women report themselves as feeling a low sense 'of life satisfaction and well-being'.

Well, men might be entitled to retort, welcome to the real world, sweethearts.
What you are complaining about is the very same life that you promoted and celebrated when you were swanking around chanting 'sisters are doing it for themselves'

One woman commentator perfectly expressed the problem illustrated by this report, explaining: 'It's almost as if, in some ways, we got it all and then found out it wasn't quite exactly what we wanted.'

This is exactly what I have been predicting - against a torrent of vilification and derision from feminists - for more than 20 years.

My book, No More Sex War: The Failures Of Feminism, was not only the first radical, egalitarian, progressive critique of the ideology of feminism (the last and most durable of the 20th century's false secular faiths, like the Marxism from which it drew its cardinal tenets).

The book also analysed in detail the intolerable consequences that were bound to result for women if they were expected both to contribute substantial earnings to family life and, at the same time, be solely or even chiefly responsible for child-care.

It has been obvious to me for some 25 years that social and political equality for women (which I wholeheartedly and unreservedly welcome) could not work unless men became equal as parents at home.

The selfish, conceited, man-despising yet predatory 'have-it-all' feminism of the Cosmopolitans was always a recipe for insupportable burdens for women, for intolerable stress, for a self-rebuking, guilt-laden failure to cope and, in the end, for being downright miserable about it all.

The fact is, lady, if you do succeed in having it all, the effort and the burden will probably break your back.

Before we sympathise with this sad plight, however, perhaps we should remind ourselves of the multitude of unprecedented benefits, blessings and advantages that have been showered upon the modern women who are now whingeing about the poverty of their 'life satisfaction'.

They have become the most privileged, the most cosseted and indulged women in the history of humanity. They are the first to live their whole lives without threat of war or plague. They are the first women ever born who could control and regulate their fertility with complete reliability, and they are the first to have the means and the right to choose an abortion if they slipped up or changed their minds about being pregnant.

The selfish, conceited, man-despising yet predatory 'have-it-all' feminism of the Cosmopolitans was always a recipe for insupportable burdens for women.

They are the first to be free of any constraints in dress or manners, and the first for whom no limit exists to the heights to which they can aspire in any pursuit - be it politics, public service, commerce, the professions, the arts and sport.

You would never think it if you listened to feminists, but the truth is that every one of those benefits has been advanced and secured for women by men.
Motivated by conscience and a desire for justice and equality, it was primarily men who revolutionised the position of women.

I can see your jaw dropping at this peculiar idea, but if you don't believe it, ask yourself these questions: how many women MPs were sitting on the benches of the House Of Commons when, by a majority of two-to-one, Parliament passed the Bill in 1918 which extended the franchise to women? Answer: not one.

Who was responsible for the Abortion Act of 1967 and the Divorce Reform Act of 1969? Men. Who brought into law the Equal Opportunities Act and the Sex Discrimination Act? Men.

Yet women of our time have lived all their lives with an unquestioning belief that they are members of an oppressed class of victims who have had to struggle heroically for liberation against a society cruelly organised by men for the benefit of men ('Women are the n*****s of the world,' as that irredeemable twit Yoko One once declared).

This is the unpardonable fault of feminism. Of all the disservices to our age fostered by that pernicious and poisonous ideology, none has been more ruinous than this preposterous lie - that men keep women down in order to preserve their own powers.
The manifest truth of the past 200 years is that men wanted change for women as much as they wanted it for themselves.

It is because we all go along with that feminist fiction that we cannot even begin to recognise the inequalities and the disadvantages of men in family life. It simply doesn't register on our barometer of injustice that unmarried men still have no automatic rights in law as parents.

Similarly, because we suppose that all gender injustice and inequality is to be found in the position of women, we don't take any notice of the inequalities of men in divorce.
In survey after survey, men report that they resent the demands of work and that they wish they could have more time with their growing children.

Yet the law continues to discriminate against fathers in the provision of time away from work to care for children.

We don't even count it as an intolerable injustice and inequality that men are still required to work five years longer than women before they become eligible for a state pension (it is entirely typical of feminists' capacity to pervert the truth that Germaine Greer once described that inequality as an advantage for men)."

If that wasn't enough to clearly demonstrate how feminists have a large share of responsibility for women's plight, here's a statistical study done in the U.K, showing how working mothers found more fulfillment in life, after abandoning their careers in order to take care of their families and homes. A lawyer who represents a women's group, also exposes how feminist white knight like Prime Minister David Cameron, are creating more feminist approved policies to the further detriment of women. Here's what The Telegraph reports on these findings:

"Mothers who have put their career aside to care for their children have a stronger sense that their lives are “worthwhile” than the rest of society, official figures suggest.

New findings from the UK’s national “well-being” index show that those classed as economically inactive because they are caring for a family or home are also among the happiest people in Britain. The figures, published by the Office for National Statistics, also show that people across the UK have got progressively happier, less anxious and more satisfied with their lives in the past year.

The average rating for life satisfaction across the UK was 7.5 out of 10 – up 0.06 points on last year while the typical rating for feeling worthwhile also edged upwards to 7.7.Average scores for how happy people felt the previous day also rose steadily to 7.4 while anxiety ratings fell to 2.9 on average.

The ONS also analysed the findings on the basis of personal characteristics such as people’s marital status, health, or employment situation.When the results are broken down by work status pensioners emerged as the happiest overall, with a rating of 7.73 out of 10, but students and stay-at-home mothers or carers also scored noticeably higher than average.

But when responses to the question on how “worthwhile” people consider what they do in life to be were analysed, those looking after home or family emerged well ahead of other groups, scoring 8.03 out of 10 on average.

Overall 83 per cent of full-time parents and carers rated their sense of worth as high or very high. Laura Perrin, a barrister turned full-time mother who campaigns from the group Mothers At Home Matter said the figures showed that government policies designed to encourage more parents to work full time could be doing more harm than good."

Now, here's an addendum for women, If most women were anti-feminists as facts show back in the days of women's lib, how come those generations of women allowed feminists to destroy countless lives of families, which includes a more healthier lifestyle that women had? That is the paradox men have to live with everyday once we wake up to the truth about feminism and gender relationships. Not only men and children had their lives destroyed and livelihoods decreased, women also suffer massive disadvantages in our current feminist society. When will women truthfully stand against organized feminism, to the point of marching and protesting their hold on weak-kneed politicians, or just those who are hell-bent on assisting feminism to destroy society?

Fathers Are Discriminated Against by Society and Medicine.

One would think that men, who supposedly had all the power back in the 1800's and early 1900's, would have no opposition to their rights as fathers to be present in the birth room with their wives, but as one takes interest to find out how things really were back then, he would eventually find that expecting fathers were easily dismissed by hospitals and their policies. Here's a young husband who chained himself to his wife in a hospital to prevent from being removed from watching his child's birth and supporting his wife in her hour of need. In here, in this 1960 article from the Lewiston Morning Tribune September 26. It clearly states that only a few hospitals allowed fathers to have access to their wives and children in maternity wards. Also stated on the paper that psychologists suggested a father who wanted to be present, were better fathers, but the biased hospitals suggested that only psychopaths would want to see women in labor pain. Seems like projection considering doctors tied women down in hospitals and left them for days even.

Some doctors were advocating for father's rights to be in the rooms because it was beneficial according to doctors. We can read how mothers also wanted their husbands in the birthing rooms with them, and Dr. Carl Goetch from Berkeley, also stated that wives can derive strength from the support from their husbands, to the point of requiring medication, makes couples bond more and doctors have a better condition practicing their skills.

Despite couples receiving support from society and practitioners, some other states still discriminating against fathers in the maternity wards, causing some couples to travel in order for fathers to experience their children's births; As it is the with the case of Ken Conner and his wife Iva Conner, who after losing a court battle in Florida to have Ken permitted in the birth room, had to travel 3.000 miles to California, where the previous paper Reading Eagle showed us how fathers were winning their rights in previous years. We can see how the judge didn't even allow the couple to testify.

Source:http://www.scribd.com/doc/234781018/Fathers-Banned-From-Delivery-Rooms-Full

In the book called Make Room for Daddy: The Journey from the Waiting Room to Birthing Room, it tells us how fathers were only allowed in "Husbands' waiting rooms", where men who were impatiently waiting on news on their wives and children co-miserated together and were treated as buffoons by hospitals for doing so. 

This view of fathers being ostracized from participating in their wives' deliveries, depends on the society. Ancient societies, husbands would assist their wives in child birth; they would press on her contracting womb to assist the women on pushing out the child, tying the umbilical cord and biting it off.

Source: The Pre-History of Midwifery. By I. HARVEY FLACK, M.D.

Here's how dismissive advice columns such as Dear Abby to expecting fathers and their lack of rights of participation in the process of childbirth.

Source: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1873&dat=19630402&id=kn0eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MsoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3130,221586&hl=en

A lot of this bigotry and and belittling of fathers is really unwarranted considering men did have participation in the birth of their children in ancient civilizations before midwifery by female family members and friends took over that role, which helped bar men from participating. Even though studies have shown that men can be nurturing and supportive towards their wives -to the point of being considered the most important type of support- health professionals still display indifference or give less attention towards expecting fathers. When fathers suffered from anxiety, wives were also seen to suffer from such; and men also found themselves as less supportive. Better professional help is required in order to help couples in the experience of bringing their child into the world, but sadly, most health professionals only see the father as necessary after birth.

Source:Support Needs of Expectant Mothers and Fathers: A Qualitative Study
 

Child Behavior Becomes Worse When Fathers Suffer Alienation From Mothers.

A study released by the British Psychological Society, suggests that child behavior becomes worse when fathers' authority is diminished through maternal gate-keeping, and fathers have no support from partners. They just found that out? Here's the report from Science Daily:

"Children are more likely to display troublesome behaviour in families in which the father feels unsupported by his partner."
"Mothers and fathers from 106 families completed questionnaires about parenting practices and telephone interviews relating to their relationship quality and co-parenting techniques. All families consisted of both biological parents who were married or living together.Rachel Latham's analyses showed that for fathers, perceptions of poor support from their partner were negatively associated with their children's behaviour. This related to more reported incidents of a child acting defiantly or deliberately breaking toys.
For mothers, feeling unsupported by their partners did not relate to their child's behaviour.
The findings of this study highlight the importance of involving fathers as well as mothers in the study of family and children's wellbeing.
Although the study has only established a link rather than a cause, Rachel suggests that a number of reasons may account for the findings, such as maternal gatekeeping by which the mother limits the father's child rearing input."

So, a study backs up the claim that many fathers have been making about maternal gatekeeping, as causes for parental alienation and lack of influence by the mothers, yet National Organization for Women, the largest feminist organization, says there's no such a thing. The same organization that has single-handedly blocked shared parenting bills, under the false claims that it would lead to more abuse by fathers, fathers should have their rights denied if not handling their responsibilities and that mothers should have custody more of the time. 

Source: http://www.bps.org.uk/news/child-behaviour-worse-when-dads-feel-unsupported

Women Comprise More Than 70% of Aggressors in Non Reciprocal Domestic Violence.

A longitudinal study conducted by Harvard researchers, has revealed that women are responsible for committing 70% of non reciprocal assaults in domestic violence cases:

"Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5)." 

The peer reviewed publication can be found here in the American Public Health Association: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

Screenshot from PUBMED: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

Harvard Article: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/In_Brief_Domestic_violence_Not_always_one_sided