Tuesday, July 6, 2010

The UN Loves Women--No, Really.

You can always tell how much the United Nations likes a subject by how many commissions, committees, discussion groups, confabs, and entities are created to embrace the subject. It wasn't sufficient that they have allowed the repressive regime of Iran on the Commission on the Status of Women. So just in case you didn't think they considered women sufficiently important, the UN is now creating "U N Women."

What is that, you ask? Well, officially it's the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. Now are you convinced of how much the UN cares? It could be worse, I suppose. Unlike the Commission on the Status of Women which is comprised almost entirely of members chosen by geographical area, the "Entity" will have a slightly higher representation based on the percentage of money contributed to the UN. So the United States and Japan will lead the field of states which get seats based on monetary contributions. But they'll still be outnumbered by the states which get seats based solely on geography.

So why create yet another UN group to study the international condition of women? That should probably be obvious from the divergence in representation on the entity. If there's one thing the United Nations does well, it's to suck money out of the pockets of the western democracies. With Iran and other repressive regimes leading the Status Commission, the only way to sucker the West (America particularly) into funding another meaningless and counterproductive activity is to give them extra seats on a newly-created money burning machine.

Previous American administrations have ranged from mildly complicit to openly hostile to the United Nations bodies which claim to be one thing but do quite another. How much do you think the Status Commission will be doing to improve the lot of women in Muslim and sub-Saharan African nations? But this knowledge slows down the influx of money to the UN. And we are now two years into the "we are the world, we are the people" Obama administration. So let's create another whole new body purporting to stand for women's progress and make sure the big bucks nations are well-represented so they can feel better about throwing more money down another UN rathole.

Presently, aside from the Status Commission, there are several small, less grand-sounding UN entities which cover some of the same ground. But as we know, the UN is all about efficiency. So those entities, which currently cost about $500 million annually to accomplish nothing for women will be replaced by a much grander entity that will spend an estimated $1 billion annually to do nothing for women than was previously done for half the price.

One cannot help but wonder how long after the Western suckers have disgorged their capitalist wealth on the new entity will they discover that somehow the entity has come to be dominated by the champions of women's liberation such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Sudan and the johnny-come-lately Afghanistan. I'm still waiting for the creation of a multibillion dollar UN "entity" to study the empowerment of gays, lesbians, transgendered and transsexual folks. I'm sure my old home and original site of the United Nations, San Francisco, will be among the first to commit itself to such a chimerical concept.

10 comments:

Writer X said...

Generally the longer the commission's name, the more expensive it gets. United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women? What a load of absolute crap.

AndrewPrice said...

A lot of the women's stuff is a lot more dangerous than it looks. They created a lot of it to push abortion on the third world, and then discovered to their horror that Muslim countries were taking over the commissions and putting in place policies that prevented the rich world from trying to pass requirements of universal education, anti-white slavery laws, and opposition to genital mutilation.

LawHawkRFD said...

WriterX: We should convert that to a scientific formula. "The importance of a UN entity is in inverse proportion to the length of its title." Corollary: "The cost of a UN entity is in direct proportion to the length of its title."

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: You're absolutely right. How naive can these people be, as well as incapable of seeing five minutes beyond the glory of the great acts they think they've done? Almost every UN agency has been used for multiple purposes other than the one for which it was originally created. Most of my life, it was the communist bloc. Now it's the Muslim bloc. Either way, the whole process ought to be called "perversion of purpose."

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, That's true. Ironically, if they don't fix this soon, then I suspect that it won't be long before the left joins the rest of us in wanting the UN disassembled.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: You may be correct about the left. But first they'll have to get over their "whip me, beat me, make me write bad checks" way of thinking. And they'll have to learn that no matter how much you may try to avoid it, a truly principled stand is always going to offend a substantial number of people. That's why we have a First Amendment, and nobody else does.

StanH said...

Welcome to Barry’s bizarre-o world where left is right, and up is down. Where the head of NASA’s newest mission is to improve relations with Muslim countries…HUH? …the UN with their hive of Muslim goons are in charge of bettering the lives of women…HUH? I read things like this and the hyperbole flies (I’m trying Andrew) I guess that’s better than a profanity laced diatribe, and breaking things?

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: Aha! So you have spies listening in on my profanity-laced diatribes which I am far too delicate ever to put into print. LOL

Andrew (and I) are not at all above some creative hyperbole. And neither of us would deny that occasionally an angry rant is good for the soul. We have both simply become concerned that if every negative thing our opponents and enemies do is "the end of the world as we know it," we'll be unable to separate the bad things from the disastrous things.

Most of what comes out of the left and the UN is death in small doses. We can break the long chain by concentrating on its weakest links. So when it comes to Muslim replacement of the former communist bloc at the UN, a little hyperbole is very much in order. Appeasement wasn't a good idea then, and it hasn't improved as a diplomatic tool with time.

BevfromNYC said...

I wonder how many women are on the UNFEGEATEW (M-O-U-S-E!)?

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Women are only allowed on the Entity so long as they have money in their pockets and scarves over their heads. I nominate Nancy Pelosi for a position on the Entity, since she loves giving away our money and gives in to Muslim custom even when they don't expect her to.

Post a Comment