PDA

View Full Version : The U.N. Sent 3 Women To The U.S. To Assess Gender Equality. They Were Horrified



Doktor
29 Aug 16,, 15:43
The human rights experts concluded that the country falls far behind most others.

A delegation of human rights experts from Poland, the United Kingdom and Costa Rica spent 10 days this month touring the United States so they can prepare a report on the nation’s overall treatment of women. The three women, who lead a United Nations working group on discrimination against women, visited Alabama, Texas and Oregon to evaluate a wide range of U.S. policies and attitudes, as well as school, health and prison systems.

The delegates were appalled by the lack of gender equality in America. They found the U.S. to be lagging far behind international human rights standards in a number of areas, including its 23 percent gender pay gap, maternity leave, affordable child care and the treatment of female migrants in detention centers.

The most telling moment of the trip, the women told reporters on Friday, was when they visited an abortion clinic in Alabama and experienced the hostile political climate around women’s reproductive rights.

“We were harassed. There were two vigilante men waiting to insult us,” said Frances Raday, the delegate from the U.K. The men repeatedly shouted, “You’re murdering children!” at them as soon as they neared the clinic, even though Raday said they are clearly past childbearing age.

“It’s a kind of terrorism,” added Eleonora Zielinska, the delegate from Poland. “To us, it was shocking.”

In most European countries, she explained, abortions are performed at general doctors’ offices and hospitals that offer all kinds of other health services, so there aren’t protesters waiting to heckle the women who enter.

The women discovered during their visit that women in the United States have “missing rights” compared to the rest of the world. For instance, the U.S. is one of three countries in the world that does not guarantee women paid maternity leave, according to the U.N. International Labour Organization. The U.N. suggests that countries guarantee at least 14 weeks of paid parental leave. Some countries go further — Iceland requires five months paid leave for each parent, and an additional two months to be shared between them.

“The lack of accommodation in the workplace to women’s pregnancy, birth and post-natal needs is shocking,” Raday said. “Unthinkable in any society, and certainly one of the richest societies in the world.”

Another main area of concern for the delegation is violence against women — particularly gun violence. Women are 11 times more likely to be killed by a gun in the United States than in other high-income countries, and most of those murders are perpetrated by an intimate partner. While the Obama administration has talked a lot about combatting violence against women, its efforts have been frustrated by Congress’ inability to pass new federal gun restrictions.

“Some states have introduced gun control laws regarding domestic violence, refusing to give perpetrators of domestic violence the right to possess firearms,” Raday said. “This should be a national policy, not an isolated state policy.”

While federal law prohibits those convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse from purchasing a gun, it does not require them to surrender the guns they already own. Further, the law does not include domestic abusers who are not married to or co-habitating with their victims, and it does not include people with temporary restraining orders issued against them for domestic violence.



The women’s other recommendations for the U.S. include passing campaign finance reform that would allow more women to be elected into office, because the networks that raise money for political candidates are mostly dominated by men. They also suggested raising the minimum wage, which disproportionately affects women, and passing a federal law to stop the slew of new abortion restrictions in the states that are shutting down women’s health clinics across the South.

“Religious freedom does not justify discrimination against women, nor does it justify depriving women of their rights to the highest standard of health care,” Raday said.

While the delegates were shocked by many things they saw in the U.S., perhaps the biggest surprise of their trip, they said, was learning that women in the country don’t seem to know what they’re missing.

“So many people really believe that U.S. women are way better off with respect to rights than any woman in the world,” Raday said. “They would say, ‘Prove it! What do you mean other people have paid maternity leave?’”

The U.N. experts concluded their trip by meeting with the White House and numerous government agencies, including the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Justice, to lay out their recommendations. They plan to present the full report to the U.N. Human Rights Council in June 2016.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/foreign-women-assess-us-gender-equality_us_566ef77de4b0e292150e92f0


It's really hard to talk to people how USA is great with articles like this. Even if true, why women migrate there and not from there?

citanon
29 Aug 16,, 22:33
The usual UN wankery.

TopHatter
30 Aug 16,, 00:17
It's really hard to talk to people how USA is great with articles like this.

Yeah, we're a regular Saudi Arabia here.


Even if true, why women migrate there and not from there?
Well I might be able to supply an anecdote or two

Whilst talking to my female colleagues in Belgium, I learned something rather startling. Apparently their county is so progressive for women's rights that the glass ceiling is not only alive, well and wide-spread, but it's also totally legal. They have female friends with Master's Degrees and yet can only get work as glorified office clerks.

For the record, the U.S. is chock full of problems. This is clearly one of them and it's no secret.
But as citanon said, the usual UN wankery was apparently necessary to point it out.

Dazed
30 Aug 16,, 01:53
In this oppressive hostile female environment Hillary Clinton is limited to running for leader of the world's only superpower and if she chooses too, wear a burkini.

Great countries have great problems, but the US is still on the lower end in terms of woman on boards. The U.S. is among the bottom 10 countries in the report with just 22%, along with Spain (22%), the UK (20%), Denmark (14%) and Germany (14%).

https://mic.com/articles/84601/the-countries-with-the-highest-number-of-female-executives-are-not-the-ones-you-d-expect#.W1MlYKyOM

In all fairness Denmark has great treatment and benefits for woman, except at the corporate leadership level.

Oracle
30 Aug 16,, 05:22
Every country has problems. But for UN to send people to problematic sites, and then prepare a report about the whole Country is bizarre. UN is past it's sell by date, nobody gives a damn about what it has to say.

Officer of Engineers
30 Aug 16,, 06:05
Three UN skirts, spending nights at $1000 per night hotel suites justifying their $80,000US minimum salaries.

On what planet is affordable child care a right?

YellowFever
30 Aug 16,, 06:56
I wonder how many pairs of shoes they bought while they were here.

Doktor
30 Aug 16,, 11:04
Look where this oppression leads...

http://wildfiretoday.com/2016/08/29/woman-driving-on-tire-rim-causes-multiple-fires/

I miss the emoticons.

Albany Rifles
30 Aug 16,, 14:45
42030

Doktor
30 Aug 16,, 16:04
I wonder how many pairs of shoes they bought while they were here.

Because they are self-realized women who don't need hubbies to buy them shoes?

YellowFever
30 Aug 16,, 16:24
Because they are self-realized women who don't need hubbies to buy them shoes?

You assume they're married??

Look at their brief bios.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Women/WGWomen/Pages/Members.aspx

Feminazis.

Firestorm
30 Aug 16,, 21:36
Ah, the UNHRC.

Saudi Arabia, where bloggers are whipped and people executed for demanding free elections and practicing "witchcraft", is not only a full member of the UNHRC but also heads an important panel which appoints experts who report human rights violations around the world.

Who the hell is going to take these jokers seriously? They are far worse than the other equally useless departments of the UN.

antimony
31 Aug 16,, 00:54
It is instructive to visit the UNHRC website and go through the reports. While countries such as Tunisia and Moroccos have brief entries, the US has a long entry. This leads me to believe that the US is the only place where they were allowed to do proper data gathering is the US. Also, their assessment seems to be what the law says and less of what ground reality is. Abortion is of course a touchy issues, and even as someone on the "freedom" side of the debate, that by itself does not make the US a hellhope, especially compared to the countries on the list. If the assessment of the US is based on expectations from a high income, Western country, then it is a virulently racists one, as if women in other countries deserve less.

The US has a lot of problems for women, but she is answerable to the women citizens for that, not to some hypocritical UN rights body.

Compared to what many here say, I still believe that the UN (especially the Blue Helmets) is a great force of good in the world, and its sad to see all that good work undermined by this sort of stupidity.

Officer of Engineers
31 Aug 16,, 19:32
IWhile countries such as Tunisia and Moroccos have brief entries, the US has a long entry.How many $1000 per day hotels are there in Tunisia and Morocco as compared to the US?

antimony
31 Aug 16,, 20:15
How many $1000 per day hotels are there in Tunisia and Morocco as compared to the US?

That's exactly right.
I believe the following reasoning is better - where in Tunisia or Morocco would they get access as unfettered as they would in the United States? If the did go there, as opposed to internet ("intern"-et) research, they would probably have written more about it.

BTW, $1000 a night hotels? I have stayed in some pretty posh places courtesy my company but even those topped out in the mid to upper hundreds. Even the Waldorf Astoria in NYC (one of the most overpriced destinations of all IMO) is around 700-800. Yes, there are the Trump Towers and Ritz Carltons, but why would UN bureaucrats stay there or at other places only frequented by celebrities or millionaires? The Hiltons, Mariotts, Westins, Hyatts are perfectly acceptable places to stay for most business executives.

Life in the UN must be smooooth...

TopHatter
01 Sep 16,, 02:50
A couple of posts were removed. Please resume normal posting.

Officer of Engineers
01 Sep 16,, 03:52
Life in the UN must be smooooth...Flows from the top. I don't know if it started with Kofi Annan but he sure exploit it to the freaking hilt. He was travelling all over the world from capital to capital "asking" for troops for Rwanda. In the meantime, three Nigerian regiments were waiting for the UNSC go. As corrupt as the Nigerians were, that was more than enough combat power to stop the killing and get back to the business of robbing. In other words, Annan was going on a world tour instead of staying in New York working the UNSC for that go. On the UN's dollar, meaning our dollars.

And you do recall when Indian and Canadian miltiary officers were being shelled by the Israelis in Lebanon? Annan was nowhere to be found until Monday morning after our people were killed. It was a Canadian General at the UN doing the phone calls Tel Avi to try to get the shelling stopped. That was Annan's job. Instead, he showed up Monday morning all mad before the camera, not because our people were killed but his weekend was cut short.

The fuck rather vacation on the UN's dime than to do his fucking job. So, yeah, I can see why these witch hunters wannabes want to do this study. For fuck sakes, everything they wrote I can look up on the internet and not spend one friggin dime.

I have no use for the UN. If we want to go in, then give us the Chapter 7 and we'll go in under our own Colours, not the UN blue.

antimony
01 Sep 16,, 16:49
Flows from the top. I don't know if it started with Kofi Annan but he sure exploit it to the freaking hilt. He was travelling all over the world from capital to capital "asking" for troops for Rwanda. In the meantime, three Nigerian regiments were waiting for the UNSC go. As corrupt as the Nigerians were, that was more than enough combat power to stop the killing and get back to the business of robbing. In other words, Annan was going on a world tour instead of staying in New York working the UNSC for that go. On the UN's dollar, meaning our dollars.

And you do recall when Indian and Canadian miltiary officers were being shelled by the Israelis in Lebanon? Annan was nowhere to be found until Monday morning after our people were killed. It was a Canadian General at the UN doing the phone calls Tel Avi to try to get the shelling stopped. That was Annan's job. Instead, he showed up Monday morning all mad before the camera, not because our people were killed but his weekend was cut short.

The fuck rather vacation on the UN's dime than to do his fucking job. So, yeah, I can see why these witch hunters wannabes want to do this study. For fuck sakes, everything they wrote I can look up on the internet and not spend one friggin dime.

I have no use for the UN. If we want to go in, then give us the Chapter 7 and we'll go in under our own Colours, not the UN blue.

Ah, the intense indignation of "apparently deliberate targeting" of an UN post.

Colonel,
Having said all of that, you of all would know the good the blue helmets achieved in Africa and elsewhere. I understand you are thoroughly disillusioned, but that record cannot be done away with

Officer of Engineers
01 Sep 16,, 16:55
Colonel,
Having said all of that, you of all would know the good the blue helmets achieved in Africa and elsewhere. I understand you are thoroughly disillusioned, but that record cannot be done away withBecause of the quality of contributing nations, not because of the UN. I rather have an Indian or a Pakistani Company than a Nigerian division. The UN takes whomever and whatever. If you read of UN success, you should read it's Indian or Pakistani or Canadian or British or French ...

And even then, we have disasters. His fault or not, Dallaire comes to mind.

antimony
01 Sep 16,, 19:27
Because of the quality of contributing nations, not because of the UN. I rather have an Indian or a Pakistani Company than a Nigerian division. The UN takes whomever and whatever. If you read of UN success, you should read it's Indian or Pakistani or Canadian or British or French ...

And even then, we have disasters. His fault or not, Dallaire comes to mind.

Sure, but many of these nations would not be there if not for the organizational umbrella and more importantly, legitimacy that the UN provides. India in particular has been very clear and vocal about that.

Officer of Engineers
02 Sep 16,, 01:44
Sure, but many of these nations would not be there if not for the organizational umbrella and more importantly, legitimacy that the UN provides. India in particular has been very clear and vocal about that.Let's be clear about this. India is not interested in bringing peace to the world. She's trying to score brownie points to get a P seat in the UNSC. How many Indian PMs or Ministers are directly involved in peace negotiations in any UN op.

I didn't see my PM in Yugoslavia nor Rwanda negotiating peace either.

Organizational umbrella? That's a laugh. If New York couldn't get Indian troops, they want an Indian General precisely because he's bringing in the organizational capabilities. Why else would Nigerian troops accept outside command in their own backyard. Canada certainly would not have tolerated UN command during the Oka Crisis.

And this gets to me. Nigeria could have ended the Rwandan Genocide all by herself. She waited for the UNSC go that never came. In all the other regions, the regional power went in with or without UN ok and they couldn't care less. India certainly didn't go to the UN for Sri Lanka.

Our troops did wonders and punched above their weight. The reason why the UN did so well is because of us, not because of the organization. Most of whom would rather spend nights in $1000 hotels doing research that could have been done over an internet line instead of learning the ground realities.

antimony
03 Sep 16,, 01:06
Let's be clear about this. India is not interested in bringing peace to the world. She's trying to score brownie points to get a P seat in the UNSC. How many Indian PMs or Ministers are directly involved in peace negotiations in any UN op.


I am not questioning that one bit. I know very well what India's motivations are.



Organizational umbrella? That's a laugh. If New York couldn't get Indian troops, they want an Indian General precisely because he's bringing in the organizational capabilities. Why else would Nigerian troops accept outside command in their own backyard. Canada certainly would not have tolerated UN command during the Oka Crisis.


I do not mean about the field level organization. I mean the organization to get these people there in the first place.



And this gets to me. Nigeria could have ended the Rwandan Genocide all by herself. She waited for the UNSC go that never came. In all the other regions, the regional power went in with or without UN ok and they couldn't care less. India certainly didn't go to the UN for Sri Lanka.


How would countries justify involvement in regional or world matters to their internal audience without a UN Mandate? Sure, India dabbled in IPKF, what happened after that? Rajiv Gandhi suffered both politically and personally from that decision.

A UN mandate makes these adventures politically acceptable, at least in developing countries.



Our troops did wonders and punched above their weight. The reason why the UN did so well is because of us, not because of the organization. Most of whom would rather spend nights in $1000 hotels doing research that could have been done over an internet line instead of learning the ground realities.

Colonel, when you are operating under a UN umbrella, you are the UN. You may be a Canadian or Indian or whatever, but the people you help see you as a blue helmet or a UN aid worker. Regardless of your feelings regarding the UN top leadership or even their overpriced bureaucrats or even the motivations of the member countries, people get the help they need because the UN is in a position to marshal these resources, even if they fail to do so sometimes (Rwanda).

Officer of Engineers
03 Sep 16,, 03:55
I do not mean about the field level organization. I mean the organization to get these people there in the first place.That's just it. Just because the UN said go doesn't mean people will go. It takes member countries to organize the go. If there are no qualified takers, ie the Congo, then there would be no mission.


A UN mandate makes these adventures politically acceptable, at least in developing countries.We didn't need one for Kosovo, East Timor, and Iraq. The Soviets didn't need one for Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan. China didn't need one for Vietnam. And India didn't need one for Pakistan (3 times).


Colonel, when you are operating under a UN umbrella, you are the UN. You may be a Canadian or Indian or whatever, but the people you help see you as a blue helmet or a UN aid worker. Regardless of your feelings regarding the UN top leadership or even their overpriced bureaucrats or even the motivations of the member countries, people get the help they need because the UN is in a position to marshal these resources, even if they fail to do so sometimes (Rwanda).The ground realities are quite different. If Nigerian troops are in front of you, do as you please. They won't leave the barracks. Just don't go into their barracks. The locals learn which troops will fight and which troops won't.