Intersectionality against “Man”
The time when Neil Armstrong uttered the exciting famous line, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” has gone. Though it was intended for all human being without exclusion, the new Orwellian language manufactured by the Academia is winning. Once the bastion of free speech, universities have become intolerant, censorious and guilty of promoting groupthink. Speakers with mainstream views are facing violent protests and bans, with campus activists quick to label anything that deviates from their far Left view as “hate speech”. The days when universities were centers for excellence, critical thinking and robust discussions have passed away. Fakeness, artificial bizarre language and odd groupthink are on the lead. And Islam, the most horrible ideology, rides on the waves of this Western stupidity.
Before modern times, the term gender was used solely when referring to the grammar of some languages, in which nouns and pronouns are masculine, feminine or neuter and require words syntactically associated with them. However, today, gender has become completely disassociated with biological reasoning. For example, in the past when a person signed up for a Facebook account, “male” and “female” were the only options. However, under the current system craze, in 2014, Facebook introduced 50 gender options, including intersex, gender nonconforming, non-binary and androgynous (Telegraph).
Now, according to the new Orwellian language, Cardiff Metropolitan University issued a list of 34 taboo terms that it “encouraged” teachers and students to stop using, and replaced them with “gender-neutral” terms. It has suggested alternatives that are more “inclusive.” It banned the use of the word “man” and related phrases, to encourage the adoption of “gender neutral” language. These “gender-neutral” terms should be used, adding that students should not allow their “cultural background” to affect their choice of words. The university also advised words such as “homosexual and heterosexual” should be replaced for “same-sex” and “other-sex.” “Gentlemen’s agreement” for “unwritten agreement or agreement based on trust.” “Man-made” and “manpower” are out with replacements including “artificial, manufactured, synthetic” and “human resources, labor force, staff, personnel, workers, workforce; and “ancestors, forebears” instead of “forefathers.” The guidance also includes advice to deny the terms “sportsmanship,” “right-hand man” and all words that include “man.” ‘Humankind’ is replaced by ‘peoplekind;’and ‘fisherman’ is replaced by ‘fisherfolk.Even Princeton University has also expunged the word “man” in its various uses, in favor of supposedly more “inclusive” expressions. California State University replaced commercial terms such as “businessman”, “mailman”, “manpower” and “salesman” as being horrendous, and City University of New York decided to ban “Mr.”
Oh, dear Orwell, 70 years ago you have envisioned this language so precisely. You have showed us that even the most imaginary, impossible, unlikely reality can become real reality. You have predicted so accurately the gigantic destructive powers human being can reach. “Human-being”? Oh’ no. It is forbidden! God has never created “man” and “Woman, just “folks,” “peoplekind”). Yet, the craziness goes on and continue with uppermost revulsion.
A journal published by a New York University Gender Studies Department put out a paper meant to call attention to the “sexual exploitation” of dairy cows.“The outdated stereotype about women being caretakers and most importantly child bearers remains consistent in the dairy industry, especially when we take into account the means through which these animals are exploited. A few brief examples include rape or sexual assault, nonconsensual hormone treatments, and emotional trauma related to pregnancy. Dairy cows are forcibly impregnated, or raped, in order to constantly produce milk for humans to consume.” And what about its recommendation?
In the efforts to “embrace cultural diversity” through language, in favor of gender-neutral terms under its code of practice on inclusive language, students are told that stereotyping through language “denies people’s individuality”, and that instead, they should strive to “promote an atmosphere in which all students feel valued.” For that, the university has been accused by Joanna Williams, of the University of Kent and author of Academic Freedom in an Age of Conformity, of undermining free speech and ‘insulting’ students and academics by attempting to dictate their choice of words. “It is a very authoritarian attempt to control the way people think and the language people use. These words have evolved over a long period of time and they don’t have sexist associations.”
It is the latest in a series of attempts on university campuses across the country to implement “politically correct” policies. Prime Minister Theresa May has hit out at universities for implementing “safe space” policies amid concerns that self-censorship is curtailing freedom of speech on campuses. She said it was “quite extraordinary” for universities to ban the discussion of certain topics which could cause offence. She warned that stifling free speech could have a negative impact on Britain’s economic and social success. Patrick Healy of the Boston Globe lists anti-male US universities, among them, Brown University; Columbia University; Georgetown University; University of Michigan; California University; and Dartmouth University.
On this process of anti “man,” the Boys Scouts organization will change its name to reflect now that girls are allowed to join the formerly all-male organization. The Boy Scouts of America decided to eliminate its boys-only focus, and announced on May that starting in February, its flagship program will be called “Scouts BSA.” According to Chief Scout Executive Mike Surbaugh, “We’re trying to find the right way to say we’re here for both young men and young women” (Chicago Tribune). This marks an end to a 108-year tradition due to the destructive forces of political correctness.
Justine Trudeau, Kim Kardashian of political leaders, became a laughing stock for correcting a woman who used the term “mankind:” “We like to say ‘peoplekind’ not necessarily ‘mankind’, because it’s more inclusive.” For him and his puddle counterparts mankind is no longer to mean the human race. If “mankind” is no longer acceptable then “human” and “humanity” are also in peril for containing the word “man.” If we employ this logic then “person” is also gendered for it contains “son.”
The fear of language is also evident with an increasing list of words deemed offensive and topics needing a trigger warning. La Trobe University’s student union passed a motion in 2016 to use trigger warnings for a range of topics in student council meetings. Words requiring a trigger warning include vomit, Islamophobia, classism, queerphobia, transphobia, trans-misogyny, sex positive shaming, fat shaming and neuro-typical shaming. Monash University in Australia introduced “trigger warnings” last year to warn students about distressing content including eating disorders, pornography, abortion, hate speech and violence (Herald Sun).
The Left’s ongoing mantra is that everyone is a victim of the male white men. It is largely share by the feminists who embrace this chant. Something is deep bizarre with the combination of the left and feminist attack on masculinity. There is a war on masculinity, part of the widespread deep penetrated ideology of intersectionality. One of the theories is that of Salvatore DeGennaro. He believes because masculine men are harder to control under tyrannical socialism. This is why the left has branded masculinity as toxic: it stands as a roadblock to their endgame.
Sexual harassment is one reason. The problem with this argument is that the men who are typically being accused of such transgressions are anything but masculine. However, both liberal and conservative men are involved, yet for DeGennaro lack of masculinity is a contributing factor to sexual harassment. Are men who display a lack of masculinity less likely to victimize women? Obviously not. But the left does not let reason or rationality interfere with an opportunity to degrade social decency or further its collectivist agenda.
The feminist hatred for masculinity is only another tool in the toolbox of communism. Masculinity tends to make a man individualistic. Individualistic men are capitalists, not communists. They are men who cherish individual liberty, and they rely on themselves rather than on government. Self-reliance is a four-letter word for leftists, and masculine men are generally self-reliant. Modern men, devoid of any semblance of masculinity, are ideal for leftist indoctrination.The denigration of masculinity is high on the leftist agenda. The pushing of acceptance of the “transgender” movement is the latest machination in this crusade. This fosters further blurring of male masculinity. It is maligned as a trait of the bigot, not as a desirable trait among men, as it once was. The goal is to foster an entirely androgynous society that makes no distinction between male and female. This breeds a culture more easily shaped by the almighty state. The left’s war on masculinity should come as no surprise. The cultures in history that have resisted oppressive regimes in the past have celebrated masculinity rather than demeaned it.
The eradication of masculinity from our society will ultimately result in the elimination of all resistance to tyranny. Freedom-loving males know this, and women who believe in individual capability rather than dependence on the government also know it. Remember: subjugation of all to a collectivist regime is the ultimate goal, and branding masculinity as toxic is one of many pieces in the game (American Thinker).For the Bolshevik-anarchists the aim is clear, following Carl Marx: “Everything that exists deserves to perish.”
Accordingly, the British police investigate a Catholic Mother after she used the “wrong pronoun” for a transgender person, and she will face a recorded interview with police to determine whether she committed a “hate crime.” This is crazy; indeed, the world has turned upside down, with the lunatic leadership of the academia. There is a point where an obsession over political correctness can blind people from basic of facts. Why not also purge Christianity’s religious language? Some of the famous universities, such as Duke and Vanderbilt, invited professors and staff to use “inclusive” language even when they are referring to God, because the masculine pronouns are “a cornerstone of patriarchy”. Duke guidelines suggest gender specific pronounce when discussing Him and suggest using “God” and “Godself” instead. Divinity course catalogue at Vanderbilt tells professors to give “consistent attention to the use of inclusive language, especially in relation to the Divine.” The school “commits continuously and explicitly to include gender as an analyzed category to mitigate sexism” (Breitbart).
For that, on February 2019, Caroline C. Lewis, has published an open letter under the title: “Dear Feminists, Stop Ruining Life for the Rest of Us:” I realize that it comes from a good place: Empowerment. Confidence. Success. But your way of achieving this has caused some real problems. Take, for example, men. Can women only achieve “empowerment” by destroying men, masculinity, and male leadership? Gender is not a zero-sum game. Being pro-woman should not mean being anti-man. We both live on this planet and we need each other to make human race continue.
And what about the “toxic masculinity” thing? There are some terrible men, abusive chauvinist, cheaters, and oppressors. Was it due to their gender? There are also some terrible women in this world: abusive, manipulating, and vengeful. Was it due to their femininity? It is XX chromosomes for females and XY chromosomes for males. None of us had a choice. So to discriminate against all men based on something they couldn’t help is wrong. To accuse every man of being an abusive, misogynist, patriarchy-obsessed warlord is not fair, either. Shaming men for masculinity, attacks them for being strong, for being protectors and for being providers. Yet what does that accomplish? Do we really want a society with weak, passive men who won’t stand up for their families?
In the end, most women still prefer strong men who act as able leaders, protectors, and heroes. To the feminists who are destroying the last remaining vestiges of chivalry in this county, please stop the anti-man crusade. If you want to turn your guy into a passive man, do that on your own time. But stop ruining life for the rest of us (Patriot Post).
Intersectionality and Save Spaces
Consider the so-called new “culture” of university “safe spaces” ostensibly aim to be free of prejudices such as racism, anti-Semitism, and misogyny, but all too often, we have seen them filled with exactly these prejudices. Robbie Travers succinctly relates to it as dangerous fallacy: they do not exist in the real world. The argument is that they seek to safeguard the rights of those who face significant societal disadvantages, who, do not have the same access to the right of freedom of expression. However, at the British universities, the concept has morphed into something far remote places. Bizarre enough, to be coherent with the narratives they produce, the spaces should give all an equal right to express controversial ideas, however Jews are excluded from safe spaces, being on the evil side of the continuum. The same attitude concerns the US: it is evil by definition.
He brings the Student Association’s (USSA) of the University of Strathclyde decision to ban a pro-life student group from organising on campus and using their facilities. It argues that “allowing an anti-choice group to form would be a barrier to freedom and equality and also act against the interests of a large amount of the student population.” This is nonsense of the highest order. A university community devoid of controversy and debate is contradictory to the essence of scientific research. This idea that all individuals should have their beliefs protected, and yet other groups are simultaneously denied the same rights is troubling and irritating in the extreme.
To suggest that all groups of a political belief act in the same way due to actions of individuals is poor at best. So, why are the Islamic Society allowed to meet when some Muslims commit acts of violence while Jews are devoid of? As safe spaces continue to grow in popularity, we must consider whether their original purpose has given way to something rather more sinister. Do they facilitate free and open debate, or are they merely a new tool with which to replace democracy with dogmatism? Do they promote freedoms, or are they oppress and coerce the basics of free and modern society. A true analysis and scrutiny, the answer seems blindingly obvious (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/13/university-safe-spaces-dangerous-fallacy-do-not-exist-real/).
The academia has become the institutions that do not protect the exchange of ideas, do not promote pluralism, and do not adhere to free speech. It seems the academia is going back to pre-civilization period. The magazine Spiked found that 90% of British universities hold policies that support censorship and free speech. This situation resembles very much the late 1960th to the middle of 1970th students’ riots in Europe and the US, where violent furious students demanded to change the curriculum and to learn what they like. The Free University of Berlin was perhaps the best example, with the aim to create a new model of university. The result was of course anarchy and chaos. Students should learn and not dictate. Curriculum stands from scientific research and knowledge of the professors generated from analysis and research. Students come to study and not to impose what they should learn.
This era had disappeared. However, the situation today is different so Islam is now part of it, and take advantage of the vacuum created out of the anarchy. This is the uppermost nightmare humanity faces. Steps must be taken courageously to confront the disaster. Indeed, hypocrisy celebrates. At the same time, while the first thing ‘liberated’ Muslim women do is throw down their misogynistic hijabs, so-called ‘feminists’ in the West don them. So when actual women’s rights activists in Iran discard them to fight oppression, Western feminists remain silent.
There are new threats need to know. The left’s war against traditional values has been raging for years. Americans are forced to increasingly accept radical ideology. A shocking story demonstrates just how far the left will go: A woman who had requested a female nurse to conduct her cervical exam was shocked when a male nurse appeared instead who claimed to be “transsexual.” She decided not to go through with her exam, and later complained to the National Health Service. They released a statement of apology. But apologies are not enough. Because the left has so completely deteriorated the very idea of gender. An Activist Mommy reported: not only does the acceptance of this sort of behavior encourage mental illness, it puts others, particularly women and children, in danger of becoming victims of sexual assault. What is left is the tragic deterioration of the values our nation was founded on, and an uphill battle for everyday women and men to have the right to privacy, comfort, and self-respect (https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/03-1780/).
It is crucial to study the issue of “offensive” by someone. In the pluralistic modern world anything that is “offensive to someone” is routine, acceptable, even satisfying to others. This is exactly the meaning of pluralism, living together, and culturally oriented. If not, it means we legitimize anyone’s right to be free of exposure to “offensive” ideas, we empower only authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and lack of basic freedoms. No one should be allowed to kill and butcher being offended. And if he does, he must be put into jail. Otherwise we would all still be mired in the Inquisition world, in a communist regime, or in a Muslim system of living. These totally contrasts freedoms and pluralism.
It is essential that the culture of victimhood, in which people think they can silence others on the grounds of “identity,” or “insult” is dismantled. Anyone should be able to question or criticize just about anyone. This is the essence of humanism and the cause and result of modernism. In today’s Europe, fighting “Islamophobia” is a higher priority than fighting terrorism and evil. Condemning even persecuting those who fight Islamic Jihad and propagation is more important to the Europeans than realizing that Christian Europe is in accelerated processes of vanishing. The circumstances are horrific.
On other place, Rubbie Travers testifies: “I found myself under investigation — without evidence — for some of my political views, posted on my Facebook wall: “Excellent news that the US administration and Trump ordered an accurate strike on an Isis network of tunnels in Afghanistan. I’m glad we could bring these barbarians a step closer to collecting their 72 virgins”. This note was then alleged to be ‘blatant Islamophobia’ and consequently a ‘hate crime.’ Under UK law, that would make being a member of ISIS a protected characteristic. Mocking ISIS apparently makes one guilty of having ‘incited hatred against religious groups and protected characteristics’ (Gatestone institute).
At the University of Edinburgh, a student has been accused of violating ‘safe space’ rules and faced being removed from a council meeting after she raised her hand during a debate. Imogen Wilson, a music student and vice-president of academic affairs at the Edinburgh University Students’ Association (EUSA), was one of hundreds of students to have attended a student council meeting to debate Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. EUSA’s safe space defined as “a space which is welcoming and safe and includes the prohibition of discriminatory language and actions.” Members should refrain from hand gestures which “denote disagreement” or “indicate disagreement with a point or points being made.” Imogen Wilson had another complaint made against her, after she shook her head against the BDS motion that passed with 249 votes for and 153 against. For her, the DBS “promotes anti-Semitism, and is harmful to Jewish students” (Independent).
The stifling of free speech at the UK’s universities is now “an epidemic.”A survey, the Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) made by Spiked Magazine in 2017, ranking 115 UK universities, paints a grim picture. It found that that 63.5 per cent of universities now actively “severely restrict” free speech, and 30.5 per cent stifle speech through excessive regulation. This marks a steady rise in censorship over the past three years. Now only six per cent of UK universities are truly free, open places. Moreover, twenty one universities banned high profile speakers from attending lectures, debates or speeches because of their views, including Oxford, King’s College London and University College London. Students’ Unions are four times more likely to put bans in place on campus than the universities themselves (http://www.spiked-online.com/free-speech-university-rankings#.Wjqf-3lG2M9).
A student magazine at Oxford University entitled No Offence has been banned from the institution’s Freshers’ Fair, over fears it may “cause offence.” The magazine aims to promote a discussion surrounding ideas people are afraid to discuss, according to the Versa News student website. However, after reviewing the material in the magazine, the Oxford University Students’ Union (OUSU) decided that it was “not suitable” for the Freshers’ Fair. “The offensive views exhibited in this magazine do not in any way represent the majority of Oxford students, we therefore are very comfortable with our decision not to allow the publication at our event” (Independent).
The Altrincham Grammar School for Girls in Manchester has officially banned its teachers from addressing its students as “girls” in case it offends transgender children. One of the country’s top-performing state schools has decided its staff will use ‘gender-neutral language’ when talking to or about children. In a letter to parents, Principal Stephanie Gill said the rethink came in response to ‘the challenges facing our students who are questioning their gender identity or who do not identify as girls’. Despite the fact the school does not admit boys, she added that parents ‘may have noticed that we have moved to using gender neutral language in all our communications with students and parents’… We are working to break ingrained habits in the way we speak to and about students, particularly referring to them collectively as ‘girls’… for many transgender students being misgendered can be very hurtful’ and undermines efforts to demonstrate that ‘everyone is welcome’ at the school’ (Daily mail).
As a proof how politics has become contaminated by bizarre ideas, the famous Jewish director, Steven Spielberg endorses Oprah Winfrey to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020 to Presidency. “I think Oprah Winfrey would make an absolutely brilliant president… If she declares, I will back her” (Breitbart).Here are the words of Lloyd Marcus, a black man if questioned, to take into most consideration: God Forbid the further Oprah-izing of America. The American left’s Oprah-mania about her running for president in 2020 is truly absurd. What on Earth qualifies Oprah to run our country? If Oprah qualifies, I am a far superior candidate. There is the phrase “the Oprah-izaton of America.” It seemed as though Oprah had seduced many Americans into placing feelings above facts and logic. Fake news media and most politicians have become Oprah-ized, behaving and acting with the emotional side of issues. God forbid we hurt the feelings or harm the self-esteem of illegals who do not give a rat’s derrière about our country or assimilating.
So now the American left is giddy over the thought of Oprah becoming our first queen. We’ve seen this horror movie before, titled Eight Years of Obama. Opposing or disagreeing with Oprah would be deemed racist and sexist. In 2008, over 90% of my fellow black voters were hypnotized by Obama’s skin color. I tried to warn black family and friends that Obama was not black in terms of being one of us. Obama was first and foremost a liberal Trojan Horse disguised in black skin, totally focused on furthering the liberal agenda rather than dealing with issues plaguing black Americans. Consequently, blacks moved economically and culturally backward during Obama’s reign. Yes, Trump has been economically “mo’ better” for us blacks than Obama.
Oprah’s presidency would be a continuation of Obama’s, with more touchy-feely, mindless, emotion-driven, stupid punish-America policies. Our ultra-Oprah-ized America would give away everything to everybody. Oprah no more belongs in our Oval Office than Donald Duck. The idea is totally absurd. We all know how fake news media would treat Democrat presidential candidate Oprah Winfrey. Every word out of her mouth would be deemed the height of brilliance, wisdom, fairness, and compassion. Fake news media would brand the Republican presidential nominee the secret head of the KKK, a white supremacist, and a sexual predator.
Make no mistake about this. Along with changing America by flooding it with a tsunami of illegals, leftists are obsessed with furthering their sexual revolution, making deviancy normal. Oprah would surely champion her fellow leftists’ government-mandated sexual transformation of America. A lot of American voters would once again be hypnotized, this time by Oprah’s skin color and fake news media hype (https://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.co.il/2018/01/god-forbid-further-oprah-izing-of.html).
Along these lines, Columbia University’s Lenfest Center for the Arts bears the message “GOD HATES GUNS, LOVES GAY PORN” prominently blazoned on the exterior of the building. The University bills its Center for the Arts as “a dynamic new hub for cultural and civic exchange.” According to the Dean, Carol Becker, the goal of the center is “to create a welcoming venue where every space can be activated… opening our doors to new collaborations both across the University and our community”(Breitbart).
Perhaps the best answer comes from Thomas Sowell, a well-known black American, an expert of economy and social theory, currently a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Few of his remarks worth quotation: “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” Indeed, those who adhere to such kind of thinking who turns the world upside down, who manipulate and twist reality – they are not only dangerous but the civilization’s enemy. Therefore, Sowell is so right when he say: “The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is ask how many conservatives there are in their sociology department.” And that “too much of what is called ‘education’ is little more than an expensive isolation from reality.” Consider also, “Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.” Indeed, “One of the consequences of such notions as ‘entitlement’ is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence.” “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” Therefore, “The welfare state is the oldest con game in the world. First, you take people’s money away quietly and then you give some of it back to them flamboyantly.”
Intersectionality and Feminism
Black scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw argues that Black women are discriminated against as a combination of both racism and sexism. They are discriminated against bothas women and as Blacks. At the same time the legal system frequently renders Black women “invisible” and without legal recourse. She argues that “because intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism, any analysis that does not take intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the particular manner in which Black women are subordinated.” For feminists racism is a feminist issue that easily explained by the inherent definition of feminism. Feminism is the political theory and practice to free all kinds of women. Anything less than this is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement.
Black women see Black feminism as the logical political movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face e.g., the history of rape of Black women by white men as a weapon of political repression. Susan Brown miller describes the root of women’s oppression in biological terms, based on men’s physical ability to rape: men use rape to enforce their power over women in a state of fear. Rape is “a weapon of domination, a weapon of repression, whose covert goal was to extinguish slave women’s will to resist and, in the process, to demoralize their men” (Angela Davis).
Black feminist Patricia Hill Collins extends the issue to Black feminist thought as critical social theory. She claims that in the absence of a viable Black feminism that investigates how intersecting oppressions of race, gender, and class foster these contradictions. Like Crenshaw, Collins uses the concept of intersectionality to analyze how “oppressions such as ‘race and gender’ or ‘sexuality and nation’ work together in producing injustice.” But she adds the concept “matrix of dominations” to this formulation: the crucial component of social class among Black women in shaping political perceptions.
One of the key weaknesses of the predominantly white US feminist movement has been its lack of attention to racism. Failure to confront racism ends up reproducing the racist status quo. Decades before the rise of the modern women’s liberation movement, Black women were organizing against their systematic rape at the hands of white racist men. Black women subject to racist sexual assaults in an intersection of oppression unique to Black women historically in the United States (Danielle McGuire).
According to Gina Florio, there are seven things feminists of color want white feminists to know. All talk about white feminism that blatantly leaves out the concerns and issues of women of color. They have historically been disregarded in the fight for gender equality. Celebrity and mainstream feminists’ icons remain myopic on race. They are privileged. Yet, 1) there is a lot of racism in the history of feminism. 2) White feminism marginalizes women of color. It fails to give them a platform how racial inequality relates to gender inequality. 3) White women of privilege do not even realize that they are excluding other marginalized groups. Yet, all are responsible for making feminism more inclusive. That is why 4) some women of color don’t feel comfortable calling themselves feminists. 5) The struggle of women of color is different than white feminism. The plight of a middle-class, straight, white, American woman is not the same as that of an uneducated, gay, American woman of color. Feminists are concerned with equality, while feminists of color are battling injustice. 6) Woman of color want to be heard. They are disproportionately poor and receive very little public aid and volume. 7) Woman of color don’t want to be spoken for. The overwhelming majority of activists and celebrities representing feminism are white women of privilege. This situation has to be changed (bustle.com).
However, David Solway puts the question succinctly, which will collapse first: a grand civilization or a dismal academy? When the walls of education are breached, the decline of the nation is inevitable. What are called “social justice” movements they purport to correct all the supposed evils of Western capitalism and its so-called patriarchal underpinnings. However, they have done irrevocable damage to the conduct of daily life; to the meritocratic basis of national success; and to the education establishment on which cultural, political, and economic flourishing is predicated.
The feminist dogma is among the most sinister influences in modern education, a major cornerstone of the “social justice” obsession, which has penetrated our universities via indoctrination and threat. Young boys in elementary and middle school are taught to distrust their masculinity, and young men at university are in constant jeopardy of summons and expulsion for approaching the fair sex. Even textbooks have been infected with the feminist bacillus from elementary school to graduate school. These are examples that attest to the nature and extent of the US education cataclysm.
It appears in fiction. Consider the Cambridge School’s Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Under “Male dominance,” we are instructed to “[g]o through the play so far, finding any images, similes and metaphors that imply male dominance – for example – ‘your father should be as a god.’ Read the images about males, then those about females, and say which you find acceptable and which you find offensive – and why.” The major theme to be studied is “Gender and power.”
It appears in economics. A new California-based Feminist Business School is launching a program “founded upon the theory of ‘feminine entrepreneurship’ and ‘body-loving business practices’.” Its formative nucleus, calling itself Feminine Economics Department, is undertaking to oppose the “masculine economy,” and gratitude for hated masculine features such as individualism, profit-worship, competition, and hierarchy.
It appears in mathematics. Sara Hottinger, in Inventing the Mathematician, claim that the ability to reason mathematically “is constructed within Western culture as masculine.” Thus, “normative, white, masculine subjectivity” must be replaced by a purified female subjectivity and practice. We simply cannot reconcile the cultural construction of femininity with the construction of mathematical subjectivity.”
The farce continues with English grammar requirements. Megan Fox warns that children at schools are exposed to a “social justice” syllabus focusing on the dynamics of power and privilege, gender politics, gender-neutral pronouns, and the pressing need to eliminate masculine endings from words. “Since male endings are so pervasive… it is OK to invent new words by replacing the endings of existing words with something non-gendered.”Solway sums up by the declaration: the reward of desexualizing the vocabulary in order to diminish the status of men is presumably evident. The only question left is whether or not it is too late to reverse the feminist-driven national decline.
In another post David Solway relates to Toxic Feminism. The damage that radical feminism has done to the US education system is incalculable. Yet the movement continues to grow exponentially, and gender studies faculties, which promote female empowerment at the expense of what is called “toxic masculinity,” continue to multiply.Feminism has patently skewed the syllabus in the direction of gender asymmetry. In the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion, women have progressively come to dominate campus life regardless of aptitude and competency. Qualified male candidates need to make alternative arrangements. Male students, already in declining numbers, are under threat of allegations of sexual assault or harassment and arbitrary expulsion. They learn they should ‘step aside’ to give more space and power to females.Unfortunately, too many careers have been built on gender studies and feminist theory to allow surrender.
Leftist government bureaucrats, university administrators, “diversity and inclusion” officers, and faculty across the entire academic landscape are dependent on preserving perhaps the greatest scam in the systemic apparatus we call education. Departments of Gender Studies – as well as the myriad other faux “identity studies” programs like queer studies, race theory, critical theory, fat studies, sexuality studies, whiteness studies, are all centers of radical indoctrination. Bruce Bawer’s The Victim’s Revolution, claims that under the rubric of “social justice,” identity studies programs largely explain why our universities are well on the way to becoming third-world institutions. Feminism is the mother of the “social justice” obsession that is devastating the culture and destroying education.
For Solway, the academy cannot be reformed. It must be abolished or gradually phased out and replaced by schools and universities founded on the traditional mandate of moral accountability, exacting scholarship, discipline-specific authority, open debate, and responsible instruction. Feminism must have no part in it. With its reliance on false assumptions, feminism is the most potent carcinogen attacking both the body social and the health of the education system. It is toxic and it needs to go (American Thinker).
Andromeda: A Space-Age Tale. The Antonio Guterres Edition
On July 18, 2020, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres delivered a memorial lecture in honour of the great South African leader Nelson Mandela. The Secretary-General’s speech was clearly intended as a policy statement and designed to provoke a wide response. Guterres outlined “a new social contract” and “a new global deal” that are to replace the current international and even universal social order.
Inequality as the Principal Problem
Guterres was scathing in his criticism of the current world order, comparing the coronavirus pandemic to “an x-ray, revealing fractures in the fragile skeleton of the societies we have built.” The pointed accusatory pathos of his speech would have been better suited to a silver-tongued preacher or a radical youth leader than to a member of the top political elite who has headed the most representative and influential international organization for the past three and a half years. The coronavirus is “exposing fallacies and falsehoods everywhere: the lie that free markets can deliver healthcare for all; the fiction that unpaid care work is not work; the delusion that we live in a post-racist world; the myth that we are all in the same boat.”
The pandemic has set humanity back years, if not decades, plunging the world into its worst recession since World War II. Guterres believes that, as a consequence, entire continents will be doomed to hardships, poverty and even famine. Social and economic inequality is growing at an accelerated pace: the financial assets of the world’s 26 wealthiest people already equal the combined assets of half of the rest of the world. Glaring inequality feeds corruption, provokes financial and economic crises, fuels crime and causes epidemics. The number of risk groups is expanding rapidly and includes refugees, migrants, indigenous peoples and minorities of all kinds that are discriminated against and exploited. Inequality breeds political and religious radicalism, social cataclysms, destructive international conflicts, and civil wars.
The coronavirus pandemic introduces new dimensions to the issue of inequality: rich patients have higher chances of receiving quality COVID-19 treatment, and the Global North is better prepared for the pandemic than the Global South. The long-term economic and social consequences of this upheaval will also differ for individual social, professional, ethnic, and other groups.
What are the roots of inequality in the world? For Antonio Guterres, the answer is very clear: colonialism and patriarchy. The Global North is responsible for the shameful history of colonialism, whereby it established its centuries-long economic and political dominance of the Global South. Even though many decades have passed since the decolonization process concluded, the historical legacy of the colonial era has not been overcome. This legacy makes itself felt on a regular basis as everyday racism, institutional racism, the rise of “white supremacy,” the system of the international division of labour and global trade and the distribution of the rights and responsibilities of individual states within the global political system.
The patriarchal system that we live in today is the result of the traditional “male-dominated culture,” which for millennia has discriminated against and humiliated women. While great strides have been made in women’s rights (just like decolonialization has brought certain successes), it would be premature to say that we have finally resolved the gender issues that haunt our societies. The UN Secretary-General called himself a “proud feminist” and reported that “gender parity” has been achieved in top UN jobs (let us note parenthetically that, in 2016, he took the office that many UN members believed should have rightly gone to a female candidate).
So how will the “New Global Deal” advanced by the UN Secretary-General benefit the world? First of all, it promises to achieve social harmony by overcoming inequality – gender inequality, social inequality, racial inequality and inequality between states and continents. The “New Global Deal” is an instrument for establishing egalitarian humanism, where access to quality education, healthcare, food and water, decent jobs and social security is an integral part of our fundamental human rights and is not determined by an individual’s income or family wealth.
Guterres’s ideal and goal is to create a global community where people of any origin, country, ethnicity, social standing or gender can and should fully realize their potential to the benefit of all humankind. The UN Secretary-General supports the idea of universal medical insurance and universal basic income. In general, the world that looms on the horizon follows the principle, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.”
Antonio Guterres and Ivan Yefremov
Reading Antonio Guterres’s speech, I was, for some reason, reminded of the leading Soviet sci-fi author Ivan Yefremov’s famous utopian novel Andromeda: A Space-Age Tale, which depicts a remote communist future. The world of Ivan Yefremov, just like the world of Antonio Guterres, is a world of egalitarian humanism. One’s place of residence, family status, gender and race have absolutely no meaning for Yefremov’s characters. They are all a thing of the distant past. Humankind has successfully overcome the cult of excessive consumption, and basic human needs for education, healthcare, welfare, social status, etc. are guaranteed by birthright.
This world is populated by beautiful, strong, somewhat poster-like people who have virtually no human weaknesses. For them, the meaning of life lies mostly in the arts and sciences and other elevated forms of self-realization. Personally, Yefremov’s utopian society has always seemed somewhat cold and uninviting, but in any case, it is much preferable to the current chaotic state of the global society.
Of course, one cannot suspect Antonio Guterres of directly borrowing Ivan Yefremov’s ideas. I doubt that the Portuguese statesman has ever read Andromeda: A Space-Age Tale or any of the Soviet sci-fi author’s novels, for that matter. Additionally, the concept of a “New Global Deal,” unlike Yefremov’s utopia, is not entirely communist. Guterres’s egalitarian world does have a private sector, but it is radically different from the one we have today.
First, the “New Global Deal” would involve significantly raising taxes for big businesses throughout the world, eliminating financial loopholes that allow large corporations to avoid paying taxes. Second, the private sector would switch its focus from making profits to social responsibility. Guterres is an ardent supporter of restoring the trade union movement in order to balance the relations between labour and capital. On the whole, one gets the impression that the UN Secretary-General sees the Northern European social state as the optimal state model.
How can global social harmony be achieved? Take education, for example. In order to overcome global inequality in education, we need to at least double the spending in this sector in the Global South, to USD 3 trillion annually. Clearly, the South does not have that kind of money, it can only come from the North. But in addition to education, we need to think about healthcare, infrastructure development, the “green economy” and gender inequality, where the South still lags significantly behind the North.
Essentially, the UN Secretary-General is calling for a revolution – if by revolution we mean a historically compressed process of a radical redistribution of economic resources and political power. The “New Global Deal” is focused on transferring resources and power not from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat within individual states, as Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin had suggested, but from the rich North to the poor South. That is, the collective North is the nasty “global bourgeoisie,” while the collective South has the honourable role of the “global proletariat.”
The redistribution of power presupposes the reform of international institutions created mostly by the Global North, including changes to the top management of the United Nations, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund. The redistribution of resources means restructuring the international debt accumulated by the Global South, writing them off at least partially, increasing financial aid programmes for developing states and changing the terms of global trade so that the South will gradually move up global value chains.
Just like the classics of Marxism-Leninism idealized the proletariat and demonized the bourgeoisie, the UN Secretary-General idealizes the South and demonizes the North. Appealing in 2020 to the dark colonial legacy as the principal cause of the backwardness of developing states is only slightly more convincing than explaining the current archaic nature of Russian politics by the pernicious legacy of serfdom. The experience of post-colonial development is too variegated for such generalizations. For instance, South Korea experienced decades of extremely harsh Japanese colonial rule, and then the totally destructive war of 1950–1953. Nevertheless, almost no one would call South Korea a backward state today, or a victim of its colonial past.
Antonio Guterres has brought his many years of experience as a European social democrat to the activities of the United Nations. This experience certainly remains relevant today. However, the attempts of European social democrats over the years to resolve gender, social or global problems by mechanically redistributing resources have repeatedly demonstrated their limitations. It is no coincidence that European social democracy today is going through a clear identity crisis. To prepare the next edition of Andromeda: A Space-Age Tale, the UN Secretary-General should find a co-author with a radically different experience, someone like Elon Musk.
From our partner RIAC
Life and travel in a new normality
Weary of the COVID-19 epidemic and feeling the pinch of significant financial losses during the months of the coronavirus crisis, the world is in a hurry to open borders, restart air traffic and resume tourist travel without even waiting for the pandemic to fizzle out. Simultaneously, many countries are doubling down on developing and testing vaccines and drugs against this dangerous scourge. Many heads of state hope that once this pandemic is over, everything will return to normal. Will it really? Will we have to live in a changed reality?
… Many scientists, physicians, experts and politicians around the world are trying to find answers to these questions. Many researchers believe that international tourism, which until recently had been on the rise, was among the economic sectors hardest hit by the pandemic. It is no secret that many small, and not so small countries now live off inbound tourism. According to experts, this year the tour industry as a whole may lose up to $3.3 trillion and a huge number of jobs. Small wonder, therefore, that after three months of isolation and border closures, the industry just can’t wait to get back into business and make up for the lost time. It is against this backdrop that the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) is publishing new data about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this popular sector.
UNWTO analysts emphasize the need for responsibility, safety and protection of tourists when travel restrictions are lifted, and reiterate the need for a strong commitment to supporting tourism as an important driver of a global economic recovery.
While in some parts of the world, above all in Europe and America, tourism, domestic as well as international, is now resuming, many travel restrictions still remain. Fully aware of this, the UNWTO has reiterated its call on governments and international organizations to support tourism, a lifeline for millions and the backbone of the economy. Measures being implemented to this effect by governments include a gradual lifting of restrictions, creation of tourist corridors, resumption of some international flights, and improvement of safety and hygiene protocols.
The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) is urging tour industries around the globe to mandate the use of face masks as protection against the spread of the COVID-19 infection. Moreover, such safety measures will have to be applied for quite some time. In addition, the WTTC recently released new guidelines for safe and hassle-free travel, including testing and monitoring, frequent hand washing, the use of hand sanitizers, social distancing and more.
Responsible Travel Guidelines have been developed for the entire global travel and tourism sector focusing on measures to safely steer business to car rental companies, airports, tour operators, sightseeing attractions, etc.
European media, meanwhile, continues to report paradoxical cases in the countries of Ibero-America. For example, Spanish newspapers write about Barcelona’s historic Liceu Opera opening for its first concert after months of lockdown. However, instead of playing to an audience filled with art-loving VIPs, the UceLi string quartet serenaded a leafy audience of 2,292 plants. The “Concert for the Bio-Public” conceived by conceptual artist Eugenio Ampudia marked the theater’s reopening to the public after Spain ended its state of emergency in June. The well-educated, albeit disturbingly silent audience, that featured a variety of plants, including fig trees and palms, brought in by local nurseries, enjoyed the performance of Giacomo Puccini’s Crisantemi before being handed over tolocal health workers “in recognition of their dedication to the pandemic.” The concert was broadcast live on the theater’s website.
Recent polls in Spain show that more than 65 percent of the country’s citizens will spend their vacations at home. According to a survey conducted by the Spanish government’s Center for Sociological Research, most Spaniards are not going on vacation this summer, and only one in ten plans to go abroad. After the coronavirus pandemic, 65.7 percent of respondents said they ruled out going on vacation, and seven percent were undecided. Of the meager 27.2 percent who intend to go on vacation, over 90 percent will opt for domestic destinations, and only six percent would like to go abroad. Spain, one of the countries hardest hit by the pandemic with more than 28,000 deaths, is opening its borders to almost everyone in the European Union.
However, representatives of Spain’s tour business, which accounts for 12 percent of the country’s GDP, fear that in the event or a new coronavirus outbreak their clients could become infected or get stranded in a foreign country. Meanwhile, people in some countries already feel the psychological impact of the pandemic, with studies showing that those who survived the quarantine now value their work and personal space more than before. Going to work reflects a certain degree of harmony in one’s life, when someone does not feel alone, left one-on-one with everyday home routine. Not to mention the importance of earning money, of course. As for personal space, people have learned to enjoy being alone, reading a book, writing poems, whatever. Not so when there are several people sharing a small apartment and having to give up some of their habits and hobbies. People get tired of each other. In April-May, many complained about family problems and divorces, but psychologists say that the number of such complaints has been going down and that the need to maintain social distancing has taught people to build personal boundaries – a habit, which in some countries was seriously weakened during the times of collectivism. The modern generation has also learned a lot about viruses and infections, hygiene and sanitation. And, of course, after months of forced self-isolation, many people now prefer to promenade and travel more than they did before.
Experts say that the worldwide slogan “We Will Travel Again” contains not only a promise to return to normal life, but also a commitment to rebuild a sector faced with the need to resist, rethink and adapt to new market demands and make sure that tourists always feel safe wherever they go.
The prominent Spanish tour business expert, journalist and publisher José Carlos de Santiago recently saw “the light at the end of the tunnel.” In an article, published in his magazine Excelencias, referring to the end of the coronavirus pandemic and the resumption of tourism activities in the world, he writes that recent global research gives a reason for cautious optimism, not only in Europe where the pandemic curve begins to go down, and more decisive measures are taken to contain the spread of infection. In the Americas, the Caribbean islands are opening their borders to international tourism: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Montego Bay have courageously reopened to international visitors and North American planes are already landing there in compliance with strict COVID-19 health regulations. New standards include sanitary controls, travelers are checked before flying, the use of digital technologies has been expanded, additional disinfection is done both inside airports and on the planes, payment for tickets and services are made with credit cards and when with cash, then with the mandatory use of face masks. José Carlos de Santiago adds, however, that according to World Tourism Organization experts, the first signs of recovery will not be felt before the last quarter of 2020, and underscores the need to move towards more sustainable tourism in economic, social and environmental aspects. The road to recovery is just beginning, and as the light at the end of the tunnel is getting closer, many questions still remain, the journalist concludes.
Caribbean News Digital online newspaper on tourism has published a list of nine major short- and long-term changes that the tour industry will go through in the wake of the new coronavirus pandemic.
Thus, when they reopen, the theme parks, museums and other highlights that usually attract a great number of people will deal with smaller and more controlled crowds. The museums will also try to make sure that visitors feel safe and are properly separated from each other. The requirement for wearing face masks may also remain, and antiviral cleaning will be carried out throughout the day.
Airlines already require that passengers and personnel all wear face masks, refuse to serve food and drinks during flights, and increase the frequency of cleaning. Some are now asking travelers to fill out medical questionnaires, and check passengers’ temperature, but federal authorities are taking additional steps to get this done.
In a recently released guide, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) outlines a list of new regulations. Airports are also changing their modus operandi and may revise some rules for the passengers’ movement in and around the terminals. When travel resumes in many countries, the initial focus will be on domestic tourism. As for international tourism, much depends on the situation with the epidemic in each country. While airlines may believe that they charge passengers for everything, from seat selection to baggage check-in, in fact, deregulation has reduced the cost of one mile of flight, making international travel more affordable than ever before. Some travelers fear, however, that due to the pandemic the airlines may reduce the number of passengers flying overseas, thus jacking up the cost of other international routes.
Since the big problems caused by the COVID-19 epidemic arose in mid-March 2020, there are two main questions that have been dogging the cruise industry: when will ships return to sea with passengers? And what will cruise tourism look like in the future?
One thing is clear: it will take some time before cruise ships return to sea. When they do, they will hardly be as full of passengers as they were before the pandemic struck.
Temperature tests are likely to become routine. The construction of new cruise ships will almost certainly be delayed and travel routes may temporarily change.
Some major cruise operators recently announced that, among other measures, they are going to replace air conditioners on their cruise ships with so-called “medical grade air filters,” introduce contact-free temperature control for passengers and increase the frequency of cleaning all areas.
Temperature control will become mandatory, self-service buffets will close, and the number of seats on tourist buses during coast-side excursions will be reduced. What remains unclear, however, is how many people will be willing to go sailing again, given the number of victims of the virus worldwide and high-profile outbreaks on ships. But cruise ship executives are still optimistic about their prospects for 2021.
A revised cleaning procedure will bring an important change to the vacation rental market, with the coronavirus pandemic having redefined the very notion of cleanliness and health care for tourists. Some experts believe that this new focus on healthy travel will be expanded in the future. Many cafes and restaurants are expected to be closed for economic reasons, and the comeback of domestic and international tourism will certainly play an important role in the reopening of restaurants, especially in big cities and capitals worldwide. The same with hotels, whose success will likewise depend on the quality of their sanitary provisions. Their clients should expect more frequent cleaning, cleaner rooms, hand sanitizers galore and fewer contacts with employees as hotels are encouraging people to check in online and use their cellphones as room keys. Some guidelines instruct room service staff not to enter suites while the occupant is inside, unless expressly invited to do so. All these precautions will undoubtedly spoil the hospitable atmosphere that the hotels promise their guests.
Meanwhile, countries are in a hurry to start restoring domestic and international tourism and improve their relations with the outside world. And while more cautious experts wonder “how are we going to live in a new normality?”, the World Health Organization (WHO) recently reported a new uptick in coronavirus infections in Europe and a catastrophic situation in the US, Brazil, India and dozens of other countries.
If this process is not stopped, it will once again push the European countries’ health systems “to the brink of the abyss,” the WHO warns. According to Latin American media reports, Argentina’s business sector would welcome the adoption of the National Emergency Tourism Law, which would offer it a wide range of benefits. According to the new law, due to the emergency situation in tourism, within a year from the end of social isolation measures, payment by the government of 50 percent of wages will also cover small and medium-sized tour operators until October this year, they will enjoy nationwide tax deferrals until December 31, 2020, be exempt from paying tax on debits and credits, provided with zero-interest loans for the purchase of medical equipment and technology related to COVID-19. The new legislation will also halve the hotels’ VAT payments by March 2021 (applies only to residents of Argentina) and provide subsidies for tour guides, equivalent to the minimum wage through October 2020…
…The three main problems that the tour industry may face in the future are economic one, a lack of customer confidence and tough competition. All of this creates uncertainty for the end consumer, and this is where communication must come into play and restore consumer trust. In other words, the press, all media outlets are responsible for restoring our life in a new normality. Truthful and objective information is what will help the world community to cope with the pandemic and achieve its goals. “We need lots of accurate information to inspire consumer confidence,” experts say.
How is Russia opening to the world? The ban on the entry of foreign nationals expires on July 31, 2020. The restrictions do not apply to Russian citizens leaving the country: it was officially reported that persons with dual citizenship, a residence permit, as well as holders of special categories of visas (for medical treatment and work), had already been able to leave the country. According to media reports, even Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov does not know when the borders will open for everyone. In a recent media interview, he said that the ministry will be bringing the government up to speed in real time on the epidemiological situation abroad and on exactly which countries are opening to the outside world and how.
… Anyone, who is guided by the saying “God helps him who helps himself,” will certainly take all necessary precautions both in everyday life and while traveling in the new normality. Therefore, we advise our readers to keep in mind the recommendations listed above, which will help avoid many troubles, and maybe even save their lives.
What do experts advise COVID-19 patients to eat? This is the question ordinary people often ask scientists and seasoned nutritionists. Scientists in different countries are researching this issue. In Germany, they recently found that cabbage can be helpful in cases of suspected coronavirus infection. They have also determined that different varieties of cabbage are popular in countries with low death rates from coronavirus. For example, in Germany and South Korea, the number of fatalities from COVID-19 was significantly lower. It is noted that cabbage contains substances that prevent a severe course of the disease. For example, sauerkraut contains antioxidants that enhance the body’s defense against pathogens. Earlier, Spanish nutritionist Alejandro Canovas and head of the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) Eusebi Chiner named products that help protect the lungs from coronavirus. According to Canovas, eggs, whole rice, sea fish and walnuts can help strengthen the respiratory system. Chiner explained that when the lung condition worsens, the body’s need for protein increases. He added that eggs contain fat-soluble vitamins such as vitamin A and high-quality proteins.
From our partner International Affairs
A better normal must mean tackling workplace violence and harassment
Violence and harassment is a persistent and pernicious issue in the world of work.
It transcends national boundaries, socioeconomic conditions, occupational sectors and working arrangements. It can manifest itself between co-workers, managers and subordinates, or between workers and their clients or the public, threatening the safety and health of all those subjected to it.
Violence and harassment takes different and shifting forms, not just physical or sexual. Psychological harassment, in particular, can be insidious and abusive in the most subtle of ways, and the mental toll it takes can lead at times to suicide.
The negative impact on workers’ well-being also affects businesses, contributing to absences from work and increased staff turnover, related to fear, illness and injury. These changes imply significant costs for enterprises, and can also damage productivity and performance.
During the current public health crisis, violence and harassment has appeared to increase. The unprecedented restrictions imposed on people during the pandemic have exacerbated stress levels. In some cases, this has led to violence and harassment being directed against essential personnel, healthcare workers and others on the pandemic frontlines.
There have been reports of doctors in Wuhan, China, being beaten and threatened in overcrowded hospitals. Essential workers in grocery shops have been subjected to violence and harassment when those stores ran out of supplies. More recently, a security guard in the United States was killed attempting to enforce a policy of wearing face masks in a store.
There has never been a more important time to recognize and address the causes and manifestations of work-related violence and harassment. A new ILO report, Safe and healthy working environments free from violence and harassment, does just that. It examines the scope of violence and harassment in the world of work and looks at existing occupational safety and health frameworks, initiatives and areas of action for preventing and addressing workplace psychosocial risks, including better Occupational Safety and Health management systems and training.
Last year, at the Centenary International Labour Conference, the ILO’s 187 member States adopted the groundbreaking Violence and Harassment Convention (No. 190) and accompanying Recommendation (No. 206). In doing this, they defined a global commitment to eliminating this scourge.
However, such an overarching commitment needs to be backed by grassroots action. Systems, cultures and individuals that perpetuate such harassment or allow it to continue need to be called out and corrected. We all want to build a ‘better normal’, post-COVID. Workplaces free from violence and harassment should be part of that equation.
Pandemic Recovery: Three Sudden Surprise Gifts
A new shine across the globe is entering into boardrooms; a new awakening is enforced and a new shift emerges…...
World Bank releases first comprehensive stock-taking of infrastructure services in Asia
A new World Bank report presents data about infrastructure provision in three key sectors is Asia: road transport, electricity, and...
Global cooperation is our only choice against COVID-19
With more than 18.5 million cases of COVID-19 reported worldwide as of Thursday, and 700,000 deaths, the UN’s top health...
The Looming Disaster of the Safer Oil Tanker Moored off the Coast of Yemen
Amidst the raging conflict in Yemen, the challenge of the Safer Oil Tanker emerges as one of the most hazardous...
Indian Imbalanced Balance
A serious crisis is looming over journalism in India, which is increasingly vested in the hands of authority. On the...
Neatly tucked away on the sparkling Turkish Riviera, the utterly luxurious Dalyan Resort is a dreamy coastal cocoon that one...
Greater Implications of the Iran-China Deal on India
Authors: Dhritiman Banerjee and Subarna Mustari* India entered as a stakeholder in the development of Iran’s Chabahar port in 2016...
Science & Technology2 days ago
Artificial Intelligence and Its Partners
Middle East3 days ago
Between Missiles and Flour: The Inside-Outside Game of Hezbollah in Lebanon
International Law3 days ago
Refugees In The Outbreak Of The Pandemic
Europe2 days ago
The spirit of “Greater Albania” acquires Brussels substance
Americas3 days ago
China Replacing Russia as the Boogeyman in the U.S. Presidential Campaign
Eastern Europe1 day ago
What stands behind escalation of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan?
South Asia2 days ago
Reports3 days ago
Public Transport Can Bounce Back from COVID-19 with New and Green Technology