A Feminazi South of the Border?

By Selwyn Duke

Sweden long ago became the world’s first officially “feminist” government. Will it now be followed by what some might think is, outside the Islamic world, the unlikeliest of places: Mexico? This may be the case if its president-elect, ex-academic Claudia Sheinbaum, has her way.

Focus on Feminism

In fact, while Sheinbaum — a radical who reportedly supported Colombian revolutionary-socialist guerrilla movement M-19 — will preside over a dysfunctional narco-state in psychopathic cartels’ grip, she has made clear that her priorities are more Gloria Steinem than Eliot Ness.

As The Tribune in San Luis Obispo informs:

México’s president-elect, Claudia Sheinbaum, said that her government will be “feminist” with a “social” approach as she endorsed her reform proposal to elevate gender equality to constitutional status and eradicate violence against women in the country.

“The first woman president cannot just be a symbol,” she stated at a July 17 press conference.

México’s next president, who will take office on Oct. 1, said she will send two reforms to Congress on her first day in office as there is so much to do on the gender agenda.

Sheinbaum pointed out that she will seek to have Article 4 of the Constitution rewritten “in terms of substantive equality and non-discrimination,” and highlighted the urgency of “bringing the issue of violence against women to the constitutional level.”

“I think this is our highest priority, and from there, a series of secondary laws (…), that is, to impact the entire country, and others of a federal nature,” she detailed.

She also announced that her administration will be feminist, introducing the concept of “social feminism,” with which she will seek “justice for women” while continuing with the “transformation,” a term associated with the current government.

“It is transformation, and it is feminism because… we also say ‘for the good of all and everyone, the poor first,’ because sometimes women in poverty suffer more than men,” she explained.

Are Women Victimized More Than Men?

Surely — and sometimes they don’t. In fact, looking at just one metric, men constitute 70 percent of the “homeless” in the United States. As for Mexico, the sexes endure poverty at almost the same rate (36.9 percent for females, 35.6 percent for males).

Even more striking was Sheinbaum’s emphasis on “feminicide” — when almost 90 percent of Mexico’s homicide victims are men. (In fact, close to four out of five people murdered worldwide are male.)

Moreover, responding to a Baja California prosecutor’s advice that women shouldn’t travel alone, the president-elect also complained that “there must always be a responsibility to ensure that women are free and have autonomy.” But how can anyone, female or male, have such freedom and autonomy when crime is so pervasive? Note here that Mexico has the world’s 17th highest murder rate (and strict gun-control laws).

None of this is to say a crusade should be launched against the “murder of men”; men do virtually all the killing (as well as most of the life-saving). But isn’t focusing on an identity-politics-oriented sliver of crime akin to pouring vast resources into remedying thymic carcinoma (a rare form of cancer) while ignoring cancer in general?

For sure, though, focusing on feminism is a lot safer for Sheinbaum than tackling the powerful cartels, which might not take kindly to an uppity academic hurting their billion-dollar business.

“Domestic Violence” Misunderstood

Of course, the New Chivalry makes legislating on “violence against women,” specifically, an imperative. Yet the issue is largely misunderstood.

Consider “domestic violence.” While the very term conjures up images of a raging, drunken man beating his wife, “international research suggests that as much as half of domestic violence is committed against men,” reported the liberal Guardian in 2014.

In fact, women are actually more likely to initiate domestic violence, the Independent told us in a 2000 article titled “Women are more violent, says study.” In this vein, 2018 research found that boys were victims of “dating violence” more often than girls were.

Is this surprising? While tradition has diminished, boys are still often raised to “not hit girls” and, arguably, are “wired” not to (in accordance with a natural protector role); no such corresponding prohibition is operative with females. What’s more, studies show that it is abnormal men — sociopaths, narcissists, etc. — who are most likely to be male abusers.

Also consider that modern times have seen a greater violence increase in females than males (thank feminism?), with, for example, girls’ delinquency cases rising 92 percent between 1985 and 2002.

“Equality” vs. “Quality”

Considering the above, it appears Sheinbaum’s focus on “equality” is, par for the course, more ploy than principle. In reality, though, focusing on equality is folly itself. Why? Consider an example I often use:

There are two tennis centers training children. After a certain period of time at the first, all the kids are advanced beginners. After the same period at the second, some are advanced beginners; two other large groups constitute, respectively, low intermediates and intermediates; there’s a small group of advanced players; and a handful are approaching tournament caliber. At which center is there more equality?

Okay, now, at which are the children doing far better on average?

The lesson: Equality tells you nothing about quality.

You can have equality, in poverty, suffering, ignorance, degradation, or stupidity. It’s a completely irrelevant measure.

So while Sheinbaum said that the “first woman president cannot just be a symbol,” she appears poised to be a feminist caricature. And in this she won’t be unique at all, but will continue a long and lamentable Mexican tradition: governmental dysfunction.

(Hat tip: American Thinker.)

                    This article was originally published at The New American.

Comments

[beau]

obliquely related on 'feminism' issues, many have been asking 'where are the feminists' with respect to biological males competing with biological females as females. the answer i think is, in reality, quite easy.

the explanation can be posed as a question with an answer:

Q: how can feminists whose position has always been that women can do anything a man can do and often do it better respond to the reality of men competing as women against women and waltzing away with victory every time?

A: they cannot, so rather than change their faulty ideation, they just shut up, something unusual for that particular group of women, and bitterly cling to their wrongheaded position.

[Selwyn Duke]

Hi, Beau,

Thank you for responding. You are dead-on correct, and, as you may know, this is something to which I've devoted much ink (or virtual ink, anyway). Feminists actually laid the groundwork for the MUSS agenda, and now they're being hoisted with their own petards. And, yes, they are tongue tied about it.

The MUSS men have, inadvertently, silenced the feminist crowing about how (supposedly) women will equal men in sports — they just need more time to develop themselves. It has been an object lesson in sex-differences reality.

God bless,

Selwyn Duke