New World Order University Forum

While doing research for our post European nationalism gaining over EU integration, we stumbled upon an interview with Belgian feminist Isabella Lenarduzzi, and we suggested that readers use this interview to test yourself to see whether you have inoculated yourself against feminist propaganda. The interview appears here, at EurActive. It is reproduced below. Our comments are in bold.

“The second edition of your JUMP Forum this year will focus on the theme ‘Can women rescue the economy?’. Would you like to comment on this?

Yes. With the obvious worldwide economic crisis, women’s role in business is increasingly important. We have to ask the question, ‘if there were more women in decision-making positions, would the crisis exist as it does today?’.

While it is obviously not possible to get an answer to that question, the fact that we can ask it shows the great changes that still need to occur in business. Our economy has a real problem with the under-representation of women.

The JUMP Forum seeks to address this by seeking solutions. How are we going to use this crisis to change the paradigm to create diversity in businesses and install women as leaders? As most business leaders understand, periods of crisis are instigators of change. We want more women in business to benefit from this crisis. We want business leaders to finally recognise and concede to the various studies and research available, which shows that increased diversity equates to improved performance.

Why should women in business be singled out to benefit from a global economic crisis? Why should women be “installed” as business leaders without going through the normal promotion channels? The research on diversity does not support her slogan that diversity improves performance.

Right now, 60% of the young graduates from European universities are women, and our society is faced with a choice. Will we accept a very low return on education investment, with women being under-represented in the labour force and moreover in management positions – and underpaid – or do we give everyone the opportunity to fulfil their talents?

Do you think the collapse of the economy is linked to the fact that the world of big business is still largely a male preserve?

Absolutely! I think there is a direct connection between the absence of diversity and the presence of financial insecurity. Men tend to react in a standard manner to financial problems with the usual cost-cutting solutions. Women, on the other hand, tend to be more focused on the whole community.

The idea that women tend to be focused on the whole community does not correspond with anyone’s experience of women in corporate leadership roles. Female executives who do not cut costs during economic downturns are not long for the executive suite.

To foster change and solve problems, more than one way of thinking is likely to be helpful. It is not a question of male or female, as it is a question of variety in ways of thinking. By having both men and women in decision-making roles, there is greater balance in the solutions, taking in various perspectives. It makes perfect sense – two heads are better than one. The same applies to gender, so two genders are better than one!

If it’s not a question of male or female, why the demand for female quotas? Having various perspectives does not lead to balance, it leads to conflict and the necessity of managing differences. It’s not a question of the number of heads, it’s a question of the quality of the analysis and the ability to carry out a course of action.

By including more women, men are likely to benefit from this workplace diversity, as it fosters more variety in thinking and acting than traditional male models of behaviour. Everyone stands to gain from increased workplace diversity.

The men who lose their jobs and promotions through quotas for women stand to gain from workplace diversity?

Since women account for around 44% of the employed population in the EU and only 1 out of 10 places on company boards, doesn’t it seem that in most countries, companies have failed to fully embrace the concept of gender equality in the workplace?

If companies have failed to embrace the concept of gender equality in the workplace, it is because they are more interested in productivity than quotas. If women were superior producers, they would be promoted in greater numbers. There is no obstacle to women’s advancement in the workplace, just the opposite, there are programs and policies designed to advance unqualified women.

The World Economic Forum recently published its annual report on the Global Gender Gap rankings. The Nordic countries are leading the charge, with women well-represented across the four benchmarks that are tested: education, health, involvement of women in the economy and politics.

Belgium comes 28th, even lower than last year! All the Western countries have managed parity regarding education and health, but it is the participation in politics that lowers America (as they have great women-in-business rankings), and it is participation in business that drops Belgium to the bottom of the table in Europe (rank 60).

Again, that is why there is the need for JUMP actions. We need to address the economic and business disparity across Belgium (and Europe) in relation to gender. ‘When all think alike, no one is thinking very much’ characterises the potential danger of boards consisting of people that look alike. If anything, this crisis has proven that the persistent lack of gender diversity on boards has not led to high performance – so it’s time to change and embrace the business benefits of diversity.

There is no characteristically female way of thinking that results in any benefits to anyone in business.

Here is a perfect example: a recent French study into the fall of share prices of the CAC 40 showed a positive effect of women on boards. While the average share price of the CAC 40 companies dropped 43% in 2008, companies with a high number of women in top management recorded better numbers. One of the best practices is Sodexho, with 43% female managers. It recorded a fall in its share price of only 8%, far less than most listed businesses.

If the crisis did anything, it shows that the call for diversity in management has become a must now.

The fall in one company’s share price isn’t evidence of superior female performance.

Since the Treaty of Rome, the EU has put gender at the core of its policies. Why don’t we have more women in top-level positions? What went wrong?

Well, 8 March was International Women’s Day, and I think it’s a great symbol for the answer to that question. The struggle for equality is ongoing. While there have been many women and men before us who helped pave the way to where we are today, the fight for equality must continue. The sustainability of our acquired rights and the strengthening of our confidence are needed to live out those rights recognised through our history.

Feminism is about equality, and respect for all human beings. And that is a struggle we need to fight in the less obvious areas – like the boardroom. While we know women are working, they are under-represented in positions of power and authority. We want equal pay [and] equal representation across all sectors, equal choice and opportunity. Change takes time and so the feminist movement perseveres.

If feminism were about equality, you would today see a movement to correct the higher college graduation rates of females by establishing quotas for males. But you will never see feminists propose equality as a standard when females dominate. Feminism is not about equality.

More specifically, in relation to a lack of women in top-level positions, the issue of work/life balance comes into play, as the woman shouldn’t be forced to sacrifice her career in the name of a family. Child rearing should not put the automatic onus on the female, so if and when there are children, men must take an equal role and responsibility in raising them. To succeed in this very difficult area, a great deal of partnership between the man and woman is required. Family management must be a two-person responsibility.

“Family management must be managed by feminist directives” is a feminist formula for family destruction.

In addition to that, the success of gender equality is also in legal measures, at companies who respect and accommodate for workers with families.

In Norway, public limited companies are legally required to have a minimum of 40% of members from each sex on their boards, and if they fail to do so, they are faced with sanctions, including closure of the company. Do you think we need something like that across Europe? Or what other measures can we come up with to ensure that there is equal representation in top positions?

Does it make any sense to close a company because it fails to have 40 percent female representation on its boards? Quite a destructive power-grab.

Yes indeed! The prime minister of Norway made that request to boost the innovation of the economy by this minimum female representation. It is a provocative and exciting measure, one which I enthusiastically support, and which is bound to have interesting results.

The companies initially concerned by this measure arrived at a representation of 25% women on board without too many problems. However, 40% was a whole other level of equality harder to achieve. What is so thrilling about this governmentally-induced problem is that it forced businesses to think outside the box. Companies had to change the paradigm and imagine other profiles to fill in the seats of the board. We’re talking about people they might not have considered, such as one lacking a MBA. Or viewing women’s experience more horizontally, without financial or line management backgrounds.

Putting women lacking skills and experience on corporate boards is not a formula for success. This is wishful thinking. Feminists cannot be specific about changing the paradigm to anything in particular about “female thinking” as it would expose their rhetoric as empty.

While some businesses might baulk at this solution, what is so radical about these efforts is that businesses were forced to change, equality and goals have been achieved, and the future is yet to be written. I can’t wait to see what happens next – I think there will be growth and change, but in unexpected areas. All because there are various perspectives and viewpoints now being entered into the decision-making equation.

She has no idea what will happen in the future as a result of these quotas. This is excitement substituting for judgment.

Shouldn’t the public sector lead the way and impose quotas on female representation?

Yes! First the public, then the private follows. Public companies currently have a very poor power balance between genders. In Belgium, only 15% of senior executives in public administrations are women. However, women make up more than 60% of all workers! Quotas should be established in public administrations and publicly-owned companies.

Now, without even knowing the outcome of the quota experiment on government boards, she proposes extending quotas to government bureaucracies as well. Quite a takeover plan.

You can see with the Belgian government, there is a much higher representation of females in the government than say in the US, because there is a legal requirement for parity in the list of candidates. Because we force this representation, the end result is a more diverse government with a more accurate population representation.

But she has nothing to say about the actual performance of the Belgian government, which is the true “end result” that matters.

What I think you should be asking though is WHY! Why should we enforce quotas on female representation? And the answer is – it works! Representation of women in the workforce has shown again and again to be more financially successful. The greater the number or women executives there are in a company, the less the stockmarket price will have decreased, a recent study revealed.

Not sufficient evidence to support her conclusion.

I mean, if businesses really were listening, if they were truly paying attention, I would think they would hear these statements, they would stop in their tracks, take a look around at their peers and realise they need more women.

If women executive truly were good perfomers, the corporations would hire them for that reason alone. Yet, when you look around, you just don’t find many outstanding women in business. That is why the feminists continue to propose quotas, to force the hiring of under-qualified women. This “experiment” has resulted in extra chaos within corporations as low performing women must be worked around or replaced, more qualified men leave and must be replaced, and resentment takes a particular male versus female character.

I mean, if you think about it, if a business CEO heard about a great new management technique that upped the average worker’s performance or a stock option that guaranteed strong results, don’t you think they would invest in testing out these options? It is a huge financial solution being shamefully ignored. Studies have shown that companies that promote women have superior performance. It is really that simple.

It’s really not that simple. Let’s see your evidence.

And in these economic times, diversity of leadership could help businesses outperform competitors and reach a wider customer base – so says one of our JUMP Forum speakers Eleanor Tabi Haller-Jordan, GM for Catalyst Europe. She (and many other topics) will touch on how to change the system and instigate change in business institutions.

If all businesses were forced to put female executives on their board, no company would have an advantage and hence outperform its competitors.

In the run-up to the elections, some parties have come up with zipped lists. A survey carried out by Eurobarometer shows, however, that women do not favour quotas, but would rather see women politicians talk more about issues that affect women (jobs, childcare, reconciliation of work and family life, pension, etc.) Do you think women politicians have failed to engage women in policymaking and to function as a role models to attract even more women?

Hmm. Your question is framed quite negatively. It makes me think you already have an opinion on this!

Already having an opinion is not necessarily a bad thing. If you can’t defend your proposal from critique, you really don’t have anything to offer.

I think that national politics are tough. It’s a power struggle, a complex strategic game, and most women don’t feel comfortable with that. They prefer efficient action in a friendly and respectful atmosphere. Regretfully, we can acknowledge that politics aren’t always as action-oriented – or even respectful for that matter! That’s why the number of female candidates is still lower than the male ones.

Is she suggesting that women aren’t masculine enough to survive in a competitive atmosphere? Some women are highly competitive, some aren’t. Whether women feel comfortable about power struggles is not an important criterion to the success of a business. There are always power struggles in business, and they become more of a factor the higher you rise in the hierarchy.

I think politics will change with more diversity, but it will take time to change. I look forward to more women exercising power and more politically-influential women.

For women, work and family reconciliation is a constant struggle. What legislative initiative do you think will help keep women in the job market during the childbearing years? Some advocate making childcare tax-deductive, or introducing other incentives or initiatives?

Great question. I believe in a number of initiatives. I mentioned before the need for balance between the partnerships at home. But for that to be successful, the woman also needs to be supported by the initiatives put in place at the workplace. I would suggest compulsory parental leave for fathers, so that they are allowed a certain amount of vital child-rearing time. I support European Parliament initiatives in extending maternity leave, but I would like to see it as a right and not as an obligation.

Government control over the family through compulsory statutes is one of the oldest Communist objectives. The invention of new rights is a continuing strategy of socialism to destabilize the family and put it under control of the government.

I support the European Parliament’s targets for minimal childcare access before elementary school. I would also love to see quotas for boards and management committees. Plus, I’d like to see quotas for governments and parliaments. As Norway has shown, meeting quotas is possible, and having an accurate representation of both genders in the public and private sector is an inspiring vision of the future.”

———–

It’s an inspiring vision of the future for Communist feminists, but the application of feminist policies in the Soviet Union resulted in population decline so severe that Russia had to end the policies. Several European ethnic groups are in danger of extinction from adopting feminism.

If you failed this test, return to our post Aaron Russo Interview with Rockefeller. The Rockefeller dynasty promoted and funded feminism for two purposes, to put women in the labor force and to promote child care separate from the family for easy indoctrination of children into the New World Order. The feminist movement is essentially the recruitment of an army of activists, change-agents, cadres, whatever you want to call them, to destroy the family and promote a Marxist death culture to replace Western civilization. This has been accomplished under the sign of human rights or women’s rights and equality, masking the true agenda, world depopulation and destruction of genuine cultures and families.

One of the ironies of this proposal is that the unionized workers of Europe are presently protesting EU integration, migrant workers taking their jobs, and state bailouts for bankers rather than for workers. If promoting feminists to high-level corporate and government positions is going to further the integration of the EU, it would have to do so over the objections of the workers they would be hired to manage. Jiggering with corporate family policies and creating a nice boardroom atmosphere are not going to overcome the nationalist orientation and appeals to self-interest of angry workers rioting in the streets. Feminists could only save the EU if they betrayed the working class as they have in the United States.

As we pursue our survey of alternative futures, your evaluation of what is best for you will depend on your self-concept, your identity. Feminism furnishes women with three false identities. First, the pseudo-masculine careerist identity, signified by women who wear the pin-striped male business suit and show a little cleavage. Women who aspire to be men and merge gender differences. Second, some variation on a feminine identity, as seductress, party girl, porn actress, prostitute. Third, the “goddess” identity from goddess worship, in which devotees believe they are the goddess or an incarnated form of the goddess. These three feminist identity forms are incompatible with each other (how can you be a victim and a goddess at the same time?), which necessitates identity switching. This is a successful strategy for confounding men, it works over and over again, but the adoption of feminist identities leads to mental problems as well as unsatisfying life outcomes. The common observation is, you just can’t find a happy or healthy feminist.

If you are going to have a real future rather than simply being a pawn in the game of global takeover, you will need to discard false feminist identities and adopt a real identity based on race, culture, and gender. This may appear to be a great challenge if you have been coopted into serving the cosmopolitan multiculture of New World Order elitism. Fortunately for you, we are here to help.

Tags: feminism and the European Union, feminist identity problems, Isabellla Lenaduzzi, JUMP Forum

This entry was posted by Director on Tuesday, May 19th, 2009 at 4:24 pm and is filed under European Union, Global Communism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.