The World Economic Forum Is A (self-anointed) Global Thought Leader On Politics, Sustainability, Innovation

The World Economic Forum is a (self-anointed) global thought leader on politics, sustainability, innovation and equality.

In fact, I actually know the World Economic Forum quite well, I’ve worked with them professionally dozens of times; we’ve collaborated on important projects, we’ve shaken hands, sat around tables and pretended to laugh at each other’s jokes. I’ve even scaled the icy mountains of Switzerland to spend the week documenting the ultra-VIP Davos conference.

Their Global Gender Gap Report is a highly anticipated and respected annual barometer for how the world is doing on its meandering journey toward equality. But with no sense of irony, the report’s methodology is itself, systemically sexist.

So, let’s turn the beady eye of equality onto those pointing the finger, is the GGGR sexist and how?

It’s time to say GG, to the GGGR

Read it for yourself - https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf

-

Sources

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/aug/13/girls-overtake-boys-in-a-level-and-gcse-maths-so-are-they-smarter

[2] https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html

[3] https://www.scielosp.org/article/bwho/2014.v92n8/618-620/en/

[4] https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/mars-vs-venus-the-gender-gap-in-health

"Then you should understand people choosing the bear"

I'm a sexual assault survivor. When I was 15, a 55-year-old woman assaulted me and three of my friends at a party where she served a bunch of 15-year-olds alcohol. Way to go Granny.

And I don't hate women. I've stepped in to defend women against attacks from men in city streets or bars. I can't say if they're all sexually related or sexually motivated - they probably were.

But when we get to the question of this, I mean, like I do empathize for victims. I get that.

But the question isn't real. And we all know the question isn't real. It's hypothetical.

I was just at a store. There are hundreds or thousands of people at this Walmart, men and women walking around, doing their thing minding their own business. Not a single woman in there was shifty eyed, dysphoric or afraid of any of the men in that store.

I was just at a restaurant. I was at a bank. I was at a coffee shop. I was walking through a park. No one was afraid of men.

Replace any of those men with one bear and see what happens.

So, because we know it's hypothetical, let's have an adult conversation. Ready?

The existence of the question at all creates bias against men. I can trick you just the same way. I'd say, what do you think more Islamic men use to murder their wives with, guns or knives or rope?

The fact that I asked the question, you go, well why is he asking that question? Do they murder their wives a lot?

The queston is: safety, bear, man, alone. Right, those are the four real words in that question. It is embedding a bias against men. Every woman that has answered that question "bear" has stepped out in public since, has interracted with hundreds of men. The average woman will interact with 300 men per day.

Maybe they'd opted for the bear just cause they wanna mix it up. They're like, I'm getting so bored with the thousands of men that I see every week that maybe I just wanna see a bear.

I don't think you understand the gravity of this question. As a abuse survivor, I'm standing up against a false claim against the nature of men, where one in a thousand men - or maybe just a hair over one in one thousand men - will commit a crime of this nature. It's a very thin number of men.

And as a man whose family was responsible for starting World War I - you know, the assassination by the Black Hand, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, my family paid for that assassination. We started World War I, which is why World War II happened. Because I'm so closely tied to that genocide, I've studied it.

And, Hitler and the Germans use the same type of questionings and comparative logic to wage war against Jews. I am literally trying to stop thousands of women who don't know any better but than to participate in a trend from creating this wave of propaganda against men.

Someone is trying to use this question against men, and women think it's a cool, dramatic way to say, "I'm afraid of men." But they're really actually not afraid of men. Cause they wouldn't go outside. They wouldn't go shopping. They wouldn't walk through the park. They wouldn't do anything. They'd be so actually mortified of men.

The question appeals to a logical fallacy called the Fallacy of Relative Privation. They're trying to say that because a single man could do more harm than a single bear, that all men are more dangerous than all bears on average. Regardless of the context of the interaction. That strips away all sense of goodwill or truth to the fact that women interact with 300 men per day on average. That strips away the truth that a woman, per male exposure, if you walk down the sidewalk and you see a guy, you have a 1 in 35 million chance of being forcibly [g]raped in that walk by on the sidewalk.

That Fallacy of Relative Privation strips all logic to the fact that men are, by and large, safe. But yeah, 81% of women will report being sexually harassed or assaulted. 43% of men just the same.

The number of people who will experience unwanted sexual contact, men and women, are roughly the same[**]. Men will underreport at three times the rate of women. Men are victimized just as much, but we're stigmatized against talking about it.

Both sides are victims, but men are not doing this campaign to smear women to try to damage the entire, like, gender of women.

Except for me, now. I'm doing what's called logical parallels. My whole argument for the last two weeks has been such: since women assault children, their children, their biological kids at 2.5 times the rate that all men assault women sexually, then women should lose custody of their kids until they stop it. Because, the phrase going around online right now is all men until no men. So, until no women, all women. Women do not deserve custody of their biological kids if any of them are capable of harming a child. Because children are innocent and honestly, all parallels aside, it's the abuse of children that is propagating people who are becoming monsters later on in life.

So, if anyone could make a decision right now to make the world a better place in the next 15 years, it's women not abusing their kids. It's already too late for us as adults. We're already screwed. We all have our trauma that we have to work through, and that's gonna be a dog fight. But if we wanna guarantee the world's gonna be a better place, let's stop abusing kids.

So, the reason why women are choosing the bears is cause it's not a real question and they won't have consequences if they answer in a dramatic way for effect.

Just like the 30-something percent of boys are like, well, dude, if like, there's no consequences, I'd totally take advantage of a chick. See, yeah, maybe people are bad people by nature, but people still obey the law. And that's why if 32% of college men would commit SA if there's no consequences, but then only one out of every thousand men will commit that crime, that shows how much people have discipline over their nature.

And you cannot say the same thing about a bear.

==

** The following numbers are taken from the CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) from 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2016/2017.

--

P.S. I'll just leave this here.

‘It’s a world made by men, for the benefit of men.’

The patriarchy, male privilege, gender oppression… again and again, we are beaten over the head with dogmatic, absolutist, and terrifying catch phrases, each to be accepted without question.

You see, when it comes to political and structural advantage, men have it all, and women have none.

But do such theories make sense in modern society?

Why, if our male privilege is so sweet, do so many thousands of men end their lives in such tragic stories of suicide?

Why, if our society is so patriarchal, does it ignore the countless and increasingly urgent issues that devastate men and boys?

And why, if this society is designed for my advantage, no less as a straight white man, then why in the build-up to a General Election is there not one policy designed for men and boys?

I don’t understand.

And if the world hates and neglects women so much, why do our major political parties line up to offer them a plethora of well-meaning policies, showering them with taxpayer money, and words of support, compassion, and kindness?

The political agendas are out, outlining the next generation of political change, and ambition, and it’s chock full of ‘women and girls’ being a national priority.

Meanwhile any question about the other half of society, to rightfully ask ‘what about men and boys?’, will only draw sneers and squeals, eye rolls, and violence, ‘this isn’t about you’, they snap back.

Yes.

We know that already. That’s the point.

It never is.

It never is about boys falling behind and out of education.

It never is about the homeless men left to die on the street.

It never is about the millions of male victims of abuse with nowhere to go.

Those who say, ‘this isn’t about you’, have yet to realise they have missed the point entirely, whilst simultaneously impaling themselves upon it.

We know.

This isn’t about us, and it never is.

So, who, in another full house of political neglect, betrayal and failure, are you going to vote for?

I can see your point of view on people getting gender-affirming surgery at a young age and how that could be harmful for some. But how is socially transitioning as a child or adolescent harmful? If I want to be referred to as a he at school, how does that hurt people?

And what are you doing on the queer website if you don’t like queer people, anyhow?

"what are you doing on the queer website if you don’t like queer people, anyhow?"

Well, there was no sign on the door saying that on the way in. Are you sure you don't mean Grindr?

Besides that, your use of that term (which many gay people find offensive) illustrates a problem with the present situation: it used to describe men who desired men or women who desired women - in other words, sex-based sexual preference - but in recent years it has been widened to encompass people with medical conditions like gender dysphoria, and people who have been surgically mutilated, and a thousand other whims and fancies, which is obviously an entirely different thing from the original meaning, and now actively works against sex-based sexual preference, i.e., with trans activists demanding lesbians give blowjobs or else be labeled "transphobes", etc. Which is why so many gay people are now wanting the LGBs to divorce from the TQ+2SJKLMNOPs.

"how is socially transitioning as a child or adolescent harmful?"

There's a bunch of answers to that one, but the previously mentioned story of David Reimer is a good example. Also, many of the people now attempting to detransition as best they can report that once they "socially transitioned" as children / teenagers, they were fast-tracked into hormones and surgery, and because they had made such a public show and built their identities around being trans, they didn't feel able to get off the train that had by then been rolling for years.

Beyond all that, children cannot and should not be making long-reaching, life-altering decisions while they are still growing, changing and lost in play.

If a 6-year-old wants to pretend they're a bear, and the rest of the family go along with it, there's unlikely to be any noticeable harm. But if those parents were to go to the child's school and demand the children and staff there all only refer to their child as a bear, rather than a human, and change the child's passport to an animal passport, and take their child to a vet rather than a doctor, and so forth and so on, a great deal of harm would likely be done to that child's natural development and future life: their education would suffer, along with their health, their social skills, their understanding of actual reality, their work options, etc., and by the time they outgrew that phase, they would in every way be in a worse situation than the other children at their school who had none of that done to them.

One could write a book of all the other reasons to be concerned about the present craze - the massive explosion of social contagion amongst teenage girls, etc., but hopefully that's enough to be going on with.