Carey Roberts
Obama administration exports neo-Marxist ideology across the globe
By Carey Roberts
It's no secret that President Barack Obama has set out to transform American society into a socialist nirvana — just witness how the automobile, banking, and healthcare industries are now, or soon will be, under federal control.
But how many realize Obama's US Agency for International Development — USAID for short — is currently spending millions to export neo-Marxist ideology around the world?
To most, mention of USAID evokes pleasing images of burlap-shrouded wheat bags, goodwill tours, and smiley-faced Peace Corps volunteers.
But in recent years, USAID has fallen under the spell of a radical gender ideology. Employing a linguistic sleight-of-hand, feminists substitute "men" for "capitalist oppressor- class" and "women" for "downtrodden proletariat." Then they blame every inconvenience and indignity of females on the grand conspiracy they dub the "patriarchy." And if they need to cook up some juicy statistics to make their case, so be it.
Just go to the USAID Women in Development website that announces, "USAID has a special interest in the advancement of women worldwide and is working to improve women's equality and empowerment:" http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/wid/
So what's wrong with that? Well, think about the last three words, "equality and empowerment." What do these terms really mean?
Socialists define "equality" in terms of outcomes, not opportunities. So when USAID says, "The U.S. Government recognizes that the equal participation of women in the political, economic, and social spheres of society is a key ingredient for democratic development," it means quotas should be imposed if necessary to increase female representation in politics.
That's why USIAD has been bankrolling a group in India called Women Power Connect to lobby for a rigid 33% female quota in the national Parliament. Most would call that rigging the elections and undermining democracy. (The USAID actually had the chutzpah to brag about this Ugly American initiative on its own website: http://www.usaid.gov/in/newsroom/iwd_celeb.htm)
That socialist dream came true last month, when the Indian Parliament adopted a constitutional amendment to reserve 33% of the seats for females. Unless the Prime Minister decides differently, 181 of the 543 seats in the Lower House will soon carry a "men not welcome" designation, regardless of the qualifications or political leanings of the respective candidates.
And what about "empowerment"? That word has occupied a cherished spot in revolutionary parlance ever since Karl Marx penned the Communist Manifesto. And what does empowerment really mean, other than teaching women to feel distrust and contempt for men?
Look at USAID's "Fact Sheet" on The Economic Crisis: The Impact on Women. The sheet is filled with sweeping (and unsubstantiated) claims like "women living in poor countries are likely to bear a disproportionate burden in an economic crisis."
Really? I've traveled in developing countries around the world. Everywhere I've been, at least three out of four homeless persons are male.
If you still harbor doubts about UNAID's embrace of neo-Marxist ideology, consider its loopy explanation for domestic violence:
"Unequal power relations between men and women significantly contribute to gender-based violence. In fact, gender-based violence is often intended to maintain gender inequalities and/or reinforce traditional roles for both men and women."
That statement blithely ignores a 32-country survey that found women are more likely than men to instigate partner violence. The study also discovered, to persons' great surprise, that the power-and-control motivation was more widespread among female aggressors than male abusers: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf
More broadly, the USAID Women in Development programs takes an ignore-the-male-bastards approach to economic development. Liberian president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has decried the effects of foreign aid programs that ignore the needs of half her nation's population:
"The vulnerabilities of men have received limited attention in development research and programming. In Liberia, men's lack of access to employment and land...lay at the heart of the violence and conflict that led to the near destruction of the country."
When Barack Obama was inaugurated as president 15 months ago, he issued this promise:
"And so, to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity."
How many persons listening to those inspiring words suspected Mr. Obama's global vision of peace and dignity would have a profoundly socialist ring to it?
© Carey Roberts
April 8, 2010
It's no secret that President Barack Obama has set out to transform American society into a socialist nirvana — just witness how the automobile, banking, and healthcare industries are now, or soon will be, under federal control.
But how many realize Obama's US Agency for International Development — USAID for short — is currently spending millions to export neo-Marxist ideology around the world?
To most, mention of USAID evokes pleasing images of burlap-shrouded wheat bags, goodwill tours, and smiley-faced Peace Corps volunteers.
But in recent years, USAID has fallen under the spell of a radical gender ideology. Employing a linguistic sleight-of-hand, feminists substitute "men" for "capitalist oppressor- class" and "women" for "downtrodden proletariat." Then they blame every inconvenience and indignity of females on the grand conspiracy they dub the "patriarchy." And if they need to cook up some juicy statistics to make their case, so be it.
Just go to the USAID Women in Development website that announces, "USAID has a special interest in the advancement of women worldwide and is working to improve women's equality and empowerment:" http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/wid/
So what's wrong with that? Well, think about the last three words, "equality and empowerment." What do these terms really mean?
Socialists define "equality" in terms of outcomes, not opportunities. So when USAID says, "The U.S. Government recognizes that the equal participation of women in the political, economic, and social spheres of society is a key ingredient for democratic development," it means quotas should be imposed if necessary to increase female representation in politics.
That's why USIAD has been bankrolling a group in India called Women Power Connect to lobby for a rigid 33% female quota in the national Parliament. Most would call that rigging the elections and undermining democracy. (The USAID actually had the chutzpah to brag about this Ugly American initiative on its own website: http://www.usaid.gov/in/newsroom/iwd_celeb.htm)
That socialist dream came true last month, when the Indian Parliament adopted a constitutional amendment to reserve 33% of the seats for females. Unless the Prime Minister decides differently, 181 of the 543 seats in the Lower House will soon carry a "men not welcome" designation, regardless of the qualifications or political leanings of the respective candidates.
And what about "empowerment"? That word has occupied a cherished spot in revolutionary parlance ever since Karl Marx penned the Communist Manifesto. And what does empowerment really mean, other than teaching women to feel distrust and contempt for men?
Look at USAID's "Fact Sheet" on The Economic Crisis: The Impact on Women. The sheet is filled with sweeping (and unsubstantiated) claims like "women living in poor countries are likely to bear a disproportionate burden in an economic crisis."
Really? I've traveled in developing countries around the world. Everywhere I've been, at least three out of four homeless persons are male.
If you still harbor doubts about UNAID's embrace of neo-Marxist ideology, consider its loopy explanation for domestic violence:
"Unequal power relations between men and women significantly contribute to gender-based violence. In fact, gender-based violence is often intended to maintain gender inequalities and/or reinforce traditional roles for both men and women."
That statement blithely ignores a 32-country survey that found women are more likely than men to instigate partner violence. The study also discovered, to persons' great surprise, that the power-and-control motivation was more widespread among female aggressors than male abusers: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf
More broadly, the USAID Women in Development programs takes an ignore-the-male-bastards approach to economic development. Liberian president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has decried the effects of foreign aid programs that ignore the needs of half her nation's population:
"The vulnerabilities of men have received limited attention in development research and programming. In Liberia, men's lack of access to employment and land...lay at the heart of the violence and conflict that led to the near destruction of the country."
When Barack Obama was inaugurated as president 15 months ago, he issued this promise:
"And so, to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity."
How many persons listening to those inspiring words suspected Mr. Obama's global vision of peace and dignity would have a profoundly socialist ring to it?
© Carey Roberts
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
