Women Proposing to Men is Trendy (Youtube) by PatrickHenryist

First I hear about women marrying themselves.  Now I hear about women proposing to men.



Women are proposing to men, so have your answer ready.

Links:

http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2012/07/04/man-gagement-rings-on-the-rise-as-women-take-matters-into-their-own-hands/

http://www.ivillage.co.uk/how-propose-your-man/82321

http://blog.mymusicbydesign.com/man-gagement-rings-the-next-wedding-trend/

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-12/entertainment/17939967_1_ring-jarrett-gabel-free-man

To be honest, this 'news' sounds like more propaganda from so-called 'elitists' in the Western world. I think this will only further the rift between the sexes.

Sex Robots ... Will they replace women??? (Youtube) aka What the Elites really started the gender war for

Their attack on women is complete, now the attack on male sexuality begins.

MAAFA 21: Black Genocide in America (Continued)

MAAFA 21 Documentary 4/13:



MAAFA 21 Documentary 5/13:



MAAFA 21 Documentary 6/13:



MAAFA 21 Documentary 7/13:



MAAFA 21 Documentary 8/13:



MAAFA 21 Documentary 9/13:



MAAFA 21 Documentary 10/13:



MAAFA 21 Documentary 11/13:



MAAFA 21 Documentary 12/13:



MAAFA 21 Documentary 13/13:



This video series has proven to be most interesting.

Alan Watt The Neo-Eugenics War On Humanity (Youtube)

A most interesting video.





The Masterplan - Why the Elites are attacking the family unit (Youtube)

Eugenics Captures Feminism

http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap06.html

Wonderful reading.

U.S Population Policy and Feminism: A Working Relationship?

Author(s): Amy J. Higer

Date Published: July 12, 2006

Source: Political Environments #2, Summer 1995

Topics: Population Control

 

http://www.cwpe.org/node/45

 

'OVER THE PAST FIFTEEN YEARS, the International Women's Health Movement (IWHM) has become an increasingly visible and vocal player in international population policy. Feminist engagement in the population debate accelerated with preparations for the UN Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo this past September. One policymaking agency which appears to have considered women's perspectives, at least rhetorically, is the Agency for International Development (AID), the U.S. bilateral funding agency for Third World development.1 New policy trends at AID raise two important questions for feminist activists: First, what explains the recent influence of women's health activists in the debate on population policy? Second, to what extent do recent changes in AID's population agenda indicate a departure from past policies and a response to feminist lobbying? Although it is too soon to gauge the magnitude of policy and programmatic change at AID, preliminary assessment of the IWHM's influence on U.S. population policy is now possible.2
Explaining the Influence of the International Women's Health Movement
Many in the population field began to take seriously the concerns of the women's health movement when they realized that population programs which ignore women's concerns will be ineffective over the long-term. They saw a need to create programs that would go beyond mere distribution of contraceptives in order to meet a range of women's reproductive health needs. In this way, the IWHM offered an alternative approach to population control that promised better results.
Changes in the political context over the past decade also facilitated feminist influence. Paradoxically, in the hostile climate to women's reproductive rights of the Reagan-Bush years, U.S.-based women's health and rights groups working transnationally began to attract significant financial support from private foundations to strengthen their international efforts.3 This influx of funds to women's health groups enhanced the movement's ability to disseminate its message and heightened its visibility in policy circles. Equally important, it also aided efforts to establish or strengthen ties with disaffected, but poorly-funded and politically marginalized feminist health groups around the world. Such transnational networking has contributed to transforming the IWHM from a loose array of scattered oppositional groups into a global lobbying force of considerable strength, as evidenced at the Cairo Conference.
The work of women's health advocates has been aided also by the increased presence of feminists within foreign-aid bureaucracies. More than ever before, women are occupying the higher ranks in agencies that were formally the exclusive domain of male bureaucrats. Although women in positions of power may not necessarily be advocates for a women's health agenda, they are more likely to be sympathetic to women's health concerns than their male colleagues. Finally, the Clinton administration's renewed interest in population issues and its more favorable position on women's reproductive rights have lessened the ideological resistance within the government to the IWHM's ideas and agenda.
Although helpful in explaining the IWHM's increased salience as a political actor in U.S. population policy, these factors are insufficient in explaining the movement's influence on the current policy agenda. To understand recent accommodation to feminist concerns in AID, we must also recognize the existence of two feminist views about population policy and social change, both of which represent strands of the IWHM. The first takes a more reformist stance to policy change, while the second is more radical in its perspective.
The reformist strategy calls for a reproductive health approach to family planning and "population stabilization." This would provide women with access to a broad range of contraceptive method choice and reproductive health services, including treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS, and reproductive-related illnesses; access to safe abortion services; provision of sex education; and inclusion of men in family planning programs, education, and outreach. It accepts, though does not necessarily endorse, the idea that a demographic rationale continues to underlie U.S. population expenditures, and that "women's reproductive health" is, in the current context, insufficient on its own as a rationale for the allocation of money and resources.
An alternative, more radical view repudiates the idea of population policy entirely, and, as such, is an outlook not likely to be endorsed by AID's Office of Population. It turns on the notion that population sustainability or control tends to lead to coercion, and that only a women's health framework will result in programs that (1) do not treat women and their health instrumentally, (2) respect and promote women's needs and interests, and (3) do not hold funding for women's health care hostage to demographic results. In this alternative paradigm, family planning programs would be fully integrated with overall health care services. Although these positions are counterposed here, it is perhaps more realistic to regard them on a continuum, as there is, in practice, some overlap on important issues.4
Recent changes in AID's population program appear to reflect some accommodation to the reformist feminist agenda. However, because it is likely to result in programs that continue to treat women's rights and health as a means to the ultimate goal of population decline, the reformist strategy may prove to be a tenuous one for advancing women's health and overall status in developing countries.
Recent Changes in the U.S. Population Program
Broad changes in U.S. foreign aid over the past two years create the current structure for population policy. Under the Clinton administration, AID has undergone the most extensive reorganization in its history. The agency is under particular pressure to scale down, with Congress calling for ever deeper cuts in the foreign assistance program. When adjusted for inflation, the administration's FY 1994 budget request for foreign aid of $14.4 billion is the smallest in two decades. As part of the attempt to meet new budgetary constraints, AID has had to scale back its operations. Much to the disappointment of many in the wider development community, AID has chosen not to prioritize the poorest countries for its aid programs, but to continue emphasizing those with high birth rates. In addition, although the reorganization has signified a move away from functional categories for development aid and toward the support of broad global objectives, "population" has remained a discrete category for foreign aid. As AID Administrator J. Brian Atwood explains, population is one area in which the agency can point to real progress.5 "Progress" here is measured by increased contraceptive prevalence world-wide and declining global population. The skepticism of prominent Republicans in Congress about the whole enterprise of foreign aid has only intensified the pressure on AID to demonstrate program effectiveness.
In its new population program, AID does seem, at first glance, to have accommodated some feminist concerns. Upon closer inspection, however, we can discern two contradictory tendencies. On the one hand, there has been substantial movement toward broadening the approach to family planning services, reflected in a rhetorical emphasis on "reproductive health" and "women's empowerment." This broadening trend has been reinforced by organizational restructuring of the agency that has sought to integrate to some extent the Office of Health with the Office of Population under a new umbrella structure called the Center for Population, Health and Nutrition (PHN). Further bolstering this new direction are some recent initiatives that are designed to address a more diverse array of issues, including some that clearly reflect feminist concerns.
At the same time, however, there appears to be strong pressure within the agency, including inside the Office of Population, to maintain the distinctiveness of the population program and to resist its "dilution" through a broader health approach. This pressure is indicated by the decision to retain senior officials who are outspoken defenders of old approaches. It is seen also in contradictory language found in the very same documents that espouse a new integrated approach. For example, official documents and speeches no longer contain the abrasive language of the past ("population stabilization" is now used instead of the coercion-tinged "population control," and "women" or "end-user" have replaced "population targets" and "acceptors"). Support for women's reproductive rights, moreover, has been given equal billing with the goal of stabilizing world population growth. At the same time, however, these documents repeatedly state that the Office of Population remains firmly committed to keeping family planning at the core of its population program. Further, family planning programs will still be "results-driven,"6 that is, they are to be oriented toward "population stabilization," rather than toward goals articulated by women themselves. In this sense, AID's policy objectives are ambiguous: are new reproductive health policies designed to promote women's reproductive health and rights; or are they intended to foster population decline? Is the former a policy objective on its own, or is it a means to achieve the latter? If the "new reproductive health interventions" touted by AID are merely a means to an end, will they be designed and implemented in a manner that addresses women's needs and interests?
Looking beyond written materials to new policy initiatives and organizational change, we get a somewhat clearer picture of what is going on, but, again, the overall mission of AID's population policy is still cloudy. The following initiatives reflect some movement toward reform. First, the creation of the PHN Center has lessened to some extent the bureaucratic and disciplinary divide between population and health by integrating the formerly segregated staffs of "Health" and "Population" and creating an opportunity for ongoing communication between the two offices. Second, a "reproductive health survey" was taken of both AID Missions overseas and organizations funded by AID in order to create a database of current or planned projects which go beyond family planning to incorporate "reproductive health interventions."7 Third, new demographic survey questions will address the incidence of STDs/HIV transmission, maternal mortality, post-abortion care, and domestic violence-all items on women's health agendas. Finally, efforts are also underway to expand methods and criteria for the evaluation of family planning program "effectiveness."8
Still, new policy initiatives, as well as the extension of some old ones, send mixed messages about AID's commitment to women's health perspectives. For example, a 1993 request for proposal for a Women's Studies Project to study women's experience with family planning programs in several countries aroused much interest in the women's health community and inspired optimism about new directions for AID's population program. Activists were disappointed, however, when AID awarded the grant to a mainstream family planning group, despite the fact that many new women's health groups submitted innovative proposals.9 In addition, several AID-funded research agencies continue to highlight long-acting, "provider-dependent" methods, such as IUDs, injectibles, and hormonal implants.10 These methods are precisely the ones that women's health activists have long lobbied against as inappropriate in Third World settings for a variety of reasons, and as serving better the interests of "population controllers," than women.
Finally, although there is some rhetorical commitment to giving greater attention to men in family planning programs, there is little concrete evidence of outreach efforts. Aside from increased condom distribution, which more reflects a stop-gap response to the AIDS crisis than a concerted effort to incorporate men into family planning efforts, new initiatives do not specify men's role in contraception and reproduction. Because men's sexual behavior is a major determinant of contraceptive use by women, (and women's health in general), resistance to movement in this direction could well be interpreted as back-pedaling on a commitment to a new approach to population.
Conclusions
This preliminary review of new policies at AID indicates that a gap between rhetoric and reality is at the moment serving to cloud what is actually taking place in U.S. population policy. There are two ways of understanding this current distance between what is being said and what is being done, each with different implications for outside advocates.
First, bureaucratic politics may explain current policy incoherence. In this regard, we find an office and an agency that are internally divided over its population mission. While some bureaucrats are deeply wedded to the view that population decline must remain the overriding goal, and that any new policy intervention must serve this end, others are more polygamous in their commitments, and see the possibility for incorporating multiple goals into population programs. These inside advocates have already achieved a measure of success in getting the more liberal members in the agency to acknowledge, and speak out against, coercion in population programs. In this way, they can been seen as allies for outside reformers seeking to effect change in AID's population agenda. If the explanation for the disjuncture in new policy rhetoric and initiatives is rooted in bureaucracy, feminist health advocates seeking to effect change over the long-term should be encouraged by recent movement in the agency. Accounting for lag-time, much appears to have changed in AID's population policy, and changed rather rapidly. With this interpretation, advocates would be well-advised to continue lobbying the agency, while using some of the new rhetoric to hold it accountable to the reproductive health and rights agenda.
A second possible explanation for the present incoherence in U.S. population policy, however, suggests caution for women's health advocates seeking to reform AID's population program. A gap between what AID is saying and what it is actually doing may be due to the fact that the goals articulated in the new population strategy are incompatible. The dual purpose of promoting population decline and increasing women's reproductive freedom may ultimately turn out to be unworkable in practice. Clearly, there will be instances in which women's reproductive rights and population policy aiming to bring down birth rates will come into conflict as a result of a strategy in which family planning programs are designed and intended to curtail female fertility. Indeed, historically, these two goals have always come into conflict when governments have instituted population policies, whether they be anti- or pro-natalist. From the historical record, we know that it is virtually always women's reproductive freedom that is compromised when governments seek to regulate birth rates.
We can see the seeds for this conflict in AID's strategy today. Despite frequent invocations touting the new "synergy" in the population and health strategy, the population framework continues to isolate women's need for contraceptives from related health needs, and to view women's health only through the prism of how it affects, and is affected by, their childbearing capacity. AID's population program seems still focused on the question of how it can get women to practice family planning, rather than how it can help women and men meet their own goals. Surely women's health activists must remain engaged in the debate to ensure that U.S. population policies are not administered in a coercive and unhealthful manner. Ultimately, however, if the goal of activists and reformers is to secure from government a genuine commitment to advance unconditionally the reproductive freedom and health of individuals, they may need to look beyond the population paradigm for a more promising international agenda.
NOTES
1. The bulk of U.S. population funding is channeled through AID and is expended by the Office of Population, an office within the Agency.
2. The bureaucratic structure of the agency and commitment to past funding obligations-with typical projects lasting five to seven years-render budgetary appraisals difficult at this point. Policy innovation in the Office of Population is also constrained bureaucratically by the fact that the Office must make an internal argument to convince the rest of the Agency, as well as Congress, that it is spending limited resources in the most efficacious way.
3. Indeed, by the end of the 1980s, the Ford Foundation, one of the original funders of international population programs, went so far as to rename its population program "Reproductive Health." (See Reproductive Health: A Strategy for the 1990s, A Program Paper of the Ford Foundation, June, 1991.)
4. For example, both sets of feminist are generally wary of contraceptive methods that do not prevent STDs and HIV/AIDS, and which render the user overly dependent on the provider both for the administering and particularly for the removal of the method. Moreover, both perspectives advocate the right to safe, legal and affordable abortion.
5. J. Brian Atwood, "More Than Words: US-AID's Approach to the Population Problem," Harvard International Review, (Fall, 1994), p. 29.
6. Population, Partnerships, Opportunities and Challenges Appendix F; and "Strategies for Sustainable Development."
7. USAID Reproductive Health Baseline Survey: A Survey of Projects and Activities Implemented and Planned by USAID Missions and Cooperating Agencies, Report Prepared by Barbara Pillsbury and Gisele Maynard-Tucker for the Reproductive Health Task Force, USAID, (June, 1994, revised August, 1994), p. 22.
8. This initiative part of an ongoing project called the EVALUATION Project, run out of the University of North Carolina. [Guide to the Offices of Population, Health and Nutrition, (Draft Version), February 1994.] Both initiatives suggest that qualitative indicators, in addition to quantitative ones, will be used to assess the effectiveness of family planning services, and as such, may potentially result in extensive programmatic change.
With regard to its abortion policy, AID has been restricted since 1973 by the Helms' amendment in its funding of abortion services abroad. Under the Clinton administration, the Agency has sought to push the boundaries on what it can do under current law. Its present policy of addressing complications stemming from botched abortions as a medical emergency probably extends the boundaries as far as they will go. In light of the limitations imposed on abortion during the Reagan-Bush era, AID's current "post-abortion" initiative represents a dramatic change in U.S. policy. Still, this assessment must be placed in context; given the shockingly high incidence of morbidity and mortality resulting from unsafe abortion worldwide, pressure to repeal the Helms' amendment must be seen as an essential component of any policy that purports to address women's health needs in developing countries.
9. The organization that received the grant is Family Health International, based in North Carolina.
10. See Guide to Office of Population, Health and Nutrition, descriptions of the following cooperative agreements: Training in Reproductive Health II and III; Central Contraceptive Procurement; Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception Program; and Contraceptive Social Marketing III.'

A History of Homosexuality (and Planned Parenthood)

The tools once used as a population control in Black communities in America now goes global.

Meghalaya, India: Where women rule, and men are suffragettes (BBC news)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16592633


This is not a joke.

From the site.

' 

In the small hilly Indian state of Meghalaya, a matrilineal system operates with property names and wealth passing from mother to daughter rather than father to son - but some men are campaigning for change.

When early European settlers first arrived here they nicknamed it "the Scotland of the East" on account of its evocative rolling hills.

Coincidentally, today the bustling market in the state capital, Shillong, is awash with tartan in the form of the traditional handloom shawls worn ubiquitously since the autumn chill arrived.

Not far from here the village of Cherrapunji once measured an astonishing 26.5m (87ft) of rain in one year, a fact still acknowledged by the Guinness book as a world record.

But the rainy season is over for the time being and it is Meghalaya's other major claim to fame that I am here to investigate.

It appears that some age-old traditions have been ruffling a few feathers of late, causing the views of a small band of male suffragettes to gain in popularity, reviving some rather outspoken opinions originally started by a small group of intellectuals in the 1960s.

I am sitting across a table from Keith Pariat, President of Syngkhong-Rympei-Thymmai, Meghalaya's very own men's rights movement.

He is quick to assure me that he and his colleagues "do not want to bring women down," as he puts it. "We just want to bring the men up to where the women are."

Mr Pariat, who ignored age-old customs by taking his father's surname is adamant that matriliny is breeding generations of Khasi men who fall short of their inherent potential, citing alcoholism and drug abuse among its negative side-effects.

"If you want to know how much the Khasis favour women just take a trip to the labour ward at the hospital," he says.

"If it's a girl, there will be great cheers from the family outside. If it's a boy, you will hear them mutter politely that, 'Whatever God gives us is quite all right.'"

Mr Pariat cites numerous examples of how his fellow brethren are being demoralised. These include a fascinating theory involving the way that gender in the local Khasi language reflects these basic cultural assumptions.

"A tree is masculine, but when it is turned into wood, it becomes feminine," he begins.

"The same is true of many of the nouns in our language. When something becomes useful, its gender becomes female.

"Matriliny breeds a culture of men who feel useless."

I talk to Patricia Mukkum, the well-respected editor of Shillong's daily newspaper. She assures me that her heritage is only one of the reasons why she has risen to the level she has and points out that the tradition of excluding women from the political decision making process is still very strong in their culture.

As a mother of children by three different Khasi fathers however, she is the first to admit that their societal anomaly has afforded her ample opportunities to be both a mother and a successful career woman.

Making reference to the routine problems facing women just over the border in West Bengal, Miss Mukkum is resolute.

"Our culture offers a very safe sanctuary for women," she declares.

I decide to see for myself in a remote village in the East Khasi Hills. After two hours walking through thick jungle I meet 42-year-old Mary.

She is a "Ka Khadduh", the youngest daughter in her family and consequently, the one destined to live with her parents until she inherits the family house. Her husband, 36-year-old Alfred, lives with them.

When I talk to her inside their home, Mary tells me that women do not trust men to look after their money so they take control of it themselves. I glance at Alfred for a response but he musters only a smile.

Mary goes on: "Most men in our village leave school early to help their fathers in the fields. This is a great detriment to their education."

I turn to Alfred once more. He responds with another shy smile.

Mary admits she has never heard of the men's right's movement, but thinks the system will never change.

Alfred maintains his Mona Lisa smile.

As we are talking, a praying mantis careers into our hut and slams into the side of my head.

After the laughter dies down, I take the opportunity to break the ice with Alfred by pointing out that female mantises eat their mates after sex, making a gesture with my arms mimicking the insect's claws, an action the Khasi called "takor" and one which turns out to be the gesticular equivalent of sticking two fingers up at someone. There is more laughter at my expense.

Forty minutes later however I have yet to get a comment from Mary's husband and all too soon it is time to leave.

I feel that the last word should come from Alfred so I ask my translator to target a simple question directly at him.

"What does he think of the matrilineal system?"

There is a long and considered pause. After what seems like an eternity the silence is finally broken.

"He like," pipes up Mary, and it is time to go.  '

Listen Online


Female sexism is still sexism.

A very interesting view about Feminism and the broader picture (Youtube, United States)

Modern Women, Feminism and Re-Engineering Society (Youtube)

The global Elites use Feminism and the LGBT 2-4% of the world population to further divide the masses.



As stated in the video, no society would attempt turn men against women unless that society is sick.  The LGBT communities will continue to cheer them on until they realize that they are no longer useful to the global elites as procedure with anyone else that loses value to them.

I'm not religious, I believe in fact and science so I don't pay attention to their religious commentary but I agree with most of what is being discussed here.