“Global Acceleration Plan” Reveals Marxist Influence at the UN

When intergovernmental organizations openly promote Marxist influenced theories and agendas it is rational to accept the fact—not conspiracy theory. The "Global Acceleration Plan" of the Generation Equality Forum’s is a case in point.

The primary “convener” of the Generation Equality Forum was UN Women. It’s two “co-hosts” were the governments of France and Mexico. Five women shared executive control as co-chairs. These represented the UN, the French and Mexican governments, and two feminist organizations (Women for Change and the Association for Women’s Rights in Development). The last two were innocuously described as “representatives of civil society” by the event’s website. Males did not have much equality within the Equality Forum’s leadership. Only one was included within the eleven member “Core Group” of leaders.

The Global Acceleration Plan professes to combat domestic violence against women, sexual assault, female genital mutilation, child marriage, forced marriage, human trafficking, etc. In reality it: 1) Misrepresents the causes of such practices—using ideological presuppositions rather than factual observation. 2) Uses such practices as “justification” for an irrelevant ideological agenda it proposes as a “solution.”

According to the Global Acceleration Plan “The current economic system” is to be blamed for violence against women. The plan bemoans that women’s “experiences of economic inequality are deeply entrenched in issues such as...class.” It’s proposed alternative is “to explicitly and intentionally redistribute power and responsibility in a way that is inclusive, participatory, and mindful of...social class...ability and other intersecting identities.”

This is to be done through “reconstruction of the global economic and financial system.” Reconstruction. Overhaul. Not minor regulatory tweaks. Micromanaging how much land is owned by women, how many firms are owned by women, what percentage of workers in particular professions are women.

This calls for: 1) Authoritarian restructuring of economies and societies throughout the world. 2) Attacking class structures and other “inequalities” consequent upon normal functioning of a market economy. 3) Moves towards “equality of outcome” and “equality of informal power.” For example: All voters have equal “formal power.” Major campaign donors have greater “informal power.” The quasi-command economy proposals are aimed at “equality of informal (economic) power” among men and women. Two erroneous theories “support” using such irrelevant “means” to “combat violence against women.”

One theory claims that “inequalities of power” cause violence. This can be the “power inequality” between capital and labor, between police officers and inner-city residents, etc. The Global Acceleration Plan uses this theory to assert that “gender inequalities...are the root causes of gender-based violence against women and girls.” Many facts disprove that claim. For example, few societies are more patriarchal than India. Yet a study of Eastern India found that more men (22%) than women (16%) have been subjected to domestic assault. Women are also the most common perpetrators of domestic abuse in America and worldwide

Such facts are unknown, ignored or explained away by those claiming power inequalities cause violence. Their theory isn’t based on facts. It “interprets” facts to fit its presuppositions. How can it account for statistics showing women are the primary perpetrators? By insisting many female victims must be hiding the truth out of fear. What “evidence” supports this? None. But it’s the only way to reconcile the statistics with blind faith in the idea that the “less powerful” must be the primary victims. Evidence that women are the primary aggressors becomes “evidence” that they’re too victimized to admit they’re victims. That “conclusion” is then used to “prove” power inequalities cause violence.

Such “reasoning” is typical of the theory’s adherents. Some condemn as “violence” the use of defensive force to protect the property of the affluent. Some blame (affluent) victims for violence against them by the “underprivileged.”

The second theory used by the Global Acceleration Plan is “intersectionality.” This theory argues all “inequalities” are mutually reinforcing. According to the plan: 1) “An intersectional approach goes beyond the recognition that multiple forms of discrimination or oppression exist. It insists that impact of these...cannot be viewed only as additive, but...must be contextualized within an understanding of simultaneous, intersecting inequalities.” 2) “Women’s multiple and intersecting identities significantly impact the level of discrimination and oppression they face.” 3) Such identifies include “race, ethnicity, indigeneity, class, religion, age, sexual orientation and gender identity, disability, migration status and more.”

In reality different “inequalities” can rival each other. Late Victorian England’s “mainstream left” considered the women’s suffrage movement too radical. The era’s foremost conservative, the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, was open to extending the vote to upper- and middle-class women. He thought it could prop up class hierarchy after the vote was extended to non-property owning (working class) men. Professor Jeffrey Zvengrowski’s Jefferson Davis, Napoleonic France, and the Nature of Confederate Ideology provides another example. One southern political faction was committed to the class hierarchy—in which a miniscule number of free blacks were part of the slave owning planter aristocracy. The rival white supremacist faction tended to oppose class hierarchies among white people.

If the UN really wants to combat sexual assault, female genital mutilation, child marriage, forced marriage, human trafficking, etc. there is a simple way to do it. It’s called “law enforcement.” Pay police officers and prosecutors and judges enough to assure they do their jobs correctly. Fight corruption in political and criminal justice systems. Put money, time, effort and oversight into those efforts. Don’t pour money into bureaucracies assuring women make up 50% of assistant managers in pet stores.
N/A by N/A is licensed under N/A N/A