logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

 

 
 
 

Feminism is a Fraud


Subject: Feminism is a Fraud
   Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 14:01:55 PDT
   From: "Glenn Burger" <glennburgerroute66@hotmail.com>
     To: Fathers for Life

Feminism is a Fraud

For the past 30 years, the mainstay of feminism has been gender bias in employment.  According to the feminists, women have been denied employment opportunities, pushed aside and just generally treated badly in the job market because of their sex.  Indeed, during the most influential years of feminism in North America in the 1960's, the feminists claimed that women were "the last hired and the first fired".  Women were victims of gender bias.
   I can cast serious doubts on this notion of gender bias victimizing women with two simple, straight forward facts and a conclusion.

Fact:

In 1939, 65% of the banking staff in Canada was male. 

Two out of three employees were male.  And what was 1939?  1939 was the start of the Second World War.

Fact:

By 1943 (the worst of the war years) the banks in Canada had closed almost half of the banking system due to "lack of staff". 

The banking text book which inadvertently made me aware of this banking system closure didn't indicate what caused this lack of staff, but - considering the dates involved - it is obvious what it was: military requirement for the war effort.

Conclusion:

At the end of the war, to prevent any possible future loss of staff expertise to the military in the event of yet another war (which seemed highly possible at that time) the banks and many large business offices, oil company head offices and other labor intensive white collar corporations in both Canada and the United States implemented hiring policies which demanded the exclusive hiring of women for the skills acquiring, upwardly mobile white collar clerical and supervisory sectors of their organizations because women were not vulnerable to military requirements in the event of war. At the present time, Canadian banking white collar staff is 95% female and this high percentage of female employees is true of most other business offices in both Canada and the US.
   It is for this reason that bank and business office staff in North America is almost exclusively female. It has nothing to do with poor wages, or superior female abilities, or female competitiveness or "discrimination" against women forcing them into so called pink collar ghettos. 
   Enter banks or business offices in Asia, Europe or Australia and you will find substantial numbers of male employees. Not so in North America, because in North America many employers hire only women because they aren't wanted for possible military duty.

So, how's that for "gender bias"?

Note: 

It should be pointed out that these hiring policies were created by men , not by women. The policies, unquestionably, came from the most senior executive level and, as the feminists have been pointing out for years, that level is almost exclusively male.
(The thought also occurs that both American and Canadian multinational corporations could export their anti-male hiring policies to other countries in Europe, Asia and Australia without those countries realizing what was happening. Any given office staffed exclusively by women would look as though the all female staff had occurred by chance when, in fact, it was caused by stupid anti-male hiring policies imported from North America, but I digress).

If you find this view of gender bias in employment to be of interest, I encourage you to copy this single page and "pass it around", especially to feminists. Feminists can be remarkably verbal about their views and you might be surprised how fast they go silent when they read this view. Try it. You'll see.

What would be the possibility of beginning a class action law suit against the big banks and other white collar employers in North America in response to these anti-male hiring policies? Would there be a place for this single page on the Internet, say on a web site?

Contact me at: glennburgerroute66@hotmail.com

Well, the space is there and has been put to use.  Thank you, Glenn. —WHS  

__________________
Posted 2000 10 06
Updates:
2001 01 31 (format changes)
2007 03 07 (changed format of page)