This is most unkind of me, of course

Melinda, meanwhile, has devoted more attention to Pivotal Ventures, her own investment company, set up to promote social issues and gender equality. With her wealth being separated from Gates, she may now have the firepower to pursue that goal more aggressively.

Viewing what the Gates Foundation has been doing has always irritated me. There’re vast efforts to write sponsored pieces – often appearing in The Guardian and the like – about wimmins empowerment and the like. Huge sums of money spent on all that guff. Rather than things which might actually make a difference like getting that malaria vaccine right.

OK, so I’m a patriarchal gammon and all that but wimmins empowerment is a result of economic development, not a cause of it. It’s only once an economy moves away from human and animal power as the only form of energy, once fertility drops so that a woman can spend an adulthood doing something other than lactate and change nappies, that this wimmins liberation is even possible. Given that the economic liberation of women is highly desirable this then gives us what we need to do – develop the economy so that the liberation is possible. It’s when it’s all indoor work no heavy lifting that the desired equal opportunity becomes possible.

I’ve long regarded that Melinda influence at the Foundation as being pernicious that is.

Sadly, the divorce seems to leave her as in half-charge there even as the rest of the cash gets split. Pity.

6 thoughts on “This is most unkind of me, of course”

  1. We are heading back down that joyous road to utopia where all power is human power, not filthy electricity. Animals will be taboo, of course, because they change the climate. Except for mealworms.

    You will shovel mealworm shit with your bare hands. And you will be happy.

  2. Wimmin’s empowerment is a dead end. Empowered women don’t produce replacement citizens and we go extinct.

    Islam is RIGHT about women.

  3. It seems that these highly empathetic women only ever want to help other women when they get given some money (as hardly any of them make it themselves, they usually only marry it or inherit it). Philanthropic men never spend their money on just one gender but women inevitably do, on other women. Weird that………

  4. “Given that the economic liberation of women is highly desirable…”

    There is begging the question and then there is begging the question.

    This is the modern Whig, progressive, libertarian, ‘classical liberal’ worldview on display. The assumption that the highest calling is one’s participation in the economic process. It might be – for the Katherine Viners, Jesssica Simors and Polly Toynbees of this world – but most women (and men) would put the successful raising of a family ahead of a lifetimes service as a cubicly bunny.

    It is the same mindset that has the Biden administration pushing to provide $500 billion to subsidise childcare to “enable” women to join the workforce, whilst some underpaid El Salvadorian herds their children. Why not really free the women and pay them directly so that they can raise their own children themselves? A preference that is seen as retrograde and reactionary, but which is still the preferred outcome of the vast majority of mothers who aren’t alphas.

  5. Aw, I liked ‘cubicly’. Oos my little cubicly bunny, then? I’ll try it on the granddaughter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *