No doubt you are wondering why your local newspaper didn't cover this historic event. The reason is, the sessions were so mired in fem-speak and harsh rhetoric that the ultra-liberal New York Times decided to take a pass. Ditto for the Washington Post and Boston Globe.
Ten years ago in Beijing, the Commission on the Status of Women conference gave its speakers free rein. But then Madame Hillary let loose with her keynote rant, making nonsense claims such as "Women are 70% of the world's poor".
This time around the conference planners learned their lesson. Everything was scripted, right down to the snappy slogans and approved list of grievances. Once you heard UN secretary-general Kofi Annan give his welcoming speech, you knew you were going to be hearing a lot about "gender equality and women's empowerment."
Of course, it's all a ruse.
When the Sisterhood speaks of "equality," equal opportunities for men and women are the last thing they have in mind. In fact, "equal opportunity" appeared to be on the conference organizer's list of banned expressions. Feminists don't like the O-word because it implies women might need to operate on an even and fair basis with men.
So when feminists claim to be in favor of gender equality, they are really referring to a genderless society. "Gender equality" means "genderless society." Get it?
To achieve their gender-free utopia, the rad-fems employ tactics that are hallmarks of totalitarian societies: revamping the traditional family, mass re-education programs, gender quotas, and discriminatory laws that promise to "re-engineer" society.
Mind you, the feminist rendition of "gender equality" is always a one-way street. Around the world, men have a higher death rate than women. The victims of worksite deaths are almost always male. Men's suicide rate is three and a half times higher.
But the problems of men will just have to wait.
Then there's the mantra of "women's empowerment" -- that one is even more disingenuous. Feminists think of "empowerment" in the neo-Marxist sense - inducing women to become angry and resentful, thus driving a wedge between the sexes and undermining marriage, the most fundamental unit of society.
Propaganda is a slippery slope. Once you tell an untruth, you have to come up with more falsehoods in order to be consistent.
These are a few examples of the lies that filled the halls of the United Nations this past week:
Eduardo Sevilla, acting president of the UN General Assembly, alleged that women are "discriminated against more than any other minority." That statement contains two absurdities. First, women represent a majority of the world's population. Second, Sevilla's remark flatly ignores the ethnic-cleansing that has been directed against minority populations in Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, and elsewhere.
Then Munir Akram, president of the UN Economic and Social Council, repeated the old myth about women being the main victims of war. Apparently Mr. Akram never got around to reading the UN's recent Report on Violence on Health, which documented that 310,000 men, and only 77,000 women, died of war-related injuries in 2000.
Next the ever-shrill Noeleen Heyzer, executive director of the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), stepped to the podium and claimed that "violence against women has become routine as a weapon of war." That hyper-inflated remark ignores the fact that women are just as likely to commit domestic violence as men.
Several speakers fell back on the old stand-by, the gender wage gap, even though that shibboleth has now been thoroughly debunked. Propagandists care little about the facts, because the ends always justify the means.
Really, how can so many well-educated, highly-placed UN officials say so many stupid things?
After listening all day to the ideological slogans, factual distortions, and emotional harangues, one almost begins to believe they are true. That's how brainwashing works.
The history of 20th century Europe offers a cautionary tale of social movements that promised a better future, but in truth were fueled by lies and anger. Looking back, no one doubts the sinister nature of those movements.
Now in 2005, the face of modern-day evil is beginning to emerge. That face wears the mask of radical feminism. And slowly but surely, that divisive ideology is taking hold at the United Nations.