Almost all Western politicians pay at least lip service to feminist ideology because few if any recognise its toxicity. In Britain especially, the insane dogma of feminism has had a pernicious influence on both social policy and the law. And it continues to do so.
An in-depth discussion of this matter would take us far afield, so three examples in the public eye will suffice:the contrived gender pay gap, dishonesty about rape, and ongoing attempts to exculpate women convicted of murdering men on the clearest evidence.
The gender pay gap was in the news big time this month when an employment tribunal ruled that TV presenter Samira Ahmed (pictured) had faced workplace discrimination because the BBC had paid her far less than the male presenter Jeremy Vine.
In the United States, the claim is often parroted that women are paid only 85 cents on the dollar for men, and similar contrived statistics are trotted out here by the likes of the Fawcett Society. In fact, it has been illegal to pay women less than men - for the same work - in the United States since 1963, and in the UK since 1970. Leaving that aside, if women were indeed paid less than men for the same work, no private sector employer with half a brain would employ a man when he could employ a woman instead.
As might be suspected, the realities of these apparent pay disparities are not that simple. To begin with, many women have babies, which necessitates time out. Many mothers take several years out of the workforce or return part-time. Most married women earn less than their husbands, and for big earners, two full time incomes do not bring any appreciable improvement in their quality of life, certainly not after nurseries or nannies are paid.
Many occupations are exclusively or almost exclusively male. If a woman works on a building site it is usually handling the paperwork in a portacabin. How many women bricklayers are there, refuse collectors, sewage maintenance workers...? These are essential but unromantic jobs, so feminist activists conveniently ignore them and whine about there being "too few" women in boardrooms and government.
Again, there are many factors at work here. Almost all really big companies from time immemorial to date were started by men. Even so, there are plenty of big earning women, especially in the arts: novelist J.K. Rowling and singer-songwriter Adele Adkins are two stellar examples. Even more spectacular than these two ultra-talented women is Denise Coates, founder of Bet365 who is Britain's top paid chief executive by far.
As for Samira Ahmed and Jeremy Vine, as with most top earners in the media they are not paid regular salaries like civil servants or supermarket workers, rather they have agents who negotiate on their behalf, which is one reason there is much apparent disparity not only between the sexes but from person to person.
Ignoring all this, feminist pressure on the Government led to legislation requiring companies employing 250 or more staff to publish details of this imaginary gap. There has even been pressure for smaller firms to report likewise. This does absolutely nothing to help women who actually need help; also, it increases costs for companies, leading to higher prices and lower investment, while increasing Government expenditure, which is paid by whom?
The subject of rape is never far from the mind of any third wave feminist. The sisterhood never tires of spouting vacuous statistics about the failure of the CPS to prosecute rape, the supposedly so low conviction rate, and the vast number of unreported rapes. The reality is that no one knows how many rapes go unreported; obviously some do, and undoubtedly some go undetected, but the claim that women don't report rape because they are terrified they won't be believed or some such is arrant nonsense. Genuine rape victims have bruises, not credibility issues. This does not mean that the police and CPS do not at times fail to bring charges when they should, the grooming gang scandal is clear evidence of that, but by the same token they charge and even prosecute cases that are not only weak but ridiculous. One of the most outrageous such cases was that of Mark Pearson who was supposed to have digitally penetrated a woman at Waterloo Station in literally the blink of an eye. Although he was acquitted, this was a case that should never have got anywhere near a courtroom. His accuser, a TV actress, was probably not lying in the conventional sense, but suffered some bizarre tactile hallucination.
This is a lot more common than is generally realised as is the influence of alcohol on a woman's memory. Many purportedly delayed reports of sexual assault are consensual if at time sordid encounters which women have rewritten in their tiny minds as rape. Women have less capacity for alcohol than men, and sometimes this inhibits the transition from short term to long term memory. A woman may have the appearance of being totally sober, but will wake up the next morning having no memory of actually having sex or having consented to it. This is where many allegations of drug-facilitated rape come from. In November 2006, ACPO published a report, the result of Operation Matisse, which debunked such claims comprehensively.
To the above, we can add many, many reports of women simply lying to seek attention, to destroy a man's reputation, or in rare cases purely for criminal compensation.
In order to boost the conviction rate for rape, Rape Crisis Scotland launched a campaign in 2017 to brainwash the public, the police and prosecutors into believing many women "freeze" when attacked by sexual predators, something they rarely do when attacked by non-sexual predators or subjected to other trauma like serious accidents, earthquakes, or explosions. The madness goes on, and clearly the feminist movement will not be satisfied until a man can be convicted of rape literally at the drop of a hat when any investigation of a complainant's claims is interpreted as victim blaming.