Being Equal does NOT Mean Similar

When I hear demands like rights for someone, e.g. 'rights for women' or 'equal pay day', my only question is, why do we even have to ask for it.
What makes one group so self-absorbed, to think they are the 'leading' group and deserve better pay for the same work? (And I don't want to even start, that women don't even get the same jobs as men, because at least here in my work area still the motto is strong: If you have a work where real work is needed, you chose a woman, when you have a job where you need someone to talk and lead and get followers and workers behind him, you take a man. And also, if you have someone who does the work well, you don't promote him (rather her) away from that post. If you have someone, who does the work badly (because he feels too good for the job or just can't be bothered with all the details necessary), you promote him away. [Not mere hypotheses, but real-live and experienced examples.])

White men?

What is so special about them?
That they are judged as the 'norm' in medicine, as to the detriment of women, who are not regarded in research as well as in the measurements and dosages of medicine, because their bodies react so unreliably?
Perhaps there is a reason, why women react differently.
I for long knew that fact, that the recommended dosage of medicine never was right for me. Not even the vitamins and food supplements in the recommended proportions do me any good and I need to be very careful to try and find my own limits and needs.
I a while ago found a Spanish reporter living and working in the U.K., who writes interesting books and newsletters about those topics. If you are interested, her famous book "Invisible Women" by Caroline Criado Perez came out in many different languages already.

Today, we think of ourselves as being so enlightened, so overly clever, so beyond the Middle Ages.
But are we really?

I state for years, that we are not. That the workers in the Middle Ages were not without rights and were safe from hunger and their families were cared for, because the master was obliged to care for them all, not only as long as he needed them, but for life. What company nowadays does that? They throw out the mere workers, who produced their profits, to maximize the benefits for the management and manipulate the short-term calculations.
If they were a real management, they would find work for their well educated and specialized workforce. But the greatest mismanagement is the management itself, not being creative enough to think ahead, beyond their report sheets and their annual bonuses, to find the work to occupy their trained staff.
With that, I don't divide between colors of the skin.
Why should I?
Greed is universal. Stupidity as well.
It is not limited to white men, nor green women ;o) Just joking. (In German, I most likely would have said 'lilablassblaue Frauen', but English has no equivalent for that 'lovely, nonexistent color'.)
Women more often are forced to see reality, as they are much more pressured into conformity by their surrounding, so their ability to establish a group-sense and peace is often much more developed than among men. Men want to fight out their rank to establish their supremacy. (That is one reason why they are ideal for masonry and the higher levels appeal to them, while those high grades/levels often have a rather annoying feeling for most women.) Women instinctively know, that supremacy won't keep the peace, but instead create war and that is when their children suffer.
They also sense that women can only flourish in peace and well structured and law-abiding societies and women as a consequence are prepared to establish peace with crass (or brutal) methods, if need be and no other option is available. They mostly are only called into government or leading positions, when the problems seem insurmountable or there is nothing in it for a man to shine.

In societal rules, women would be the 'leading' and higher standing entity, which is shown by the woman being the first to enter a room or to be introduced or to be addressed or be served food, ... Those rules were established in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, but have the one common element throughout the European societies, that the women are the more valuable individual in society. Certainly, only because of their child bearing abilities, to create the next generation of humankind, but none the less. What man today still thinks like that and would give the woman precedence without mocking her at the same time or throwing the opened door in her face? (Happened to me repeatedly, so no unrealistic event.) After all, he is the leading and stronger individual and needs to show, that he only plays the societal role, because he is well behaved, not because he thinks the woman deserves it for her own value.

The differences between men and women and their special abilities though are still important, but can only spread the beneficial effect of all abilities, if we value the diverse strengths. But especially with women, for centuries, women got told that they are 'weak', 'unworthy of equal pay, because their work is mediocre, ...
It is a (supposed) compliment for a woman to get told, that she works like a man. Tell the counterpart to a man and you should have quick feet or rather have to bear the consequences of his opinion about that statement. And he certainly will not see it as a compliment, however well you try to phrase it.
So what is so wrong with women's work, when the most 'work' is done by women and men want the right to pick their field of interest and leave the uninteresting, meticulous or boring parts to women (like basic programming code, which initially was a man's domain, as long as it had the implication of a pioneer field. As soon as it became 'work', it was willingly handed over to women, who only got a small percentage of the pay their male colleagues had received for it).

So this example shows that people are equal or at least mostly can do the same work without problems. Just that women have to do the work the men 'leave' for them or men can't be bothered to do themselves. (And I don't speak about cooking for the family, as that women do and historically took up to appease the male aggression and keep a peaceful homestead.)
Women's work needs to pass judgement by men. But women's occupations, even knitting, grow out of boring housewife occupations to something interesting, as soon as men take it up. (I like knitting very much and neither think it house-wify boring nor male, just creative, meditative and satisfying !!!  I think more men should take it up and their opinion about women not being able to calculate and do their math would definitely change. They also could learn some patience with it ...)

Men and women, countries, ethnic groups, cultures and religions should be seen and are equal in my opinion.
But they are not 'the same'.
And that is the main problem. Not even the Union of Europe showed us a good example of this 'coming together of equals', as it continuously tries to make all of us similar and only can cope with us all, if we all have the same curves and angles in cucumbers, ...

Even back in my time at school, we had an example discussion, pretending to be of different opinion about the crusades. For some reason, nobody wanted to join the position I had to defend, so I had to defend it against 7 schoolmates all at once.
In the end, the teacher wanted us to find to a compromise and minimal consensus.
I did not comply and told him, I don't think we should come to a minimal consensus and compromise at the end of a discussion, just because of sitting down and talking together, as we should respect each other, even if we were of different opinion and first should learn about our different positions, before we judge and want to put our opinion over the other or come to a compromise that means nothing to either side, as it is neither side's opinion.
If we can't respect others, who have a different opinion, then the world is due to fail anyway.

How true my words back then as a tiny and embarrassed pupil were.
The world is not one iota further than it was back then.
We discuss, but only accept the other opinions, if they are like ours.

No! That is not my life. My way is, to discover the multitude of reasons and thoughts and find the beauty in the colorful world that is.
I don't want to bring the world down to my limited experiences and my limited brain.
No, I want to expand my brain capacity and cherish the magnitude of what exists and yes, I believe 'God and his Light created'.

So I don't have to say xy... matters. Who am I to judge?
Everyone matters in the same way, or not at all.
But we are not very grateful for the present of life or another individual's existence. (Women are more grateful though, because they know how hard it is earned and how painful it is to come by.)


But as I am a mere woman, who will ever listen to my ramblings ;o)

Why Politicians Should not Lie

That politicians lie and adjust the truth to fit their goals and self-presentation, is no secret and well proven throughout history. (Just see Prof. Dr. John Mearsheimer's book "Why Politicians Lie" for enough examples.)

But in one certain example, I am of the opinion, that a publicly proclaimed lie and transformation of true events backfired and resulted in the 'new cold war' between the Western Powers and Russia in combination with the 'New South' and also directly in the creation of the War in the Ukraine.

The US President Bill Clinton declared, that the US had won the Cold War and also had reached the German unification by its strength of Western politics.

But how did he come to these erroneous conclusions, when the US had not won anything and had not had an active hand in the Unification of the two German states at all?

A discussion of American historians brought me to the conclusion, that in the US and Canadian universities, the knowledge about the true events how the German unification came about, is not part of their curriculum.

They discussed the presidency of Ronald Reagan and they could not find a clear indication, how he was able to begin the appeasement politics with the UDSSR and Mikhail Gorbachev.

My answer to that is, they look in the wrong direction, if they want to find leads, those were not in the US, but rather deeply set in Germany and on a personal level between politicians.

Under Helmut Kohl, the clear result was declared, that to reach the 'go-ahead' from the United States, they would hand over the 'success' to the Americans, so that they would not prevent the German reunification. But all the required steps and discussions leading up to this step solely (!) resulted from the personal friendship between Helmut Kohl and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Nothing else lead to the reunification of Germany.

No winning of a 'cold war', 
no economic supremacy,
no democratic superiority,
no moral leadership,
as well as no other stupidity ...

 The sole reason for the German reunification was the personal sympathy between Helmut Kohl and Mikhail Gorbachev and especially the Western sympathies Mikhail Gorbachev held and his interest in Western culture.

So I find it disgusting, how now, before his death and after the beginning of the Ukrainian war, Germany and especially Bavaria treated Mikhail Gorbachev,

and also how disgusting the German former Chancellor Angela Merkel tried to erase Helmut Kohl from history and negated his unique political status and successes for Germany, which would not have been possible without him.

But as a consequence of this 'German lie', the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, thought, that his country was successful in a way it was not and that lead him to declare himself and his country erroneously the winner of the Cold War', which it was not.

This hybris was responsible for his confrontational policies towards the economically weak UDSSR, which also suffered under its very ill and consequentially weak leader Boris Jelzin,

It enabled that the US thought themselves the winners and subsequently could sell out the loosing Russian side, which they sold out under the noses of the Russian population to their economic disadvantage.

Only a strong lead under Vladimir Putin slowly was able to turn this economic disaster for the Russian population around and heighten living standards, income and economic success for his citizens.

With this new-found strength, Vladimir Putin, who, like Mikhail Gorbachev held a very positive Western world view and sympathies for European and German culture, approached a new economic and political defense system, to make all sides happy. He even followed the declared intentions of Helmut Kohl, who saw appeasement politics based on the interests of both sides as the logical solution for a peaceful and prosperous future for the Eurasian continent.

But the US as the 'winners' could not accept a sovereign Russian state, who took up his position in world economics and defense considerations and with the Ukraine supported a country to 'keep Russia down'. There is no other interpretation possible, with all the political and secret service papers lately revealed, which expressly formulated those exact doctrines.

So in my opinion, the fact that Germany did not express the truth about the true reasons for the German Re-Unification, but instead let the U.S. take the 'success' it did not deserve, is one main factor that caused the War in the Ukraine.