Translation of the news below - Norwegian feminists are getting worried that their funding and support are diminishing....
NewsTrack - Top News
Rape up dramatically in Oslo
OSLO, Norway, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- Rapes are becoming increasingly common in Norway's capital city, with the number of victims seeking help from Oslo's clinic doubling in a decade.
This year, the emergency clinic reports almost 300 victims have come in for treatment, Aftenposten reported. That's up from 235 last year and enough that Oslo's per capita rate of reported sexual assaults is higher than New York's.
"Our resources have been the same for the past 10 years, while the number of our patients has doubled, and continues to increase this year," said Endre Sandvik, the head of the Oslo Legevakt Hospital.
Sandvik said clinic staff are also taking more time with each victim to secure evidence for prosecutors.
"The growth in the number of rapes is dramatic," said Councilwoman Sylvi Listhaug. "It makes me angry, and worried about the young women of our city."
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Ambition management
This totalitarian feminists now want to engage in “ambition management”, after finding out that girls` ambition tend to taper down compared to boys` after certain age. In their uniquely feminine reasoning, achievement with regard to social status is a direct result of one`s ambition, and nothing else is a factor. Thus, in the spirit of achieving total statistical gender parity both in external social and economical status and internal emotional and psychological realm, we would need to highten girls ambition, while at the same time lower that of boys, perhaps by imbuing them with the virtue of being a stay-at-home-husband.
Girls` ambition needs to be monitored so it remains sufficiently high to feminists` satisfaction, and so that they do not start dreaming about easy comfortable life as a housewife. Boys` ambition needs to be monitored so that it remains lower (this is an important point) than girls`, and so that at least certain percentage of them dream of becoming a perfect house-husband.
The author seems to wonder why girls` excellence in higher education is not mirrored to the exact proportion in the women`s status in political and economic realm. We can leave the speculation to feminists, and I`m sure they will come up with thousand ways in patriarchical society discriminates women to prevent the fulfillment of their full potential. But for the rest of us, it is good to know that not all the Fortune 500 CEOs come from the top universities, and not all the top graduates of Ivy League schools end up in top executive positions. It means that there is mobility in society and opportunity for second chance in life after college. You don` t need to graduate from top MBA schools to be a CEO of big company. You don`t need to spend your entire college life inside library and be a valedictorian to be a good politician. Bill Gates doesn`t even have a bachelor`s degree. It is good thing for most of us, except feminists.
Girls` ambition needs to be monitored so it remains sufficiently high to feminists` satisfaction, and so that they do not start dreaming about easy comfortable life as a housewife. Boys` ambition needs to be monitored so that it remains lower (this is an important point) than girls`, and so that at least certain percentage of them dream of becoming a perfect house-husband.
The author seems to wonder why girls` excellence in higher education is not mirrored to the exact proportion in the women`s status in political and economic realm. We can leave the speculation to feminists, and I`m sure they will come up with thousand ways in patriarchical society discriminates women to prevent the fulfillment of their full potential. But for the rest of us, it is good to know that not all the Fortune 500 CEOs come from the top universities, and not all the top graduates of Ivy League schools end up in top executive positions. It means that there is mobility in society and opportunity for second chance in life after college. You don` t need to graduate from top MBA schools to be a CEO of big company. You don`t need to spend your entire college life inside library and be a valedictorian to be a good politician. Bill Gates doesn`t even have a bachelor`s degree. It is good thing for most of us, except feminists.
Washington D.C. polce chief 2
Just one day after the Washington Post and other mainstream media rushed to extol the history-making, first-ever (fulltime) female police chief in Washington D.C., concerns over the way in which the new mayor-elect chose the woman were raised. Looks like gender-based appointment went too far. Expect soon feminists complaining “if a man was chosen, there wouldn`t have been such concerns. It`s discrimination!!”. Just amazing to see the extent to which, by ignoring all key advisors, this new young mayor-elect would go to bypass all the eligible male candidates for the police chief post and appoint a woman, who were far down the list. As the newsstory noted, Ms. Lanier is likely to be confirmed despite all this media hype, because she is a “woman”. Of course, nobody wants to risk being labeled as “anti-woman”, however such labeling is unfair and not based on facts.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
D.C. police chief
Recent politically-correct fever of appointing women as chief of security units, traditionally thought as a male bastion, is sweeping the Washington D.C. as well. In an article about this blatant, nothing-but gender-based appointment, Lanier recounts that “…and as a woman in the department, she said, her path has not always been smooth. She doesn't expect it to become any easier when she's chief….” Are you kidding? The only reason you are chosen as the chief of D.C. police is because you are a woman. Wake up!
"Just for being female"
The male columnist mourns the fact that a report on violence against women released by the United Nations was greeted with “collective yawn” in mass media.
Why is it? How can liberal media NOT rush into judgement and indict all men on earth guilty of discrimination against women? Is it because there have been too many of this kind of agenda-driven, advocacy researches, with identical conclusions and recommendations (more women in political position is by far the perennial number one in the latter category) that even liberal media is getting tired of this?
Is it because in this chivalrous male columnist`s view, anything less than days of consecutive top-page coverage by all major media outlets on the issue amounts to willful ignorance by male-dominated media? (We already have enough of this kind of advocacy media reporting, don`t we?)
Or is it simply because the article and the UN report itself doesn`t stand close scrutiny?
Maybe all of the above.
The examples cited by the columnist and others mentioned in the report are indeed awful, but do they represent “war against women all over the planet” Here touches of ideological feminism creeps in. A “war against women all over the planet”? That`s a quite a statement to make, isn`t it? In order for an accusation “war against women all over the planet” to hold true, it has to pass many hurdles. First, it has to exist on every part of the world, not just in some limited regions of the world or cultures. Second, these misdeeds need to be carried out with the explicit purpose to execute “war against women all over the planet” Third, the level and pervasiveness of violence and its negative effect are in such proportion that it constitutes a “war”.
The author mentions that in the United States, “homicide was the second leading cause of death for girls 15 to 18” and that “8 percent of all the homicide victims in the study had been killed by an acquaintance or intimate partner” While the statistic looks horrible indeed, until you actually start to use your brain and take into account the fact that women suffer far, far less violence from non-acquaintance / intimate partners than men suffer, thereby proportionally raising the percentage.
What does the author means by “just being female”? Thousands of women are killed in India for unacceptable reasons. OK. But because just being female? Then how about the crime of “just being female” for the rest of 5 billion female in the country? Are they burned? Of course not. However horrible the reasons these women were killed for, you smell the sulfur, or, the smell of militant feminism and professional man-haters when one starts asserting that those women were killed for “just being female”.
If a group of men beat up a man in a bar because the poor bumped into one of the guys` arm and spilled cocktail all over the guy, isn`t he also punished just for being male? Women spilling cocktail on other men will most likely not going to be punished, but be rewarded and wooed. And how about thousands of men, many of them conscripts, who die in war all over the world every year?
The real motive behind this kind of advocacy-study-through-feminists-mouth-piece-UN and chivalrous commentators is obvious. By focusing world`s attention solely on women victims of violence, which is already far fewer than male victims, they want to tilt feminists-owned political landscape even further in favor of women species. They are also sending out a clear message that men do not deserve any attention or resource; only women do.
Why is it? How can liberal media NOT rush into judgement and indict all men on earth guilty of discrimination against women? Is it because there have been too many of this kind of agenda-driven, advocacy researches, with identical conclusions and recommendations (more women in political position is by far the perennial number one in the latter category) that even liberal media is getting tired of this?
Is it because in this chivalrous male columnist`s view, anything less than days of consecutive top-page coverage by all major media outlets on the issue amounts to willful ignorance by male-dominated media? (We already have enough of this kind of advocacy media reporting, don`t we?)
Or is it simply because the article and the UN report itself doesn`t stand close scrutiny?
Maybe all of the above.
The examples cited by the columnist and others mentioned in the report are indeed awful, but do they represent “war against women all over the planet” Here touches of ideological feminism creeps in. A “war against women all over the planet”? That`s a quite a statement to make, isn`t it? In order for an accusation “war against women all over the planet” to hold true, it has to pass many hurdles. First, it has to exist on every part of the world, not just in some limited regions of the world or cultures. Second, these misdeeds need to be carried out with the explicit purpose to execute “war against women all over the planet” Third, the level and pervasiveness of violence and its negative effect are in such proportion that it constitutes a “war”.
The author mentions that in the United States, “homicide was the second leading cause of death for girls 15 to 18” and that “8 percent of all the homicide victims in the study had been killed by an acquaintance or intimate partner” While the statistic looks horrible indeed, until you actually start to use your brain and take into account the fact that women suffer far, far less violence from non-acquaintance / intimate partners than men suffer, thereby proportionally raising the percentage.
What does the author means by “just being female”? Thousands of women are killed in India for unacceptable reasons. OK. But because just being female? Then how about the crime of “just being female” for the rest of 5 billion female in the country? Are they burned? Of course not. However horrible the reasons these women were killed for, you smell the sulfur, or, the smell of militant feminism and professional man-haters when one starts asserting that those women were killed for “just being female”.
If a group of men beat up a man in a bar because the poor bumped into one of the guys` arm and spilled cocktail all over the guy, isn`t he also punished just for being male? Women spilling cocktail on other men will most likely not going to be punished, but be rewarded and wooed. And how about thousands of men, many of them conscripts, who die in war all over the world every year?
The real motive behind this kind of advocacy-study-through-feminists-mouth-piece-UN and chivalrous commentators is obvious. By focusing world`s attention solely on women victims of violence, which is already far fewer than male victims, they want to tilt feminists-owned political landscape even further in favor of women species. They are also sending out a clear message that men do not deserve any attention or resource; only women do.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Divorce rights to unmarried couples??
There are a few ways to look at the new proposal in the UK to extend the divorce rights to unmarried couples.
One is to see it as an attempt by divorce industry to find new clientele, as one of the comments pointed out.
Second is to see it as an extension of efforts to protect or “empower” one party of the unmarried couple, and of course I am referring to a female party (why would government even bother about males?). Married women are now sufficiently protected under current divorce laws - they can now file for divorce, get the house, alimony, custody of children and child support from men - all of them by simply flinging the accusation of child abuse or domestic violence, no question asked and the government will guarantee she will get the as much as possible. But poor unmarried women still do not enjoy these splendid benefits courtesy of anti-male government.
Third is to see it as a continued effort by anti-family feminists to trivialize the status of marriage vis-a-vis other form of intimate arrangement or cohabitation, by bringing up the level of legal protection of these to that of formal traditional marriage. By extending same legal benefits to cohabitation, formal marriage will become more undistinguishable from couples living together and will become just one of any different types of cohabitation.
New 'divorce' rights for unmarried couples
Clare Dyer, legal editor
Tuesday October 31, 2006
The Guardian
One is to see it as an attempt by divorce industry to find new clientele, as one of the comments pointed out.
Second is to see it as an extension of efforts to protect or “empower” one party of the unmarried couple, and of course I am referring to a female party (why would government even bother about males?). Married women are now sufficiently protected under current divorce laws - they can now file for divorce, get the house, alimony, custody of children and child support from men - all of them by simply flinging the accusation of child abuse or domestic violence, no question asked and the government will guarantee she will get the as much as possible. But poor unmarried women still do not enjoy these splendid benefits courtesy of anti-male government.
Third is to see it as a continued effort by anti-family feminists to trivialize the status of marriage vis-a-vis other form of intimate arrangement or cohabitation, by bringing up the level of legal protection of these to that of formal traditional marriage. By extending same legal benefits to cohabitation, formal marriage will become more undistinguishable from couples living together and will become just one of any different types of cohabitation.
New 'divorce' rights for unmarried couples
Clare Dyer, legal editor
Tuesday October 31, 2006
The Guardian
It`s in women`s advantage
If the stats are in their disadvantage, they will shriek and scream discrimination, if the stats are in their advantage, they will gloat and try to turn it into a foundation for establishing matriarchy - and of course we know feminists are only fight for “equality”, right?
While lamenting the relatively small pay gap between men and women which is about 19 point gap, they gloat over women`s huge advantage (women influence 90 percent of purchase, control 80 percent of every consumer dollar spent, make 70 percent of all travel decisions, etc.) - any call for equality here, ma’am?
While lamenting the relatively small pay gap between men and women which is about 19 point gap, they gloat over women`s huge advantage (women influence 90 percent of purchase, control 80 percent of every consumer dollar spent, make 70 percent of all travel decisions, etc.) - any call for equality here, ma’am?
Musings from Sweden Part 1
Here are compilations of interesting stories from the feminists` wonderland a.k.a Sweden…
After the shocking defeat in general election, some party members of the outgoing Social Democrat which ruled the nation for years have manufactured and echoed convenient "consensus" that next leader of the party should be a woman because, “man will not be able” to beat the new ruling party, which is run by, alas, a man. May I ask why it has to be a woman, since there seems to be nothing in the article which backs such a claim (other than militant feminists` chest-thumping that you can read from between the lines)?
Feminists, not only in Sweden, but across the world are busy creating this kind of convenient “consensus” among general public that political leaders “should be” women, not so subtle shift from their original egalitarian position of “equal” rights for women to be elected political leaders. In recent race to succeed Kofi Annan as the next Secretary-General of the United Nations, feminists from across the world have asserted that next SG should be a woman, saying that “gender barrier” has to be taken down. But if you ague that only woman can become next SG, then who is it that is setting up gender barrier? While most non-feminists would like to judge candidates on their own merit, feminists would want to see gender as the first sifter to ensure that a man would not get the job.
Though barrage of op-ed pieces and sympathetic liberal western media who accepted them to print, feminists try to hypnotize public into thinking that choosing a man for a top job is somehow immoral and also an obstacle to furthering women`s rights. They partially succeeded in manufacturing “consensus” that next SG should be a woman, at least a consensus among liberal elite.
I`m not sure if the ex-minister for equality and deputy prime minister (no less) was regretting the fact Sweden has become too gender-equal as, according to her, it actually prompted men to be more violent against women. If that`s true, that would be quite a hard choice for feminists to turn back the clock and reinstate patriarchy to reduce violence against women or enjoy current care-free feminists utopia and see high rate of violence? But one need not ponder this question seriously as long as the statement is coming out from the mouth of gender feminists who based her argument on study done by - as it turned out, a fellow feminist. Swedish feminists seem to be not much behind their American cohorts in manufacturing and hyper-boling hysteria about statistics concerning women - she inflated percentage of women who experience violence from three percent to forty percent! That`s 13 times more than original figure!
The fact is that for these feminists and their pet industry to survive, there needs to be a growing or at least a continuing “crisis” for women, otherwise their raison d`etre will disappear and the huge government subsidies and other goodies they receive will dwindle.
Once I heard a feminist say that her dream is to see a true gender-equal society so that committed feminists like her will not have to fight for equality any more and retire. Looks like they`ve gotten accustomed to and even addicted to the perks and power that were conferred upon them as a representative of women are not willing to relinquish them.
After the shocking defeat in general election, some party members of the outgoing Social Democrat which ruled the nation for years have manufactured and echoed convenient "consensus" that next leader of the party should be a woman because, “man will not be able” to beat the new ruling party, which is run by, alas, a man. May I ask why it has to be a woman, since there seems to be nothing in the article which backs such a claim (other than militant feminists` chest-thumping that you can read from between the lines)?
Feminists, not only in Sweden, but across the world are busy creating this kind of convenient “consensus” among general public that political leaders “should be” women, not so subtle shift from their original egalitarian position of “equal” rights for women to be elected political leaders. In recent race to succeed Kofi Annan as the next Secretary-General of the United Nations, feminists from across the world have asserted that next SG should be a woman, saying that “gender barrier” has to be taken down. But if you ague that only woman can become next SG, then who is it that is setting up gender barrier? While most non-feminists would like to judge candidates on their own merit, feminists would want to see gender as the first sifter to ensure that a man would not get the job.
Though barrage of op-ed pieces and sympathetic liberal western media who accepted them to print, feminists try to hypnotize public into thinking that choosing a man for a top job is somehow immoral and also an obstacle to furthering women`s rights. They partially succeeded in manufacturing “consensus” that next SG should be a woman, at least a consensus among liberal elite.
I`m not sure if the ex-minister for equality and deputy prime minister (no less) was regretting the fact Sweden has become too gender-equal as, according to her, it actually prompted men to be more violent against women. If that`s true, that would be quite a hard choice for feminists to turn back the clock and reinstate patriarchy to reduce violence against women or enjoy current care-free feminists utopia and see high rate of violence? But one need not ponder this question seriously as long as the statement is coming out from the mouth of gender feminists who based her argument on study done by - as it turned out, a fellow feminist. Swedish feminists seem to be not much behind their American cohorts in manufacturing and hyper-boling hysteria about statistics concerning women - she inflated percentage of women who experience violence from three percent to forty percent! That`s 13 times more than original figure!
The fact is that for these feminists and their pet industry to survive, there needs to be a growing or at least a continuing “crisis” for women, otherwise their raison d`etre will disappear and the huge government subsidies and other goodies they receive will dwindle.
Once I heard a feminist say that her dream is to see a true gender-equal society so that committed feminists like her will not have to fight for equality any more and retire. Looks like they`ve gotten accustomed to and even addicted to the perks and power that were conferred upon them as a representative of women are not willing to relinquish them.
Friday, October 27, 2006
False rape accuser
I don't know why this habitual false rape accuser is in such a whinning
mode...
If you are going to knowingly make false accusations, and completely ruin
the accused men's life with them, you better be prepared for the
consequences when the false accusations are exposed as well.
Instead, this woman is reported to be "devastated" and feel like the "whole
world fell apart"! For what? For her lies being exposed in the public? This
women's fake emotional devastation shows the state of arrogance and
complacency women have reached as a result of all the rape-sheild laws and
rape victim industry and sympathetic media toward alleged victims. These
women take it for granted that they can wantonly make false accusation about
rape, while their privacy and identity being tightly proteted by law, and if
lucky get huge settlments award or benefits from the government. They come
to forget that lieing is bad, especially the ones that are done with a
malicious intent to ruin innocent people's entire life. They have also
become unaccostomed to the fact that one has take responsibility for their
own acts. Oh, but this "poor' women was abe to get none of these "benefits"
because her lie was exposed and now she is utterly "shock"ed...my sympathy
goes to her......
Or is it just another way of her continuing to cling to her beloved "victim"
status? Now that her initial claim of being victim of rape no longer does
the trick of duping the public, she changed her tactic to play some feeble,
sensitive woman who is "devastated" by such heinous act as exposing a lie in
public...
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
"Gender-specific" law
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FOR_MEN_ONLY?SITE=NYONE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
If the exposure law in California is considered to be gender specific since
the reference in the law is masculine "his", then I think the original
provisions in the Constitution for the eligibility to run for the US
President and other political seats are also gender specific, no? and of
course, All "men" are created equall......
bye bye, Hillary and what are all these women doing in the Capitol Hill?
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
High heel as instrument of oppression Part 2
Follow-up to yesterday's entry...
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20639690-5006029,00.html
if women are subjected to oppresive dress code, why don't they just buy
shoes that doesn't have high heels? We are told that women now make
somewhere between 80 percent or more of all purchase dicisions (doens't Pru
want to investigate into this "inequality"?), and with all the money they
have at their disposal, and they still cannot stay away from high heels?
How deeply entrenched the oppresive western dress code for women are!
Why so many high heels are still on market, many of which actually being
designed by felow women? Are they co-conspirator in men's oppression of
women? if high heel is considered to be oppressive tool against women, and
since we live in a world where issues affecting women receives the UTMOST
(and only) IMPORTANCE, why don't Pru take one step ahead and lead the
banning of sale of any shoes for women taht have heels higher than, say, one
inch? - with imposition of penalty to departments and stores that carry high
heels and throw the owners into jail (if they are men of course)
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Stephen Hawking vs. gender feminists
How would card-carrying feminists and women`s organization react to the domestic violence that Professor Hawking has suffered for over a decade? It should be one or the combination of the following;
1. Professor Hawking made her do it.
2. Patriarchical society made her do it.
3. Men deserve it, simply because they are men.
4. Because Professor Hawking didn`t share half of the housework. If it`s in Spain, he would have been criminally prosecuted under the new law.
5. The abuses that Elain, the (former) wife of professor Hawking suffered when she was a kid, or from her previous marriage made her do it. (The Dailymail can come with one instantly, if necessary.)
6. male-dominated mass media cooked up and perpetuated the story.
And to be followed by screaming for more women-only DV shelter and empowering legislation….
1. Professor Hawking made her do it.
2. Patriarchical society made her do it.
3. Men deserve it, simply because they are men.
4. Because Professor Hawking didn`t share half of the housework. If it`s in Spain, he would have been criminally prosecuted under the new law.
5. The abuses that Elain, the (former) wife of professor Hawking suffered when she was a kid, or from her previous marriage made her do it. (The Dailymail can come with one instantly, if necessary.)
6. male-dominated mass media cooked up and perpetuated the story.
And to be followed by screaming for more women-only DV shelter and empowering legislation….
High heels as an instrument of oppression
Australia`s cabinet minister still in mold of 60`s bra-burning feminists・she said that western women are “subjected to oppressive dress code” by “torturing” feet with high heels"... then why don`t enlightened western women simply not wear them and wear instead running shoes or sandal or whatever you like? (in fact many women wear sandals and other very relaxing shoes at offices, while men`s choice is still mostly limited to dress shoes) With all the education and money and title western women have acquired over the years through affirmative actions, gender quotas and litigations, etc, are they still unable to choose their own shoes? Or do we need some new laws or governmental agencies regulating what kind of shoes women should wear?
Husband's opinion infuriates Goward
Email Print Normal font Large font Sarah Smiles, Canberra
October 23, 2006
Husband's opinion infuriates Goward
Email Print Normal font Large font Sarah Smiles, Canberra
October 23, 2006
Israeli president
The biggest headline-grabbing opportunity for sexual harassment industry is unfolding...
I do not know if ever the head of state was accused of sexual harassment (except Clinton for whom the industry made miraculous about-face and went for all-out defense for him).
The bigger the fish, the bigger the publicity effect for your agenda. Charge against one low or middle ranking military officer wouldn`t get any media attention and simply become part of statistics, a charge against the head of states, however ceremonious the post may be in Israel, is a slum dunk for the sexual harassment industry.
In addition to the publicity effect, it could lend voice to somewhat self-serving argument made in some quarters of feminist groups that those high level post should be filled by a woman, not a man, because; a woman in high position, almost by definition if you take the industry`s version of it, is immune from such vague yet devastating charges.
And as Israel has been following the example of the United States who opted to go for a “kindler, gentler military” with more positions close to combat opening up for women and more gender-norming in training and operation being made mandatory, no wonder the Israel military had difficulty defeating Hizbollah? With the overwhelming dominance of its military might over any other nation in the world, the United States can placate the gender feminsts by going “kindler, gentler military” to some extent without much real disadvantage, Israel, who is surrounded by hostile nations with large standing armies and whose margins of military superiority to others is nowhere close to that the United States enjoys, doing the same could prove devastating for them.
I do not know if ever the head of state was accused of sexual harassment (except Clinton for whom the industry made miraculous about-face and went for all-out defense for him).
The bigger the fish, the bigger the publicity effect for your agenda. Charge against one low or middle ranking military officer wouldn`t get any media attention and simply become part of statistics, a charge against the head of states, however ceremonious the post may be in Israel, is a slum dunk for the sexual harassment industry.
In addition to the publicity effect, it could lend voice to somewhat self-serving argument made in some quarters of feminist groups that those high level post should be filled by a woman, not a man, because; a woman in high position, almost by definition if you take the industry`s version of it, is immune from such vague yet devastating charges.
And as Israel has been following the example of the United States who opted to go for a “kindler, gentler military” with more positions close to combat opening up for women and more gender-norming in training and operation being made mandatory, no wonder the Israel military had difficulty defeating Hizbollah? With the overwhelming dominance of its military might over any other nation in the world, the United States can placate the gender feminsts by going “kindler, gentler military” to some extent without much real disadvantage, Israel, who is surrounded by hostile nations with large standing armies and whose margins of military superiority to others is nowhere close to that the United States enjoys, doing the same could prove devastating for them.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Nobel (Women) Peace Prize
Quite an interesting piece by the Economist・
Actually I thought this year a lesbian woman will be given the prize, not that there is many internationally recognizable lesbian who is worthy of the prize, (is this Bangladesh man worthy of prize?-I tend to agree with the Economist), I`m sure there are hundreds of lesbian activists fighting for LGBT rights or other worthy liberal causes, and some of them maybe even as famous as the Bangladesh man ・before the announcement of prize, that is, of course. But it is because since Iranian woman got the prize in 2003 (the first “Arab woman” to receive the prize), and in 2004 (the first “African woman”, so for 2006 my bet was on first “lesbian woman” since the Norwegian committee that decides who get the Nobel Peace Prize is predictably very much politically invested in “diversity”.
In the 21 st century, no white man was given the prize with the exception of Jimmy Carter in 2002, for taking a snub at US President George W. Bush, a man whom the Nobel committee, just like lift-wingers in the United States, hates the most in the world. Moreover, in the recent 4 years since 2003, with the exception of 2005 when the award was given to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), (the only year in recent memory when the award was given to people/institution that genuinely contributed to peace in its original sense in my opinion), all the award is related to women ・that is either the winners were women or the activities that won him the prize were almost entirely targeted to women, or to “empower” women (96 percent of the microcredit were loaned to women)
As you can see from the list of recent winners, the Nobel committee is increasingly expanding the definition of peace, from the traditional concept of peace to a more progressive concept of peace that includes such concepts as environment protection, sustainable development and human rights. While it may benefit thousands of NGOs and activists in further advancing their noble causes, it also encourages the expectations of the “Buggin`s turn” not only on the continental rotation (as the Economist pointed out), but also of the rotation by various noble lefty causes or ethnic/demographic groups (Arab woman - African woman - what kind of woman will be next?).
Actually I thought this year a lesbian woman will be given the prize, not that there is many internationally recognizable lesbian who is worthy of the prize, (is this Bangladesh man worthy of prize?-I tend to agree with the Economist), I`m sure there are hundreds of lesbian activists fighting for LGBT rights or other worthy liberal causes, and some of them maybe even as famous as the Bangladesh man ・before the announcement of prize, that is, of course. But it is because since Iranian woman got the prize in 2003 (the first “Arab woman” to receive the prize), and in 2004 (the first “African woman”, so for 2006 my bet was on first “lesbian woman” since the Norwegian committee that decides who get the Nobel Peace Prize is predictably very much politically invested in “diversity”.
In the 21 st century, no white man was given the prize with the exception of Jimmy Carter in 2002, for taking a snub at US President George W. Bush, a man whom the Nobel committee, just like lift-wingers in the United States, hates the most in the world. Moreover, in the recent 4 years since 2003, with the exception of 2005 when the award was given to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), (the only year in recent memory when the award was given to people/institution that genuinely contributed to peace in its original sense in my opinion), all the award is related to women ・that is either the winners were women or the activities that won him the prize were almost entirely targeted to women, or to “empower” women (96 percent of the microcredit were loaned to women)
As you can see from the list of recent winners, the Nobel committee is increasingly expanding the definition of peace, from the traditional concept of peace to a more progressive concept of peace that includes such concepts as environment protection, sustainable development and human rights. While it may benefit thousands of NGOs and activists in further advancing their noble causes, it also encourages the expectations of the “Buggin`s turn” not only on the continental rotation (as the Economist pointed out), but also of the rotation by various noble lefty causes or ethnic/demographic groups (Arab woman - African woman - what kind of woman will be next?).
Sore loser...
Sore loser….losers are always sore, whether it is a man or woman. Latvia`s president who ran for the top job at the United Nations, whose sole strength was based on the fact that she was a woman, lost her bid for the next Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Predictably, she is blaming her loss on the old-boy network, although polished diplomats from 15 countries that form the Security Council discussing the candidate for the next Secretary-General bears hardly any semblance to what people usually think of when they hear the much-cited-but-never-proven phrase “old-boy network” But it doesn`t matter as long as the Latvian loser and feminists could grab headlines with this sound-bite.
No, it`s Russia and China, stupid・ For geopolitical and historical reasons, these two countries were not going to vote for this woman anyway. If you cannot figure out this kind of most basic world politics 101, you are definitely not up to the task of the Secretary-General. I don`t know why a woman with this kind of infantile understanding of world politics rose to the top post in Latvia, -Latvians should awaken to this fact and some reflections may be needed on having such feminist-mouthpiece as the head of own State. Vaira, maybe my grandmother is more suited for the post than you are, as at least she doesn`t suffer from peculiar feminists` symptom, or what I call patriarchy conspiracy theory paranoia. And, oh, she is a woman. So, according to you Vaira, she passes the most important litmus test for the next Secretary-General.
Predictably, she is blaming her loss on the old-boy network, although polished diplomats from 15 countries that form the Security Council discussing the candidate for the next Secretary-General bears hardly any semblance to what people usually think of when they hear the much-cited-but-never-proven phrase “old-boy network” But it doesn`t matter as long as the Latvian loser and feminists could grab headlines with this sound-bite.
No, it`s Russia and China, stupid・ For geopolitical and historical reasons, these two countries were not going to vote for this woman anyway. If you cannot figure out this kind of most basic world politics 101, you are definitely not up to the task of the Secretary-General. I don`t know why a woman with this kind of infantile understanding of world politics rose to the top post in Latvia, -Latvians should awaken to this fact and some reflections may be needed on having such feminist-mouthpiece as the head of own State. Vaira, maybe my grandmother is more suited for the post than you are, as at least she doesn`t suffer from peculiar feminists` symptom, or what I call patriarchy conspiracy theory paranoia. And, oh, she is a woman. So, according to you Vaira, she passes the most important litmus test for the next Secretary-General.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Separate class for weaker sex at Norweigian companies?
Hmmm…. for the sake of the argument let’s put aside very obvious and justified counter-arguments to this non-sense churned out by militant feminists for which there are too many, and be a devil’s advocate and try to find some justifications for this.
Yes, I have one, and this is the only one.
You know, in sports, men and women don’t compete together. We have created different classes for men and women: for example, only men can compete in 100 meters dash, and only women are allowed to compete in women’s 100 meters dash. Nobody argues that men and women should be competing together because then the result will be too obvious. If there is gender-mixed or (“blind”) 100 meters dash in national tournament or Olympics, all the winners will be men. There is no way women can beat men and be a winner in such a race. Women are never going to get anywhere near of winning gold medal at Olympics, not even advancing to second stage of preliminaries in your local states high-school tournaments. They are not going to be “represented” in the winner’s circle in the same manner as a larger population. There will be extreme “over-representation” of men and the “gender-balance” of winners is just way too lopsided.
Now let’s turn our eye at the corporate world. At this time of writing (at least yet), men and women work in the same companies, vie for the same corner offices, compete to become CEO under same condition (just now for the sake of argument, although of course in the real world it is already titled heavily in favor of women with all these affirmative actions, etc.). However, the gender balance of corporate CEO’s are pretty much like what gender balance of winners in my hypothetical gender-mixed 100 meters dash would look like. Is it because, just like men’s bigger muscle mass and long legs do in 100 meters dash, innate biological differences, such as men’s propensity for aggressiveness and leadership are giving huge edge over women in corporate life? If so, and if one manages to find some added value in having half the CEO’s chairs or boardroom filled by skirts and those company executive orders signed by polished-nail hands, and if one wishes to see some “women’s game”, then we might need to create a separate class and set aside venues for them to compete, otherwise men would trounce them all over.
If gender feminists are going to accept this argument, then maybe I could start giving some thoughts about gender quota policy for corporate board room, but will they?
Yes, I have one, and this is the only one.
You know, in sports, men and women don’t compete together. We have created different classes for men and women: for example, only men can compete in 100 meters dash, and only women are allowed to compete in women’s 100 meters dash. Nobody argues that men and women should be competing together because then the result will be too obvious. If there is gender-mixed or (“blind”) 100 meters dash in national tournament or Olympics, all the winners will be men. There is no way women can beat men and be a winner in such a race. Women are never going to get anywhere near of winning gold medal at Olympics, not even advancing to second stage of preliminaries in your local states high-school tournaments. They are not going to be “represented” in the winner’s circle in the same manner as a larger population. There will be extreme “over-representation” of men and the “gender-balance” of winners is just way too lopsided.
Now let’s turn our eye at the corporate world. At this time of writing (at least yet), men and women work in the same companies, vie for the same corner offices, compete to become CEO under same condition (just now for the sake of argument, although of course in the real world it is already titled heavily in favor of women with all these affirmative actions, etc.). However, the gender balance of corporate CEO’s are pretty much like what gender balance of winners in my hypothetical gender-mixed 100 meters dash would look like. Is it because, just like men’s bigger muscle mass and long legs do in 100 meters dash, innate biological differences, such as men’s propensity for aggressiveness and leadership are giving huge edge over women in corporate life? If so, and if one manages to find some added value in having half the CEO’s chairs or boardroom filled by skirts and those company executive orders signed by polished-nail hands, and if one wishes to see some “women’s game”, then we might need to create a separate class and set aside venues for them to compete, otherwise men would trounce them all over.
If gender feminists are going to accept this argument, then maybe I could start giving some thoughts about gender quota policy for corporate board room, but will they?
Paternity leave 3 – men not smiling enough to babies
Whenever needs arise to enforce more men to take paternity leave , inevitably gender feminists turn to “gender-equality utopia” Scandinavia for ideas, and thus ponder if introduction of a Scandinavian “daddy month” would be a good way to shape men into a women’s mold. Maybe. But don’t be content yet, because Scandinavians seem to have their own problems.
Feminists there are not happy (where in the world can you find “happy” feminists?) because Scandinavian men, even when they do take equal amount of paternity leave as women, spend less time with newborn babies, less holding and smiling and talking to babies….., which caused one distraught feminist to dub the paternity scheme in the country (Sweden in this case) as “near total failure.” So, what’s next? Record all the time the father and mother spend with the newborn, how many times each changed diaper, how many minutes they smiled at, and compile a national record?
Feminists there are not happy (where in the world can you find “happy” feminists?) because Scandinavian men, even when they do take equal amount of paternity leave as women, spend less time with newborn babies, less holding and smiling and talking to babies….., which caused one distraught feminist to dub the paternity scheme in the country (Sweden in this case) as “near total failure.” So, what’s next? Record all the time the father and mother spend with the newborn, how many times each changed diaper, how many minutes they smiled at, and compile a national record?
Paternity leave 2 – enforce “negative equality”
If there is a “resistance” among men to take the exact equal amount of time for paternity leave as mothers do for maternity leave, then their attitudes or thinking needs to be corrected. If "These policies (paternity leave) may simply not be what fathers want,", then thought-control is in order. Whatever the method required, whatever feel-good excuses they prefer to use such as “more equitable society” or “gender equality”, the goal of gender feminist is one and I mean only one; to enforce “NEGATIVE EQUALITY”, meaning that, if women are not able to go back to work after extended period after giving birth to take care of the babies, thereby losing out on chances to learn new things, meet and network with new people, gain experience in the work, THEN MEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO EITHER. (fem-speak) It’s about “leveling the playing field”, baby, so that later women can occupy more corner offices in companies, but we’re not saying so because then the resistance from Neanderthal males will predictably be much bigger, so instead we cloaked in nicer, gentler notion like “gender equality”…..
Paternity leave 1 - transferable maternity leave
Slowly but surely, the true intent of feminists’ social engineering scheme is coming to light.
The “transferable maternity leave”, which UK government reportedly plans to introduce in 2008, would allow new mothers to get back to work while transferring their unused maternity leave days to new fathers. With such legislation, the complete gender role reversal would be complete, with women out at work and men staying at home to care for children… It is quite clear from such obvious consequence from the planned “transferable maternity leave” legislation that current push by gender feminists for men to take more paternity leave, under the pretense of so-called “gender-equality” is just a stepping-stone for such complete gender role reversal.
The “transferable maternity leave”, which UK government reportedly plans to introduce in 2008, would allow new mothers to get back to work while transferring their unused maternity leave days to new fathers. With such legislation, the complete gender role reversal would be complete, with women out at work and men staying at home to care for children… It is quite clear from such obvious consequence from the planned “transferable maternity leave” legislation that current push by gender feminists for men to take more paternity leave, under the pretense of so-called “gender-equality” is just a stepping-stone for such complete gender role reversal.
Mo more male movie director please...
In socialist Europe, liberal bias in society is more pronounced than in the United States. It’s difficult to imagine that there is a mainstream media that is more blatantly biased towards left, but there is one: just look at an op-ed piece that calls for curbing male bias in film industry by packing up the women-directed films on their first weekend.
For card-carrying gender feminists whose mantra includes such famous slogan as “personal is political”, the act of going to movie on weekend is not just a private activities that you enjoy to take a break from weekdays’ stressful lives, but also a political action that advances specific cause and which needs to be organized and orchestrated by some feminist groups.
Under feminists’ leadership, you will no loner have a privilege of choosing whatever activities you wish to do on weekend, or if you do choose to go to see a movie, no longer a privilege of choosing whatever film you like to see. No, in Ms. Walter’s view, you need to go to see a movie and that movie BETTER BE directed by women. Whatever the genre of movie you are going to see, it BETTER BE a movie directed by women (and better be at the first weekend of it s release, or otherwise it doesn’t count much, we were told). And you better cheer enthusiastically after the end of the movie yelling “NO-MORE-MALE-DIRECTORS” and write rave on-line reviews of that women-directed movie. You may also be required to join the letter-writing/e-mail campaign to film companies, theaters, etc. to put more women-directed films – you think its a bit too overboard? Sorry, you commitment to gender-equality is not genuine, and we will book you to attend the next available ‘gender-sensitivity’ training. No, relax, we are not sending you to concentration camp in Siberia, it’s just a ‘gender-sensitivity’ training, in which you will discover the joy of living under matriarchy.
This kind of feminists’ your-personal-life-is-my-political-domain mentality is not limited in the film world. There is similar movement behind women’s sport, an organized efforts to drive up attendance at for example WNBA or women’s soccer league in US (when it still existed!!), or number of TV viewers for women’s sports. Everyday feminists' e-mail inboxes are flooded with information about next women’s college soccer game on local TV or e-mails calling to bring friends, co-workers, neighbours or passer-byes to the next WNBA games.
Thus we can speculate that a large chunk of spectators or TV viewers on women’s sports, and audiences for women-directed films are in a way staged political activists. If we were to subtract these claques from the number of spectatars/audiences to women's sport or women-directed films, maybe not enough to sustain as a business, unless of course theaters or TV stations are going to be owned not by market-driven business people but agenda driven feminists.
For card-carrying gender feminists whose mantra includes such famous slogan as “personal is political”, the act of going to movie on weekend is not just a private activities that you enjoy to take a break from weekdays’ stressful lives, but also a political action that advances specific cause and which needs to be organized and orchestrated by some feminist groups.
Under feminists’ leadership, you will no loner have a privilege of choosing whatever activities you wish to do on weekend, or if you do choose to go to see a movie, no longer a privilege of choosing whatever film you like to see. No, in Ms. Walter’s view, you need to go to see a movie and that movie BETTER BE directed by women. Whatever the genre of movie you are going to see, it BETTER BE a movie directed by women (and better be at the first weekend of it s release, or otherwise it doesn’t count much, we were told). And you better cheer enthusiastically after the end of the movie yelling “NO-MORE-MALE-DIRECTORS” and write rave on-line reviews of that women-directed movie. You may also be required to join the letter-writing/e-mail campaign to film companies, theaters, etc. to put more women-directed films – you think its a bit too overboard? Sorry, you commitment to gender-equality is not genuine, and we will book you to attend the next available ‘gender-sensitivity’ training. No, relax, we are not sending you to concentration camp in Siberia, it’s just a ‘gender-sensitivity’ training, in which you will discover the joy of living under matriarchy.
This kind of feminists’ your-personal-life-is-my-political-domain mentality is not limited in the film world. There is similar movement behind women’s sport, an organized efforts to drive up attendance at for example WNBA or women’s soccer league in US (when it still existed!!), or number of TV viewers for women’s sports. Everyday feminists' e-mail inboxes are flooded with information about next women’s college soccer game on local TV or e-mails calling to bring friends, co-workers, neighbours or passer-byes to the next WNBA games.
Thus we can speculate that a large chunk of spectators or TV viewers on women’s sports, and audiences for women-directed films are in a way staged political activists. If we were to subtract these claques from the number of spectatars/audiences to women's sport or women-directed films, maybe not enough to sustain as a business, unless of course theaters or TV stations are going to be owned not by market-driven business people but agenda driven feminists.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Another woman getting rich...
Too bad if you are born into male gender you won’t have a chance to bask in this kind of financial bonanza. As Mia Hamm once said in a TV commercial, “There’s never been a better time to be a woman” I REALLY AGREE, NO SERIOUSLY. While what this Japanese woman had suffered (if her allegation was true) is truly a hardship, there’s no way that a man can get 20 million dollar in one shot unless you have a huge talent in business or something and work your butt off.
20 million dollar is a kind of money that ordinary people would not earn even in their lifetime, not even close. Out-of-proportion amount for compensatory and punitive damages generally sought in sexual harassment (SH) cases serves many purposes, aside from the plain and too obvious factor that accuser gets rich (who doesn’t want to be rich?). It will finance the whole SH industry, including lawyers, lawfirms, various centers and groups related to SH, it will transfer the money (or “level the field” from male businesses to female-owned entities (the accuser, SH industry), in addition, the large amount of money itself has a sound-bite effect in the newsmedia and help promote their case and agenda.
The sound-bide effect, which is an incidental to the original SH lawsuit, has even far-reaching and long-lasting effect. It will force board or management of the accused company as well as other companies in the business to institute SH industry-approved guidelines on SH in workplace, hire or promote more women in the management. In short, it is the fastest ways to get steps closer to SH industry paradise. The more money you ask, the more you get, not just the money. It is like killing not just two, but three, four, five or even more birds with one stone.
Links:
http://nymag.com/daily/food/2006/09/a_sexual_harassment_lawsuit_fi.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/40110
20 million dollar is a kind of money that ordinary people would not earn even in their lifetime, not even close. Out-of-proportion amount for compensatory and punitive damages generally sought in sexual harassment (SH) cases serves many purposes, aside from the plain and too obvious factor that accuser gets rich (who doesn’t want to be rich?). It will finance the whole SH industry, including lawyers, lawfirms, various centers and groups related to SH, it will transfer the money (or “level the field” from male businesses to female-owned entities (the accuser, SH industry), in addition, the large amount of money itself has a sound-bite effect in the newsmedia and help promote their case and agenda.
The sound-bide effect, which is an incidental to the original SH lawsuit, has even far-reaching and long-lasting effect. It will force board or management of the accused company as well as other companies in the business to institute SH industry-approved guidelines on SH in workplace, hire or promote more women in the management. In short, it is the fastest ways to get steps closer to SH industry paradise. The more money you ask, the more you get, not just the money. It is like killing not just two, but three, four, five or even more birds with one stone.
Links:
http://nymag.com/daily/food/2006/09/a_sexual_harassment_lawsuit_fi.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/40110
Are model too skinny or beauty ban?
Is this “growing global campaign to fight anorexia within the fashion industry” born out of a sincere concern for anorexic young models and model-wannabees or is it thinly veiled assault on people’s perception of aesthetics and beauty that do not happen to conform to feminists version of those?
It is interesting that this unprecedented model ban came from a country not particularly known for high fashion but rather known for zealously legislating feminist fantasies, that is, Spain, which just passed a legislation requiring men to share half of the housework.
This feminists’ campaign to change people’s view of women and beauty has been going on for a while - recent examples, most of which focus on justifying or mainstreaming obese women, include movies (remember “Real women have curves”?) and recent campaign by cosmetic company to feature obese “ordinary” women as models for their product and NOW’s campaign to love your body (including all the excess fat).
In ancient time, a queen or some sort ordered all women who were more beautiful than her to be executed. Enlightened, sensitive modern-day re-incarnation of the queen, called gender feminists, will not execute them (then there will be no women other than angry, old feminists left to live on earth), but simply ban the livelihood of some women whom they especially target.
How about tall models? Aren’t they too tall? To me they look far taller than average women, and thus might harm women’s self-confidence who are not as tall as models. Aren’t they also too young? Most of them look like under 25 years old? Ordinary women over 25 may feel left out. Wait, aren’t they too beautiful? And not just models in the fashion shows but how about TV stars and actresses? Aren’t they also too skinny, tall, young, and beautiful? TV starts excessive beauty might drive young girls to flock to plastic surgeons, or may harm their self-confidence as they are not as beautiful as those stars. Should we also ban these people from public eyes too?
I guess we can keep adding one ban after another until the only ones who are left to walk the catwalk or appear on TV or silver screens are the exact mirror image the people on the forefront of skinny-ban - old, unhappy, fat, ugly feminists. Then at least I can save some money by not going to movies anymore.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/fashion/21MODELS.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092000819.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091900149.html
It is interesting that this unprecedented model ban came from a country not particularly known for high fashion but rather known for zealously legislating feminist fantasies, that is, Spain, which just passed a legislation requiring men to share half of the housework.
This feminists’ campaign to change people’s view of women and beauty has been going on for a while - recent examples, most of which focus on justifying or mainstreaming obese women, include movies (remember “Real women have curves”?) and recent campaign by cosmetic company to feature obese “ordinary” women as models for their product and NOW’s campaign to love your body (including all the excess fat).
In ancient time, a queen or some sort ordered all women who were more beautiful than her to be executed. Enlightened, sensitive modern-day re-incarnation of the queen, called gender feminists, will not execute them (then there will be no women other than angry, old feminists left to live on earth), but simply ban the livelihood of some women whom they especially target.
How about tall models? Aren’t they too tall? To me they look far taller than average women, and thus might harm women’s self-confidence who are not as tall as models. Aren’t they also too young? Most of them look like under 25 years old? Ordinary women over 25 may feel left out. Wait, aren’t they too beautiful? And not just models in the fashion shows but how about TV stars and actresses? Aren’t they also too skinny, tall, young, and beautiful? TV starts excessive beauty might drive young girls to flock to plastic surgeons, or may harm their self-confidence as they are not as beautiful as those stars. Should we also ban these people from public eyes too?
I guess we can keep adding one ban after another until the only ones who are left to walk the catwalk or appear on TV or silver screens are the exact mirror image the people on the forefront of skinny-ban - old, unhappy, fat, ugly feminists. Then at least I can save some money by not going to movies anymore.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/fashion/21MODELS.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092000819.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091900149.html
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Of course only women can save US science, although they have achieved very little so far.....
Did anyone expect that this kind of committee, headed by a doctrinaire feminist and a former Clinton cabinet member Donna Shalala, composed overwhelmingly of radical feminists (17 of 18 members were women), WILL NOT conclude that discrimination was a reason for dearth of top female scientists and engineers? Said Donna Shalala, “nothing was a foregone conclusion,” yeah, you’re right. The selection of chair, composition of members and the title of the report, everything single element of this committee-think, committee rubber-stamp report is geared to arrive at one, and I mean only one conclusion - women face discrimination in the science field.
Trying to give a benefit of a doubt that, or hypnotizing yourself hard to believe the charade that this committee was not biased in its approach to the subject matter is already a monumental task in its own right. Looks like even the most hard-headed feminists type in the committee was at least vaguely aware of what they were actually doing so she was already being a little defensive and had to qualify that the study was not meant to “lowering bars”.
The article citing the report doesn’t even bother to explain how US science field is facing global challenge or bad (or good) it is doing as compared to its past, but cited only the political slogans that are music to their ears, such as “we need overarching reform now” etc.
Global competition against who? Which countries? This argument wouldn’t stand unless the US academic excellence in science and engineering is challenged by those countries whose science and engineering field is dominated by women, or at least make more use of the so-called “female talent” (which doesn’t seem to make a dent even in Scandinavian countries). China, for one, who seemed to be rising in this field lately, is of course, a country known for putting gender quota ahead of academic excellence, ha, ha, ha…
Another question.. let’s for the sake of argument say that US science field is indeed in trouble - why turn to a group of people who have made very little contribution in this field in the past, and does not have a track record of producing great scientists on a consistent basis? Why don’t you try to tap into a group of people who have made countless scientific discoveries and made our lives so much convenient and made this country so great. Those group of people are waning out because of gender quota policies, gender politicking, mud-slinging of sexual-harassment or sexual-abuse charges, etc., etc..
Okay, here’s a simple science question or logic question for members of the committee, - when in crisis, should you turn to people with demonstrated abilities in the field in question and achievements in the past, or to people who with no such track record? The latter? Bing! You passed the test to become a member of the Donna Shalala’s committee! The bad news is that however as of today, you are still highly likely to fail an admission test for top universities but it won’t be so for so long, Donna is working around the clock so that logic-deficient people like you can be a part of diverse community of scientific experts that are representative of broader society …translation; (we’re gonna mandate gender quota for science professors and science awards winners).
If science field in this country is going to be dictated by this kind of committee-think and committee-politicking that are reminiscent of Stalin-era Soviet Union, and heads of science department at universities are going to be held by people who are chosen not on the basis of academic excellence but by their gender, then indeed the future of this country’s science field is in big trouble.
Trying to give a benefit of a doubt that, or hypnotizing yourself hard to believe the charade that this committee was not biased in its approach to the subject matter is already a monumental task in its own right. Looks like even the most hard-headed feminists type in the committee was at least vaguely aware of what they were actually doing so she was already being a little defensive and had to qualify that the study was not meant to “lowering bars”.
The article citing the report doesn’t even bother to explain how US science field is facing global challenge or bad (or good) it is doing as compared to its past, but cited only the political slogans that are music to their ears, such as “we need overarching reform now” etc.
Global competition against who? Which countries? This argument wouldn’t stand unless the US academic excellence in science and engineering is challenged by those countries whose science and engineering field is dominated by women, or at least make more use of the so-called “female talent” (which doesn’t seem to make a dent even in Scandinavian countries). China, for one, who seemed to be rising in this field lately, is of course, a country known for putting gender quota ahead of academic excellence, ha, ha, ha…
Another question.. let’s for the sake of argument say that US science field is indeed in trouble - why turn to a group of people who have made very little contribution in this field in the past, and does not have a track record of producing great scientists on a consistent basis? Why don’t you try to tap into a group of people who have made countless scientific discoveries and made our lives so much convenient and made this country so great. Those group of people are waning out because of gender quota policies, gender politicking, mud-slinging of sexual-harassment or sexual-abuse charges, etc., etc..
Okay, here’s a simple science question or logic question for members of the committee, - when in crisis, should you turn to people with demonstrated abilities in the field in question and achievements in the past, or to people who with no such track record? The latter? Bing! You passed the test to become a member of the Donna Shalala’s committee! The bad news is that however as of today, you are still highly likely to fail an admission test for top universities but it won’t be so for so long, Donna is working around the clock so that logic-deficient people like you can be a part of diverse community of scientific experts that are representative of broader society …translation; (we’re gonna mandate gender quota for science professors and science awards winners).
If science field in this country is going to be dictated by this kind of committee-think and committee-politicking that are reminiscent of Stalin-era Soviet Union, and heads of science department at universities are going to be held by people who are chosen not on the basis of academic excellence but by their gender, then indeed the future of this country’s science field is in big trouble.
It's BAAAACK at Newsweek again!!
It’s BAAAAACK again!, the routine, self-congratulating, self-lionizing campaign, of the feminists, by the feminists, for the feminists is back at Newsweek!
Last time they did this ritualistic “celebrate-me-womin” piece was when they a piece about black women, when feminists at the Newsweek marveled how the superiority of black women over black men in almost every spheres of life could spill over to the rest of society in order to establish matriarchy, while being completely oblivious to the need to helping poor black males standing on their own feet.
Ironically, contrary to what feminists are trying fanatically to have you believe that men and women are completely the same, this issue of the Newsweek magazine reminds you that men and women are different; men want from magazine news on politics, economy, society; women needs healing, therapy and a boost of self-confidence. Women are so in need of self-confidence that they periodically needs national weekly magazine to extol their virtues and extraordinary accomplishments that some of sisters made, such as being a deputy chief of an internet company.
Once every few months, the national weekly magazine that is called Newsweek is transformed into arena where one power-feminists celebrate another power-feminist, so that the rest of womin in the country can find solace living in what they see as a nation of wife-beater, sexual harasser and alpha males. The transformation of a magazine once respected for providing hard-hitting news, to a forum of feel-good-ism, mass-therapy is one of the changes brought about by ascendance of feminists at corporate and editorial rooms of media establishment.
I’m sure that this special coverage will be given special status among the archives of Newsweek articles (special of the specials) due to its subject matter and its link will be left on the top page of the website and made accessible for almost eternity as long as Newsweek and internet as we know it exists, as a sort of a public-service announcement. Just like somehow all articles related to gender issues are made available free of charge on subscription-only academic website.
Last time they did this ritualistic “celebrate-me-womin” piece was when they a piece about black women, when feminists at the Newsweek marveled how the superiority of black women over black men in almost every spheres of life could spill over to the rest of society in order to establish matriarchy, while being completely oblivious to the need to helping poor black males standing on their own feet.
Ironically, contrary to what feminists are trying fanatically to have you believe that men and women are completely the same, this issue of the Newsweek magazine reminds you that men and women are different; men want from magazine news on politics, economy, society; women needs healing, therapy and a boost of self-confidence. Women are so in need of self-confidence that they periodically needs national weekly magazine to extol their virtues and extraordinary accomplishments that some of sisters made, such as being a deputy chief of an internet company.
Once every few months, the national weekly magazine that is called Newsweek is transformed into arena where one power-feminists celebrate another power-feminist, so that the rest of womin in the country can find solace living in what they see as a nation of wife-beater, sexual harasser and alpha males. The transformation of a magazine once respected for providing hard-hitting news, to a forum of feel-good-ism, mass-therapy is one of the changes brought about by ascendance of feminists at corporate and editorial rooms of media establishment.
I’m sure that this special coverage will be given special status among the archives of Newsweek articles (special of the specials) due to its subject matter and its link will be left on the top page of the website and made accessible for almost eternity as long as Newsweek and internet as we know it exists, as a sort of a public-service announcement. Just like somehow all articles related to gender issues are made available free of charge on subscription-only academic website.
Monday, September 18, 2006
WNBA
Further thoughts on the issue of coverage of women・sports in media・
WNBA, a women’s professional basketball league in America is an interesting case; the games have been broadcasted in the US, mostly in local TV channels and game results are also broadcasted usually along with other major sports (men’s) such as baseball and football, despite the fact that WNBA draws much less stadium attendance and TV viewerships than men’s sports. -- Am I the only one who suspect pressure by PC forces here?
We are supposed to root for so-called “professional” female basketball player who cannot even dunk!! What is a “professional” basketball when there is no dunk shot? Today you’l see lots of dunk even at local high school (boys, of course) games. I even saw one time a local weather reporter (a man, of course) did a dunk shot, and he’s not even get paid for it! He is only paid for reading weather report on camera. In fact a dunk shot by women is so rare that a newspaper can cite all the instances of dunk sot by women player that took place in the official matches in the history of basketball, and it doesn’t take more than two lines. But feminists are still whining that there is a huge pay gap between men and women basketball players and coverage of the women’s basketball game is much less compared to men’s. In fact I wonder why these non-dunking women players should be paid at all! If there is money to be paid, and TV hours to be spent for broadcasting WNBA, those money and TV hours should go to high school kids (boys, of course) instead.
Equal opportunity? How about equal opportunity for a poor black high school kids who loves to play basketball and can dunk, but cannot go to join the college basketball team, because the college has just capped the size of men’s basketball team due to Title IX provision? Sure he may not be as good as the Michael Jordan, but he is better than most WNBA players, because at least he can dunk.
WNBA, a women’s professional basketball league in America is an interesting case; the games have been broadcasted in the US, mostly in local TV channels and game results are also broadcasted usually along with other major sports (men’s) such as baseball and football, despite the fact that WNBA draws much less stadium attendance and TV viewerships than men’s sports. -- Am I the only one who suspect pressure by PC forces here?
We are supposed to root for so-called “professional” female basketball player who cannot even dunk!! What is a “professional” basketball when there is no dunk shot? Today you’l see lots of dunk even at local high school (boys, of course) games. I even saw one time a local weather reporter (a man, of course) did a dunk shot, and he’s not even get paid for it! He is only paid for reading weather report on camera. In fact a dunk shot by women is so rare that a newspaper can cite all the instances of dunk sot by women player that took place in the official matches in the history of basketball, and it doesn’t take more than two lines. But feminists are still whining that there is a huge pay gap between men and women basketball players and coverage of the women’s basketball game is much less compared to men’s. In fact I wonder why these non-dunking women players should be paid at all! If there is money to be paid, and TV hours to be spent for broadcasting WNBA, those money and TV hours should go to high school kids (boys, of course) instead.
Equal opportunity? How about equal opportunity for a poor black high school kids who loves to play basketball and can dunk, but cannot go to join the college basketball team, because the college has just capped the size of men’s basketball team due to Title IX provision? Sure he may not be as good as the Michael Jordan, but he is better than most WNBA players, because at least he can dunk.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Feminists' worst nightmare - It's a boyin the Japanese royal family!!
Judging from the gender of the baby that was just born between Princess Kiko and her husband, the emperor’s younger son, the winners in this Japanese royal succession saga were the Japanese royal family and the conservatives who wanted to preserve two-thousand years old tradition of male-only succession of crowns. And the losers? Feminists, both inside and outside Japan, and leftist media. It is like their worst nightmare come true. They would have wished that the baby wasn’t born at all.
Too bad Japan’s leftist media’s opportunistic campaign to change the law to allow female succession to crown, which had been hailed and promoted for the last few years, employing scores of familiar leftist tactics, including filling op-ed with one-sided view (theirs, of course) and intentionally skewed sampling of data and surveys of public opinions, did not materialize. They were hoping that a law change would be a catalyst to seismic societal change in Japan to give more power to women and to see a “50-50” society. Feminists around the world collaborated with their counterparts in Japan and pushed hard for another female head of state in Asia, bringing aside for a moment their age-old argument that goes something like, a royal family is the most vivid manifestation of crushing patriarchy and male domination of female – as long as a female get to be the head. The Guardian may have already prepared an article that was intended to close the argument on whether women should be allowed succession of crown in the event the baby’s gender was female, but that draft had to be thrown out, at least for a while. But they haven’t given up yet. They are feminists, they are not going to give up. They’ve already reminded people that the debate on the issue is “not over” and that people’s view on the issue “remains split”. Feminists’ counterattack will begin?
Articles.
Japan Times
International Herald Tribune
Scotsman
Washingtinpost
The Independent
Too bad Japan’s leftist media’s opportunistic campaign to change the law to allow female succession to crown, which had been hailed and promoted for the last few years, employing scores of familiar leftist tactics, including filling op-ed with one-sided view (theirs, of course) and intentionally skewed sampling of data and surveys of public opinions, did not materialize. They were hoping that a law change would be a catalyst to seismic societal change in Japan to give more power to women and to see a “50-50” society. Feminists around the world collaborated with their counterparts in Japan and pushed hard for another female head of state in Asia, bringing aside for a moment their age-old argument that goes something like, a royal family is the most vivid manifestation of crushing patriarchy and male domination of female – as long as a female get to be the head. The Guardian may have already prepared an article that was intended to close the argument on whether women should be allowed succession of crown in the event the baby’s gender was female, but that draft had to be thrown out, at least for a while. But they haven’t given up yet. They are feminists, they are not going to give up. They’ve already reminded people that the debate on the issue is “not over” and that people’s view on the issue “remains split”. Feminists’ counterattack will begin?
Articles.
Japan Times
International Herald Tribune
Scotsman
Washingtinpost
The Independent
Thursday, August 31, 2006
EMERGENCY ALERT!! Too few female court clerks!!
These days the New York Times is acting more and more like an operational arm of NOW or being co-opted by Ms. Magazine than a major newspaper. They now seem to be in the business of counting male/female ratios of every nooks and corners of society and whenever the ratio of women fell to the point that they cannot accept, issue a early warning or a wake up call to the world (or to the ideologue sisters among its readers) that something needs to be done… Gender ratio of “clerks”? even though they serve Supreme Court justices, they don’t deliver judgement, if association with or proximity to the important office such as Supreme Court is the issue, how about gender ratio of maintenance worker at the Supreme Court building? Oops, men dominate again? Sorry!
Monday, August 28, 2006
Forbes and forces against it
It’s an interesting contrast to see the difference between men and women’s approach in dealing with complex social issues such as marriage; men deal with logics, reasoning and statistics, women deal with emotion, hysteria, and intimidation, as the two articles posted side by side in the Forbes.com best illustrate. It’s amazing a woman (or a person) of this caliber who cannot cite single source of reference or data to back her claim up, is charged with writing a front page article for such a large magazine - all hail to the affirmative action! Without it, she wouldn’t have and certainly shouldn’t have come this far.
It is actually to some extent a frightening to think that women who are not able to distinguish, or understand, or value the difference between statistics and personal anecdotes is taking on more and more executive positions in American society. Is it advancement for a society or start of the decline of civilization?
It’s a fact of life that only liberals and feminists get to have articles pulled out from the internet immediately after it was posted, and have your “counterpoints” posted side by side to it; you don’t see very often conservative or men’s “counterpoint” posted on feminists issue articles that are posted perhaps thousand times more frequently. It’s also a (sad) fact of life that only feminists and liberals could write article solely based on hysteric fits and have other treated it as an “article’ worthy of being posted on a large website.
I’m sure that this poor author will be stripped of all his career opportunities, probably fired for any reason that feminists could concoct (Mr. Noel, don’t be surprised that suddenly any of one of the recently mass-manufactured 50-plus year old high-powered female exec will accuse you of sexual harassment for the suggestive look that you give to her two years ago), maybe a mandatory sensitive training for all male staff will be instituted at the entire magazine, or even worse, at the entire industry. I have no doubt that the New York Times and the Washington Post are more than willing to write articles to push for it.
Usually the typical responses from the feminists and liberals to articles or views that are not in line with their dogma are intimidation and implying instituting censorship. However the New York Times took a slightly different approach this time, attacking the website itself that posted such article, claiming that, contrary to the claim by the company, the website does not have as much web visitors as it claims. Maybe they were hoping that their article will reduce the readership or visitors to the website and the magazine, and the advertising companies to would consider putting ads in the Forbes. The article in Washington Post tried to associate Mr. Noel’s article with Forbes’ occasional so-called ‘saucy” articles thus discredit it. Overall curiously devoid of any analysis or her own views on the issue, she attempts to put on some of neutrality by citing some “support’ for Mr. Noer’s article, but she could cite only one.
It is actually to some extent a frightening to think that women who are not able to distinguish, or understand, or value the difference between statistics and personal anecdotes is taking on more and more executive positions in American society. Is it advancement for a society or start of the decline of civilization?
It’s a fact of life that only liberals and feminists get to have articles pulled out from the internet immediately after it was posted, and have your “counterpoints” posted side by side to it; you don’t see very often conservative or men’s “counterpoint” posted on feminists issue articles that are posted perhaps thousand times more frequently. It’s also a (sad) fact of life that only feminists and liberals could write article solely based on hysteric fits and have other treated it as an “article’ worthy of being posted on a large website.
I’m sure that this poor author will be stripped of all his career opportunities, probably fired for any reason that feminists could concoct (Mr. Noel, don’t be surprised that suddenly any of one of the recently mass-manufactured 50-plus year old high-powered female exec will accuse you of sexual harassment for the suggestive look that you give to her two years ago), maybe a mandatory sensitive training for all male staff will be instituted at the entire magazine, or even worse, at the entire industry. I have no doubt that the New York Times and the Washington Post are more than willing to write articles to push for it.
Usually the typical responses from the feminists and liberals to articles or views that are not in line with their dogma are intimidation and implying instituting censorship. However the New York Times took a slightly different approach this time, attacking the website itself that posted such article, claiming that, contrary to the claim by the company, the website does not have as much web visitors as it claims. Maybe they were hoping that their article will reduce the readership or visitors to the website and the magazine, and the advertising companies to would consider putting ads in the Forbes. The article in Washington Post tried to associate Mr. Noel’s article with Forbes’ occasional so-called ‘saucy” articles thus discredit it. Overall curiously devoid of any analysis or her own views on the issue, she attempts to put on some of neutrality by citing some “support’ for Mr. Noer’s article, but she could cite only one.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Game industry
Here is a good example of automatic, blind application of gender-feminist perspective in every spheres of life. You can put almost any industries, issues, areas or whatever conceivable in XXX in “XX failing women”, and articles with such scary headings (or supposed to at least) will almost assured of top page coverage and accompanying screaming calls by gender feminists and feminist-males for “urgent attention” or “increased public support”, or “eliminate gender stereotyping” or “gender balance” or “gender quota” or worse, “more women in top position”.
Exactly how women not immersing themselves in electronic games as much as male counterparts do are causing them or society at large big problem is not discussed at all, and neither the fact that many boys do suffer from low school grades or some form of social dysfunctionalities and other myriad of problems for the exact same behavior now being glorified by the respectable BBC is discussed. Instead, gender-feminists and feminists-wannabees are ironically taking “everything men do is good, therefore women should copy it”-mentality. Boys who play games 6 hours a day are usually derided as geeks, but girls who do the same are heralded as some kind of heroines, courageous people who are fighting the stereotypes that put females down.
Here a male-feminist, who may have thought that playing along with gender-feminists agenda will spare him from feminists’ purge to drive men out from all important public spheres, says that “(girls) don't want 'pink games”, but just a few sentences later but he too fell into gender-stereotyping (a crime that would be put on a same level as crime against humanity when women take charge of the world) by chivarlously stating for all womenkind that “(women) want relationships, they want to be able to chat.". Maybe to compensate for that mishap, he concluded that “Four of our 11 studios around the world are run by women” -probably the most important data for power and statistics (or genderbalance)-obsessed feminists.
In a related article published over a year ago, all the critical ingredients of feminists’ women-as-perpetual-victims article were displayed. In the article, women complains about “constant harassment, sexual stereotyping and abusive behaviour of male players”, so they called for “creating a safe gaming environment - while "kicking boy booty". Their efforts are heralded as “a haven for female gamers who want to break down misconceptions about female gamers.”
This mainstream media-sponsored feminist campaign in the gaming world, a “white paper” about women and games, and etc., would mean that there will be fewer and fewer areas where boys will be free from the consequences of feminists’ put-women-first / anti-male campaigns. The schools were completely run over by such feminist zealots which now resulted in boys’ problems at schools, and now games.
Exactly how women not immersing themselves in electronic games as much as male counterparts do are causing them or society at large big problem is not discussed at all, and neither the fact that many boys do suffer from low school grades or some form of social dysfunctionalities and other myriad of problems for the exact same behavior now being glorified by the respectable BBC is discussed. Instead, gender-feminists and feminists-wannabees are ironically taking “everything men do is good, therefore women should copy it”-mentality. Boys who play games 6 hours a day are usually derided as geeks, but girls who do the same are heralded as some kind of heroines, courageous people who are fighting the stereotypes that put females down.
Here a male-feminist, who may have thought that playing along with gender-feminists agenda will spare him from feminists’ purge to drive men out from all important public spheres, says that “(girls) don't want 'pink games”, but just a few sentences later but he too fell into gender-stereotyping (a crime that would be put on a same level as crime against humanity when women take charge of the world) by chivarlously stating for all womenkind that “(women) want relationships, they want to be able to chat.". Maybe to compensate for that mishap, he concluded that “Four of our 11 studios around the world are run by women” -probably the most important data for power and statistics (or genderbalance)-obsessed feminists.
In a related article published over a year ago, all the critical ingredients of feminists’ women-as-perpetual-victims article were displayed. In the article, women complains about “constant harassment, sexual stereotyping and abusive behaviour of male players”, so they called for “creating a safe gaming environment - while "kicking boy booty". Their efforts are heralded as “a haven for female gamers who want to break down misconceptions about female gamers.”
This mainstream media-sponsored feminist campaign in the gaming world, a “white paper” about women and games, and etc., would mean that there will be fewer and fewer areas where boys will be free from the consequences of feminists’ put-women-first / anti-male campaigns. The schools were completely run over by such feminist zealots which now resulted in boys’ problems at schools, and now games.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
We absolutely need that 0.08% of people who play support roles
Uhhh, yes, and exactly how Indian army would not be able to do without females? 918 females in 1.1 million strong army is like what・0.08percent!! Is proportion like 0.08 percent absolutely indispensable, or would less than one-tenth of one percent, or less than one in one thousand would bring the rest of 99.92 percent to a grinding halt? And the roles carried out by women currently also cannot be taken over by men? Women were begun to be incorporated in the army in the early 1990's, meaning for more than 40 years of its existence since the country's independence after the Second World War, Indian army has done without the services of females. But all of a sudden, Indian army is also barraged with Western-States like political withchunt and the top brass there are forced to pay lip service to irate gender feminists. Is this a curse of western-style modernization?
Anger at Indian general's gender slur
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1801148,00.html
Maseeh Rahman in New Delhi
Monday June 19, 2006
Anger at Indian general's gender slur
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1801148,00.html
Maseeh Rahman in New Delhi
Monday June 19, 2006
Relax and just admit it...
I simply admire the courage of the writer who writes such a politically incorrect column in the bastion of left-wing ideology. I hope the writer will continue to maintain common sense (that men are simply way better in some areas of life) and courage (write about common sensical things) despite above predictable slanders and organized personal attacks by left wingers.
""When men are just better"
Calls for more coverage of women's endeavours miss the mark in the objective world of sport
Zoe Williams
Wednesday July 26, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1830160,00.html"
""When men are just better"
Calls for more coverage of women's endeavours miss the mark in the objective world of sport
Zoe Williams
Wednesday July 26, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1830160,00.html"
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Disabled kids or single women first?
So exactly what is the problem here? It’s very unclear from reading of the article. Clearly from the title, the author of the article intends to promote feminists’ agenda at the expense of state of disabled kids, but as far as you can see in the article, it is hard to understand why an article on disabled children ends up lamenting the sorry state of single women.
The author doesn’t even pretend for a second to show concern for the state for disabled children which should be a main concern for most sane people, but instead focus solely on women who take care of them, somehow magically turning it into a women’s issue. Instead of looking into more valid questions such as whether the disabled kids fare better or worse in single female household compared to single male household or normal two-parent household (or in two-female parent household or two-male parent household or….these days there are so many alternative family structure) or non-biological parent(s) or…. The article simply say that more women are taking care of these kids than men, implying that this is some kind of major social problem that is in need of immediate attention and social remedy.
To liberal mainstream media the fact that more women are taking care of kids than men are such an irrefutable established social problem, they don’t even bother to elaborate why it is bad. Why a social problem? Is it because kids will fare worse when taken care of by women than when taken care by men?
Let’s put the question this way. So, what will be the solution? When all the women are freed from the dire chore of taking care of kids and shove it onto men, so that women can concentrate on their career aspirations, so that men are deprived of career opportunity and bound at home, thereby “leveling the playing field”? Or when absolute equal number of men and women are taking care of kids so that both sexes have equal chances of losing career opportunity as well as of pursuing career? Who is talking about kids here?
The author doesn’t even pretend for a second to show concern for the state for disabled children which should be a main concern for most sane people, but instead focus solely on women who take care of them, somehow magically turning it into a women’s issue. Instead of looking into more valid questions such as whether the disabled kids fare better or worse in single female household compared to single male household or normal two-parent household (or in two-female parent household or two-male parent household or….these days there are so many alternative family structure) or non-biological parent(s) or…. The article simply say that more women are taking care of these kids than men, implying that this is some kind of major social problem that is in need of immediate attention and social remedy.
To liberal mainstream media the fact that more women are taking care of kids than men are such an irrefutable established social problem, they don’t even bother to elaborate why it is bad. Why a social problem? Is it because kids will fare worse when taken care of by women than when taken care by men?
Let’s put the question this way. So, what will be the solution? When all the women are freed from the dire chore of taking care of kids and shove it onto men, so that women can concentrate on their career aspirations, so that men are deprived of career opportunity and bound at home, thereby “leveling the playing field”? Or when absolute equal number of men and women are taking care of kids so that both sexes have equal chances of losing career opportunity as well as of pursuing career? Who is talking about kids here?
Transgendered science prof
So here comes a whining science professor out from a closet. Now he (or she, as “he” used to be, or whatever) is an instant media celebrity as a living testament of entrenched gender bias in scientific establishment.
Of course the New York Times, the Washington Post and host of other liberal media will love him. He is a transgendered person. He testifies that there is a gender bias in the scientific community. He belittles former Harvard president Summers. He has all the necessary elements to be the leftist media darling. Remember, he has personal experience and very unique insight into this issue which not many other people (or any other people, I suspect) would have. He will be, along with people like the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan, a media icon who would be relied upon by liberal media from time to time to render final verdict for the whole world on controversial political and social issues.
So, with an account of personal experience of one unknown scientist, who remained obscure during when he was a woman because of bias (or simple she was not as talented as other male colleagues – but this question does not matter as Dr. Barres and the media already seem to have an answer), media is ready to conclude that Dr. Summers was a just a sexist, white male.
But how good this professor is as a scientist? Dr. Barres asks, “Why do Asian girls do better on math tests than American boys?” My question is - does he think it is really “scientific’ to compare Asian girls with American boys? Why not compare Asian girls to Asian boys and American boys to American girls? The answers would be obvious – in both ethnic groups, boys will do much better. It is just that when you compare math tests of Asians and Americans as a whole, for some cultural or other reasons, Asians do better. But the great discriminated scientist Dr. Barres compares Asian girls with American boys and satisfied with the result he gets. Now we know his standard of scientific method, and also reasons why he got a bad rap as a scientist when he was a woman and why he is such a celebrity. He chose a wrong career. He should have been political activist than scientist.
Of course the New York Times, the Washington Post and host of other liberal media will love him. He is a transgendered person. He testifies that there is a gender bias in the scientific community. He belittles former Harvard president Summers. He has all the necessary elements to be the leftist media darling. Remember, he has personal experience and very unique insight into this issue which not many other people (or any other people, I suspect) would have. He will be, along with people like the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan, a media icon who would be relied upon by liberal media from time to time to render final verdict for the whole world on controversial political and social issues.
So, with an account of personal experience of one unknown scientist, who remained obscure during when he was a woman because of bias (or simple she was not as talented as other male colleagues – but this question does not matter as Dr. Barres and the media already seem to have an answer), media is ready to conclude that Dr. Summers was a just a sexist, white male.
But how good this professor is as a scientist? Dr. Barres asks, “Why do Asian girls do better on math tests than American boys?” My question is - does he think it is really “scientific’ to compare Asian girls with American boys? Why not compare Asian girls to Asian boys and American boys to American girls? The answers would be obvious – in both ethnic groups, boys will do much better. It is just that when you compare math tests of Asians and Americans as a whole, for some cultural or other reasons, Asians do better. But the great discriminated scientist Dr. Barres compares Asian girls with American boys and satisfied with the result he gets. Now we know his standard of scientific method, and also reasons why he got a bad rap as a scientist when he was a woman and why he is such a celebrity. He chose a wrong career. He should have been political activist than scientist.
Ultimate censorship
This is an example of the most direct, visible display of censorship-cutting off michrophone when a person who is speaking makes remarks that someone - in this case, organizer of the event, dislikes. While this incident took place at a graduation ceremony in one high school, sometime I fret at the thought that one day left-wing liberals would get so powerful and dominant in the political discourse and mass-media that they will someday use the same tactics - imagine during an important political debate on NBC or CBS, a crazed feminista sitting on the control room of the TV station turn off michrophone when conservatives try to argue against abortion or affirmative action.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
homework is discrimination
Another story...how about "grading" doesn't properly compensate for differences in pupil's backgrounds?
'Scrap homework' call from Left Party
The Left Party has proposed abolishing homework for children up to the age of 16, saying that it wants to compensate for differences in pupils' backgrounds.
Scrapping homework is one of the proposals put forward in the party's program for 'equality at school', which was presented on Wednesday.
The disappearance of homework would be compensated for with more concentrated teaching and more qualified teachers, said the Left Party's political secretary Anders Thor・to Svenska Dagbladet. The party did not intend to make the school day longer, he said.
Thor・pointed to a Teleborg school in V艀j・ which he said had positive experiences of abolishing homework.
The party argues that schools are not meeting their aim to give every pupil the same chances, and that they are not compensating for pupils' social differences.
The Liberal Party's education spokesman Jan Bjklund described the proposal as "beyond idiotic".
Unions were also critical. Eva-Lis Preisz, chairwoman of the Swedish Teachers' Union, said that politicians should not interfere with schools' homework policies. She said that politicians had an "excessive ambition" to micromanage the work of schools.
'Scrap homework' call from Left Party
The Left Party has proposed abolishing homework for children up to the age of 16, saying that it wants to compensate for differences in pupils' backgrounds.
Scrapping homework is one of the proposals put forward in the party's program for 'equality at school', which was presented on Wednesday.
The disappearance of homework would be compensated for with more concentrated teaching and more qualified teachers, said the Left Party's political secretary Anders Thor・to Svenska Dagbladet. The party did not intend to make the school day longer, he said.
Thor・pointed to a Teleborg school in V艀j・ which he said had positive experiences of abolishing homework.
The party argues that schools are not meeting their aim to give every pupil the same chances, and that they are not compensating for pupils' social differences.
The Liberal Party's education spokesman Jan Bjklund described the proposal as "beyond idiotic".
Unions were also critical. Eva-Lis Preisz, chairwoman of the Swedish Teachers' Union, said that politicians should not interfere with schools' homework policies. She said that politicians had an "excessive ambition" to micromanage the work of schools.
"feminist self-defence" in public schools
I just can't love Sweden enough for its stupidity......
This story gives you a glimpse of a future of society run by militant feminists・
A "feminist self-defence" for all girls, money earmarked at compulsory and upper secondary levels, in order to "improve girls' self-confidence"
Left Party: teach all girls self-defence
Sweden's Left Party wants all girls to be offered 'feminist self-defence' training from the seventh grade, aged 13-14. Meanwhile, boys should attend courses in feminism.
The party is demanding that money be earmarked for self-defence for all girls, both at the compulsory and upper secondary levels, according to Svenska Dagbladet.
The proposal is part of a new programme for schooling and is a continuation of the decision made in 2001 by the Social Democrats and their political partners to invest five million kronor in self-defence classes "to improve girls' self-confidence".
The Liberal Party's education spokesman, Jan Bjklund, declared himself sceptical towards the idea of 'teaching violence in school'.
"Different feminist groups are competing to be the most militant. But equality cannot be about learning to beat each other up," he said.
This story gives you a glimpse of a future of society run by militant feminists・
A "feminist self-defence" for all girls, money earmarked at compulsory and upper secondary levels, in order to "improve girls' self-confidence"
Left Party: teach all girls self-defence
Sweden's Left Party wants all girls to be offered 'feminist self-defence' training from the seventh grade, aged 13-14. Meanwhile, boys should attend courses in feminism.
The party is demanding that money be earmarked for self-defence for all girls, both at the compulsory and upper secondary levels, according to Svenska Dagbladet.
The proposal is part of a new programme for schooling and is a continuation of the decision made in 2001 by the Social Democrats and their political partners to invest five million kronor in self-defence classes "to improve girls' self-confidence".
The Liberal Party's education spokesman, Jan Bjklund, declared himself sceptical towards the idea of 'teaching violence in school'.
"Different feminist groups are competing to be the most militant. But equality cannot be about learning to beat each other up," he said.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Womin's place n history
A new and innovative way to claim “womin’s place”in history…
Rewriting of history by feminists.
Rewriting of history by feminists.
Girls gone drunk
Usually it’s great achievement for womenkind to catch up with men, but achievement in some areas could have adverse effect on women. That’s a dilemma for gender feminists who are working hard to “be like”men, or “be” men in all facets of life. It’s hard for feminists to admit the difference, biological or whatever, between men and women that causes such different effects between the sexes, but it is their second nature to call for social remedy, legislation or special entitlement specifically targeted to women. Thus in Newsweek’s article, little efforts were made to seek the reason for different impact that alcohol consumption has on men and women - admitting biological differences of sexes is not compatible with prevailing feminist dogma - it was loaded with social and cultural background that makes young women drink more (remember we live in patriarchal society!?)
Actually there is another important element that is missing from this seemingly alarming article. Exactly how many young women nationwide are being affected by excessive alcohol consumption? Other than one or two sorry cases of privileged, smart girls on the road to good colleges and bright future slightly derailed by alcohol, there is no statistics to back up the alarming tome of the title.
“started experimenting with marijuana and even crystal methamphetamine”..umm, that’s certainly bad, but how many thousands of boys are in worse situation?
“percentage of 21- to 30-year-olds who report being intoxicated in the past 12 months increased from 48 percent in 1981 to 63 percent in 2001” – boy isn’t that alarming, but what’s the data for boys? -wait a minute, “intoxicated in the past 12 months”? - you mean there are people who don’t get drunk for an entire year?
So one thing is clear - for Newsweek, girls are the only people they worry about, their every little problem need to be featured in magazine, worthy of commanding attention of the society and all the resources in the world need to be directed to fixing their every little problem.
Actually there is another important element that is missing from this seemingly alarming article. Exactly how many young women nationwide are being affected by excessive alcohol consumption? Other than one or two sorry cases of privileged, smart girls on the road to good colleges and bright future slightly derailed by alcohol, there is no statistics to back up the alarming tome of the title.
“started experimenting with marijuana and even crystal methamphetamine”..umm, that’s certainly bad, but how many thousands of boys are in worse situation?
“percentage of 21- to 30-year-olds who report being intoxicated in the past 12 months increased from 48 percent in 1981 to 63 percent in 2001” – boy isn’t that alarming, but what’s the data for boys? -wait a minute, “intoxicated in the past 12 months”? - you mean there are people who don’t get drunk for an entire year?
So one thing is clear - for Newsweek, girls are the only people they worry about, their every little problem need to be featured in magazine, worthy of commanding attention of the society and all the resources in the world need to be directed to fixing their every little problem.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Girl engineer and Google pandering to feminists
The diversity mantra is sounding more and more like a religious cult when you see it being repeated and repeated so often with near religious fervor, while giving absolutely no basis to support it. It is hard to believe that a guy smart enough to head Australian branch of the Google seriously believes in what he is saying. Does he seriously believes that a person with female genitalia fixing computer glitch as opposed to a person with male genitalia is going to benefit the company or the customer at large? What’s his Ph.D for? Must have gotten from Women’s study?
“ the lack of females in ICT - just 20 per cent of the workforce - means gender parity is a dream unless the company does something about it.”
--A dream for what? By who?
“Dr. Rasmussen is concerned that trying to fix the problem of a lack of women in ICT diverts resources from other ends and "could slow the recruitment process".
--Oops, Dr., watch your mouth, feminists don’t appreciate your slip of tongue
“But women still scrape the bottom of the food chain - both at Google and in the salary stakes. … women who earn more than $100,000 a year represent 0.25 per cent of ICT workers.”
-- What, you want to bring women from shoe sales department and install as a head of IT department and give her a top salary? All because no other reason than that she is a women?
“Companies might find it easier to identify skills sets out of non-technical backgrounds such as retail, utilities or commerce and then give them the (technical) knowledge,"”
--If you are so desperate as to consider bringing women from other field to IT sector just to improve gender balance statistics, why not just ask any woman walking on the street and hire as a IT head and give her the best salary. It will surely “give opportunity” for historically oppressed womin and “gender imbalance” as well as gender “pay gap” will be improved.
“ the lack of females in ICT - just 20 per cent of the workforce - means gender parity is a dream unless the company does something about it.”
--A dream for what? By who?
“Dr. Rasmussen is concerned that trying to fix the problem of a lack of women in ICT diverts resources from other ends and "could slow the recruitment process".
--Oops, Dr., watch your mouth, feminists don’t appreciate your slip of tongue
“But women still scrape the bottom of the food chain - both at Google and in the salary stakes. … women who earn more than $100,000 a year represent 0.25 per cent of ICT workers.”
-- What, you want to bring women from shoe sales department and install as a head of IT department and give her a top salary? All because no other reason than that she is a women?
“Companies might find it easier to identify skills sets out of non-technical backgrounds such as retail, utilities or commerce and then give them the (technical) knowledge,"”
--If you are so desperate as to consider bringing women from other field to IT sector just to improve gender balance statistics, why not just ask any woman walking on the street and hire as a IT head and give her the best salary. It will surely “give opportunity” for historically oppressed womin and “gender imbalance” as well as gender “pay gap” will be improved.
Sexual Harassment in Ohio State University
This story may sound extreme or simply bizarre to most people, and it is indeed so; putting in a recommended reading list a few of books written by conservative authors is sexual harassment (SH)? Just a little more of this absurdity would enable bringing SH lawsuits against listing of books written by Friedrich Hayek or Frances Fukuyama as they are also “conservatives” or whoever the bra-burning, tree-hugging, Trotzkyst professors that reside in today’s American universities hate.
It looks like SH is now being utilized as a cover for censorship or book-burning. It is just another function that seems to have been added to the omnipotent SH, in addition to its very useful and frequently-used functions as kicking powerful men out of job (and replace with - yes, women!), blackmailing, extortion of money and funding of the SH industry. In addition to these explicit (and horrible) consequences that charges or threat of charges of SH can bring about, it has more quiet, subtle and sometimes even unnoticed effects as well. It boosts women’s employment prospect as hiring managers would have second thoughts about hiring males - after all all males are very vulnerable to charges of SH, in which case companies have no choice to take the severest action for fear of feminists’ reprisal - company would rather hire female who would never been shot down by the same charges. It also put males under constant fear and pressure, as they feel that they are under constant scrutiny of feminist police, that staying clear of charges of SH that is being thrown at in more and more casual manner, would mean that you have to behave like either priest or hermit.
Although in this case the charge was brought about by gay male professor, the essence of SH is that it is a feminists’ choice of weapon to fight against patriarchy. Thus, it could be extended, interpreted and re-interpreted whenever and wherever feminists see fit in their fight against patriarchy.
It looks like SH is now being utilized as a cover for censorship or book-burning. It is just another function that seems to have been added to the omnipotent SH, in addition to its very useful and frequently-used functions as kicking powerful men out of job (and replace with - yes, women!), blackmailing, extortion of money and funding of the SH industry. In addition to these explicit (and horrible) consequences that charges or threat of charges of SH can bring about, it has more quiet, subtle and sometimes even unnoticed effects as well. It boosts women’s employment prospect as hiring managers would have second thoughts about hiring males - after all all males are very vulnerable to charges of SH, in which case companies have no choice to take the severest action for fear of feminists’ reprisal - company would rather hire female who would never been shot down by the same charges. It also put males under constant fear and pressure, as they feel that they are under constant scrutiny of feminist police, that staying clear of charges of SH that is being thrown at in more and more casual manner, would mean that you have to behave like either priest or hermit.
Although in this case the charge was brought about by gay male professor, the essence of SH is that it is a feminists’ choice of weapon to fight against patriarchy. Thus, it could be extended, interpreted and re-interpreted whenever and wherever feminists see fit in their fight against patriarchy.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Is it Newsweek or Good Housekeeping?
Newsweeks’ “Good Houskeeping” - rization has reached its new peak in this latest edition which features special report on the plight of women who struggled to sleep. Isn’t there any other news to report? Soon the top cover of this once-serious, hard journalism could be something like “10 great-tips to turn him on”, or “Get thin with great xxxx”. This simply shows what will happen when you have too many women in the editorial room of publication. Take heed, Times and US News and other still relatively serious journalism - although they too are not completely spared from feminists’ invasion.
Feminists conquer the Economist
A painful reminder that even a respected publication, such as the Economist, is not immune from the onslaught of gender-feminists’ advocacy articles…
Faced with politically-incorrect, undesirable realities of the rapid rise of some developing countries like China and India, which are not exactly the feminist paradise as Sweden is, gender feminists, who have infiltrated into the editorial room of the Economist (thanks largely to gender-hiring quota, I guess), countered with estrogen-filled, substitute-logic -with-emotion article. Even if we forget China, India and the internet, it is hard to believe that women are the driving force of world economy, if elite women, the vanguard of women’s rights and the ones who decide what are good for other women on their behalf (i.e. gender feminists), could only write article like this that is totally devoid of any logic or data.
Women in the workforce
http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6800723
The importance of sex
Apr 12th 2006From The Economist print edition
Faced with politically-incorrect, undesirable realities of the rapid rise of some developing countries like China and India, which are not exactly the feminist paradise as Sweden is, gender feminists, who have infiltrated into the editorial room of the Economist (thanks largely to gender-hiring quota, I guess), countered with estrogen-filled, substitute-logic -with-emotion article. Even if we forget China, India and the internet, it is hard to believe that women are the driving force of world economy, if elite women, the vanguard of women’s rights and the ones who decide what are good for other women on their behalf (i.e. gender feminists), could only write article like this that is totally devoid of any logic or data.
Women in the workforce
http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6800723
The importance of sex
Apr 12th 2006From The Economist print edition
Monday, April 10, 2006
International feminists and hijakijing of post-conflict recovery
International journalists and media persons are having their field day after the election of Liberia`s female President. This event was truly a windfall for feminist journalist who were dying for a news that will carry their agenda. They are now racing each other to put bigger coverage in their respective media outlet about this Liberian President and the issue of women`s political participation in Africa.
Here, again, the increasingly finer line between objective reporting and advocacy reporting is blurred. The media insinuates that the entire African continent, or even the entire world, is buzzing with hope for the female president, but is it just progressive western journalists or militant feminist circles in Africa buzzing with expectations?
As the author pointed out, some countries in Africa has the highest proportion of women in parliament in the world. But this is mainly due to peculiar circumstances in such countries. According to the author again, much of the male populations were slaughtered in Rwanda, leaving much less men alive than women when the conflict was over and a time to form a new government.
While most people, who have at least a shred of humanity, would feel this as a tragedy of gigantic proportion, but not militant feminists. Many local feminist organizations, aided and abetted, or sometimes set up by their western sisters, saw this as an "opportunity" to increase their voice in politics and boy they did seized the "opportunity"
Inspired by western gender feminists and international organizations, most notably the United Nations, the concept of "gender quota" which remains a controversial concept to say the least in western democracies, was presented as though it is a "world standard" and before men, yet to recover from the atrocity of genocide which mainly targeted them, could see what`s really behind it, was sneakly written into constitutions.
This in tern gives western feminist new ammunition in their eternal fight to introduce gender quota in their home countries. Now they could say, "Look, even Rwanda of all countries has higher number of women in parliament than us. Aren`t you ashamed? Why are we behind them in women`s political participation? What can we do to redress the problem?" and, "Rwanda has seen a remarkable progress since the end of conflict...it`s all because of gender quota!...let`s do in our country too, whoa!" The second kind of argument would naturally be accompanied by phony, selective, and manipulated data that is supposed to back up their self-serving claims.
Not only Rwandan men were butchered in thousands during the conflict, their plight was sometimes regarded by feminists as "men`s problem", meaning, men are killing other men and each other and is thus just their own problem. Instead of men who are butchered in thousands, feminists have successfully shifted attention of international community to the plight of women, who are raped, beaten, or became widows and had to raise family by themselves.
Thus men in Rwanda or other African countries affected by conflicts are doubly victimized or discriminated. First, during the conflict, they are the one who bear the majority of the blunt. Second, when the conflict ends and the society heads to recovery, most of the attention would be placed on women; increase women in power, empowerment of female victim of conflict of widows, economical empowerment of women - at the expense of ignoring the plight of men.
Some links on this article...here
Here, again, the increasingly finer line between objective reporting and advocacy reporting is blurred. The media insinuates that the entire African continent, or even the entire world, is buzzing with hope for the female president, but is it just progressive western journalists or militant feminist circles in Africa buzzing with expectations?
As the author pointed out, some countries in Africa has the highest proportion of women in parliament in the world. But this is mainly due to peculiar circumstances in such countries. According to the author again, much of the male populations were slaughtered in Rwanda, leaving much less men alive than women when the conflict was over and a time to form a new government.
While most people, who have at least a shred of humanity, would feel this as a tragedy of gigantic proportion, but not militant feminists. Many local feminist organizations, aided and abetted, or sometimes set up by their western sisters, saw this as an "opportunity" to increase their voice in politics and boy they did seized the "opportunity"
Inspired by western gender feminists and international organizations, most notably the United Nations, the concept of "gender quota" which remains a controversial concept to say the least in western democracies, was presented as though it is a "world standard" and before men, yet to recover from the atrocity of genocide which mainly targeted them, could see what`s really behind it, was sneakly written into constitutions.
This in tern gives western feminist new ammunition in their eternal fight to introduce gender quota in their home countries. Now they could say, "Look, even Rwanda of all countries has higher number of women in parliament than us. Aren`t you ashamed? Why are we behind them in women`s political participation? What can we do to redress the problem?" and, "Rwanda has seen a remarkable progress since the end of conflict...it`s all because of gender quota!...let`s do in our country too, whoa!" The second kind of argument would naturally be accompanied by phony, selective, and manipulated data that is supposed to back up their self-serving claims.
Not only Rwandan men were butchered in thousands during the conflict, their plight was sometimes regarded by feminists as "men`s problem", meaning, men are killing other men and each other and is thus just their own problem. Instead of men who are butchered in thousands, feminists have successfully shifted attention of international community to the plight of women, who are raped, beaten, or became widows and had to raise family by themselves.
Thus men in Rwanda or other African countries affected by conflicts are doubly victimized or discriminated. First, during the conflict, they are the one who bear the majority of the blunt. Second, when the conflict ends and the society heads to recovery, most of the attention would be placed on women; increase women in power, empowerment of female victim of conflict of widows, economical empowerment of women - at the expense of ignoring the plight of men.
Some links on this article...here
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Drunk women discriminated against
Breaking news!!! Another disturbing evidence of thriving patriarchy in Sweden!!! Scientific study has found out that drunk women are refused more often than drunk men. ---probably what we need is a new gender training course for bartenders and bar owners to serve drunk women another pitcher of beer.
Clay ceiling
Psssst...I can hear feminists whispering;
“..I just have so much problem having men`s work being displayed in our museum…you know, men are all potential rapists and oppressors…who wants potential rapists` artwork in our museum?....our place is supposed to be a “safe haven” for oppressed women artists and a base from which to launch a counter-attack against patriarchal art society and society at large…..Hmmmm but there is not enough women artists to fill our huge museum built on generous donation by private donations (next time to which company I should mention that we are planning to file sexual harassment class action lawsuit?) and government funding (our sisters are on the budget committee…)….hmmm, let`s display artworks on the subject of women, and highlight heavily on the fact that “subjects” are women, so that no one will notice that actually it was “men” who created them (I hope our sister will keep quiet…)…..”
“..I just have so much problem having men`s work being displayed in our museum…you know, men are all potential rapists and oppressors…who wants potential rapists` artwork in our museum?....our place is supposed to be a “safe haven” for oppressed women artists and a base from which to launch a counter-attack against patriarchal art society and society at large…..Hmmmm but there is not enough women artists to fill our huge museum built on generous donation by private donations (next time to which company I should mention that we are planning to file sexual harassment class action lawsuit?) and government funding (our sisters are on the budget committee…)….hmmm, let`s display artworks on the subject of women, and highlight heavily on the fact that “subjects” are women, so that no one will notice that actually it was “men” who created them (I hope our sister will keep quiet…)…..”
"Manliness" needed! (suddenly!)
In modern America, where manhood is universally condemned for every political and social mishaps and illnesses, from the Iraq war to economy, poverty, social development, environment and everything else as testosterone-driven, reckless, and dominating Neanderthal value, there is still one area, and only one area, where manhood is still valued: when it comes to paying child support. In other words, when it comes to benefit women. The need to fictitiously hail manliness is even greater when the man was deceived into parenthood and enforced a child support by the court, such as in the case of Mr. Dubay.
In a world where male behavior and traits are constantly ridiculed in media and TV, where male attributes and values are scoffed and written off as thing of the past, where men are easy target for allegation for sexual harassment, domestic violence, abuse and discrimination, and where men are forced to undergo mind-programming course such as sensitivity training or rape awareness class where men are taught to introspect on their inner feminine side and cultivate sensitivity, feminists and politically correct media has prescribed the only area where men could exhibit their manliness.
We would love to see Jeff Jacoby, a male columnist for Boston Globe showing off his own manliness in any way he wants, but manliness that this metrosexual columnist (I guess) demands of Mr. Dubay comes with no cheap price tag. It`s 18 plus years of child support that we are talking about. It would be quite easy for Mr. Jacoby to extol the virtue of manhood from his comfortable office, where he has nothing to worry about. People like him would realize the dire situation of men in today`s America only when he himself is tricked into fatherhood and slapped with huge child support by court. Of course in that case, we expect that he will react “manly”.
I would suggest that some women, could be any woman walking on the street, to go to a court and claim Mr. Jacoby as her child`s father. No proof, DNA or otherwise, will be required. I want to see how Mr. Jacoby`s face upon hearing the court order him top pay the child support.
In a world where male behavior and traits are constantly ridiculed in media and TV, where male attributes and values are scoffed and written off as thing of the past, where men are easy target for allegation for sexual harassment, domestic violence, abuse and discrimination, and where men are forced to undergo mind-programming course such as sensitivity training or rape awareness class where men are taught to introspect on their inner feminine side and cultivate sensitivity, feminists and politically correct media has prescribed the only area where men could exhibit their manliness.
We would love to see Jeff Jacoby, a male columnist for Boston Globe showing off his own manliness in any way he wants, but manliness that this metrosexual columnist (I guess) demands of Mr. Dubay comes with no cheap price tag. It`s 18 plus years of child support that we are talking about. It would be quite easy for Mr. Jacoby to extol the virtue of manhood from his comfortable office, where he has nothing to worry about. People like him would realize the dire situation of men in today`s America only when he himself is tricked into fatherhood and slapped with huge child support by court. Of course in that case, we expect that he will react “manly”.
I would suggest that some women, could be any woman walking on the street, to go to a court and claim Mr. Jacoby as her child`s father. No proof, DNA or otherwise, will be required. I want to see how Mr. Jacoby`s face upon hearing the court order him top pay the child support.
Black women winning victim sweepstake!
Looks like black women is again winning the I-am-the-biggest-victim sweepstake, according to Joy Jones, a black women (what other demographic group could a person who say something like this belong to?).
According to her, “declining marriage rates among African Americans hit women the hardest.”. This despite the fact that more black men than black women have never been married (by a narrow margin - 43.3 percent versus 41.9 percent), and black women`s chief reasons for not marrying, again according to her own writing, seems to be something like; “(women) don't want to lose their freedom.", or “many of their female peers are satisfied with the lives they have constructed and are less likely to settle for marriage”, as “marriage may not be a business deal that offers sufficient return on investment” for black women who nowadays are on average far more educated, well-salaried, and accomplished and than average black men.
As opposed to black women`s selfish, ego-centric and drama-queen reasons for not marrying, black men`s far more serious reasons for not (or not being able to) marrying, such as incarceration, indebtedness with child support or alimony to wealthier ex-wives, drug and alchohol abuse, etc., are not mentioned at all. Instead, single women who think in the lines of “why should well-salaried women marry?", are portrayed as victims of low rate of marriage among blacks. Here men are treated as commodity or object that women could use in case women wished to look for some companionship and spiritual satisfaction, when she need some respite from her life centered on her high-flung career.
According to her, “declining marriage rates among African Americans hit women the hardest.”. This despite the fact that more black men than black women have never been married (by a narrow margin - 43.3 percent versus 41.9 percent), and black women`s chief reasons for not marrying, again according to her own writing, seems to be something like; “(women) don't want to lose their freedom.", or “many of their female peers are satisfied with the lives they have constructed and are less likely to settle for marriage”, as “marriage may not be a business deal that offers sufficient return on investment” for black women who nowadays are on average far more educated, well-salaried, and accomplished and than average black men.
As opposed to black women`s selfish, ego-centric and drama-queen reasons for not marrying, black men`s far more serious reasons for not (or not being able to) marrying, such as incarceration, indebtedness with child support or alimony to wealthier ex-wives, drug and alchohol abuse, etc., are not mentioned at all. Instead, single women who think in the lines of “why should well-salaried women marry?", are portrayed as victims of low rate of marriage among blacks. Here men are treated as commodity or object that women could use in case women wished to look for some companionship and spiritual satisfaction, when she need some respite from her life centered on her high-flung career.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Reverse-reverse discrimination or women victim of gender quota
Feminists are extremely quick to react to anything that affects their agenda. It may be partly due to a modern trend in leftist political activism for "quick reaction" or partly due to women's natural tendency to defend themselves (as a child-bearer, women put primacy on protecting and defending their bodies, a contrast to man's rather risk-taking and assertive nature). A New York Times Op-ed author is already hinting that there is reverse-reverse discrimination against women in college admission as college admission officers engage in affirmative action admission for prospective male students, since there have been not enough males on campus.
I do not know how true the story is, (no stats to back-up, only anecdotal stories told by feminists, as usual) and if it is true, how widespread this phenomenon is, but it is quite interesting to see that seemingly women are now being adversely affected by gender quota principle that is held so sacrosanct in every public decisions these days. On the other hand, the timing of the publication of this article and its coverage in major newspaper points to the privileged status of women, as an government-designated "oppressed" or "marginalized" group, in getting their voices heard in mainstream media.
Anyway, however disappointed these women maybe for not being admitted at their first choice schools, these women are receiving admissions from a number of good universities, and once in the universities, they are going to enjoy a number of special privileges and entitlements as a women, including a chance to start a sport and join a team for the first time at collegiate level, which are created by eliminating men's varsity teams, a chance to join Vagina monologue event and shout at male students, and so on and so on・. In the meantime, issues that negatively affect men in much severerer way, will continued to be ignored and pushed aside by editorial board now controlled by man-hating feminists.
I do not know how true the story is, (no stats to back-up, only anecdotal stories told by feminists, as usual) and if it is true, how widespread this phenomenon is, but it is quite interesting to see that seemingly women are now being adversely affected by gender quota principle that is held so sacrosanct in every public decisions these days. On the other hand, the timing of the publication of this article and its coverage in major newspaper points to the privileged status of women, as an government-designated "oppressed" or "marginalized" group, in getting their voices heard in mainstream media.
Anyway, however disappointed these women maybe for not being admitted at their first choice schools, these women are receiving admissions from a number of good universities, and once in the universities, they are going to enjoy a number of special privileges and entitlements as a women, including a chance to start a sport and join a team for the first time at collegiate level, which are created by eliminating men's varsity teams, a chance to join Vagina monologue event and shout at male students, and so on and so on・. In the meantime, issues that negatively affect men in much severerer way, will continued to be ignored and pushed aside by editorial board now controlled by man-hating feminists.
UK gender feminists
Feminists are the same. I mean, whether they whine in the United States or Britain or Europe or Asia or Africa or Latin America, they all whine about the same thing ・more power and more money, and the tactics they use are the same. Or in UK maybe they go a little bit further.
The rough average of difference of the total sum of money earned by men and women in the entire labor force, or the so-called "pay gap" of about 17 percent, was further twisted and now verbally transferred in this article by the hand of a militant feminist to "(money that) we're due" as if something we need reimburse to the entire female population.
In the article seemingly written out of estrogen-driven hysteria and dearth of mathematic and logical thinking (remember it was written by a feminist?) called for holding back top salary only for men, so that average earning between men and women will be closer. Exactly who will benefit from this kid of absurd proposal? Nobody. Except militant feminists whose only concern are statistical figures of men and women's average salary. Militant feminists who can reach organism by just looking at the bar chart showing equal pay for men and women in the entire society.
Further, the author pretend to be shocked or (genuinely shocked - then I feel sorry for her mental state) at the whopping 41 percent pay gap between full-time worker and part-time worker ・is anyone with right mind shocked at all? Why should there be pay parity between full-time and part-time worker? The only thing this shows it the level of hatred against men that these militant feminist have - if they were to compare female full-time and part-time worker and discover the gap, would they be "shocked"? - my guess is that even feminists are genetically not as good as men in doing math, they wouldn't be so "shocked". She was "shocked" because for them the fulltime employee represented men (although in reality needless to say there are many female full time worker) and part-time employee represented women, and in her mind the gender war has to go on and it has to be won.
At one point the author seems to correctly blast at the thought-programming of female students, but later she flipflop (another feminist's forte) and refers to this as a good recommendation. If thought-programming is good, why not go one step further and ban all female students from taking such major as literature and sociology and force them to take engineering, etc.?
No wait, the government was also supposed to look at the structural societal gender discrimination, that is, job overrepresented by men, such as engineering and construction, being paid much more than female-dominated occupation (such as teacher, social worker). So if the government succeeded in its grand social-engineering scheme and lowered the overall pay for the former and raise the latter to 田lose・the pay gap between gender, what would happen to all those women who were forced to take up engineering jobs by the government under this new plan, only to see their jobs devalued and whose pay were artificially capped by the government at lower rate than market dictates? Only women can keep the traditional lavish engineering pay?
Familiar line of the women's work paid less than men's work simply because women are valued less is repeated here. This is based on the concept of thoroughly-debunked "comparable worth" theory, which asserts that pay level should be a function of a "worth" to society, to be determined by committee of wise women (no men are going to be included, I guess), rather than a function of free market. The reason for men's jobs' 'better pay is because, among other myriad of reasons, men's jobs tend to be far more dangerous and harder - over 90 percent of occupational deaths occurred to men (yet there is no outcry for "gender imbalance" here), while women's job is much safer and more comfortable. I think it would be a benefit for women if the author does not display this kind of complete lack of mental ability to reason or analyse the economic factor as she did in this article. People will start not believing that women could handle economic or other important public mater anymore, if she seriously beliee that employer and union are colluding to keep women's pay low.
The rough average of difference of the total sum of money earned by men and women in the entire labor force, or the so-called "pay gap" of about 17 percent, was further twisted and now verbally transferred in this article by the hand of a militant feminist to "(money that) we're due" as if something we need reimburse to the entire female population.
In the article seemingly written out of estrogen-driven hysteria and dearth of mathematic and logical thinking (remember it was written by a feminist?) called for holding back top salary only for men, so that average earning between men and women will be closer. Exactly who will benefit from this kid of absurd proposal? Nobody. Except militant feminists whose only concern are statistical figures of men and women's average salary. Militant feminists who can reach organism by just looking at the bar chart showing equal pay for men and women in the entire society.
Further, the author pretend to be shocked or (genuinely shocked - then I feel sorry for her mental state) at the whopping 41 percent pay gap between full-time worker and part-time worker ・is anyone with right mind shocked at all? Why should there be pay parity between full-time and part-time worker? The only thing this shows it the level of hatred against men that these militant feminist have - if they were to compare female full-time and part-time worker and discover the gap, would they be "shocked"? - my guess is that even feminists are genetically not as good as men in doing math, they wouldn't be so "shocked". She was "shocked" because for them the fulltime employee represented men (although in reality needless to say there are many female full time worker) and part-time employee represented women, and in her mind the gender war has to go on and it has to be won.
At one point the author seems to correctly blast at the thought-programming of female students, but later she flipflop (another feminist's forte) and refers to this as a good recommendation. If thought-programming is good, why not go one step further and ban all female students from taking such major as literature and sociology and force them to take engineering, etc.?
No wait, the government was also supposed to look at the structural societal gender discrimination, that is, job overrepresented by men, such as engineering and construction, being paid much more than female-dominated occupation (such as teacher, social worker). So if the government succeeded in its grand social-engineering scheme and lowered the overall pay for the former and raise the latter to 田lose・the pay gap between gender, what would happen to all those women who were forced to take up engineering jobs by the government under this new plan, only to see their jobs devalued and whose pay were artificially capped by the government at lower rate than market dictates? Only women can keep the traditional lavish engineering pay?
Familiar line of the women's work paid less than men's work simply because women are valued less is repeated here. This is based on the concept of thoroughly-debunked "comparable worth" theory, which asserts that pay level should be a function of a "worth" to society, to be determined by committee of wise women (no men are going to be included, I guess), rather than a function of free market. The reason for men's jobs' 'better pay is because, among other myriad of reasons, men's jobs tend to be far more dangerous and harder - over 90 percent of occupational deaths occurred to men (yet there is no outcry for "gender imbalance" here), while women's job is much safer and more comfortable. I think it would be a benefit for women if the author does not display this kind of complete lack of mental ability to reason or analyse the economic factor as she did in this article. People will start not believing that women could handle economic or other important public mater anymore, if she seriously beliee that employer and union are colluding to keep women's pay low.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
More on only WOMEN need apply
Here are the same article that gender feminist Jessica Neuwurth published in other newspapers in US and Canada, which I commented on 16 March in "Only WOMEN need apply"
Windsor Star, Canada 22 March
Houston Chronicle 3/17
Canton Repository Ohio, 19 March
Canton Repository Ohio, 16 March
Windsor Star, Canada 22 March
Houston Chronicle 3/17
Canton Repository Ohio, 19 March
Canton Repository Ohio, 16 March
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
European vs. American feminists
There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between European and American feminists in which one claims that situation surrounding women in their country/region is worse than the other, through use of selective statistics and rhetoric, and end up benefiting feminists from both areas with more support for their causes and government-funded gender-specific empowerment programmes.
People in America have been long told that Europe, especially Scandinavian countries, is more progressive, liberal society in which women enjoy equality with men and all the benefits provided by progressive, socialist governments. The article lists very long maternity leave, etc, etc, as some of such benefits European women enjoy. However the feminists in Europe were still not satisfied with all the extensive benefits and decided to claim that their status is worse than America where women have only 12 weeks of maternity leave, etc.
The criteria for comparison that this kind of power-hungry gender feminists use of course are percentage of women in political power and in large corporations ・nothing else. Even here some facts that they usually self-congratulate in other fora, such as near 50 percent of women in cabinet and parliament in Sweden and other Nordic countries, are conveniently forgotten and focus is shifted to statistic provided by extremely-feminist-friendly ILO which provides that while women account for 45 percent of high-level decision makers in America・ in Sweden, only 29 percent hold high-power posts. If you show this to American feminists, I am sure they would counter-claim the far-far-worse women・status in America by screaming something like ・women hold less than 15 percent of Senate seats compared to Sweden's 40-some percent, uh, it takes another 500 years to reach parity!!! Damn patricarchy!!・
What's the solution to the dismal status of European women as a result of "cushy" welfare system? The most common-sensical and straightforward solution would be to eliminate all these extensive benefits and special entitlements for European women, such as up to 3 years (!) paid maternity leave, state-sponsored day-care centers, that European women seem to have too much of? Of course not! Instead they would push the envelope further, and call for forced paternity leave, and more flex time. They are also envy of American style guilty-until-proven, sue-as-you-go sexual harassment law and tax structure based on single working (lesbian) women. And of course, (who can miss this, it's such a staple), gender quota in corporate board room and MBA schools, strict enforcement of pay parity between sexes (I wonder what the number would be in Europe, as opposed to men's 1 dollar to women's 76 cents in US - whatever the number feminists want us to believe).
According to the authors, Europe's future depends on whether more women will be in the corporate ranks and all Europe will benefit from it. This is a good example of 努omen-think・ so self-centered and self-congratulatory and lacking in ability to see the big picture and distinguish yourself's interest from others. Of course it would be good for you, militant gender feminists and your comrades, and power-hungry women, because you will be having ecstasy looking at the pie chart showing parity between men and women in power, and getting a high-powered post with flex time, 3-year no-question-asked maternity leave, forced paternity leave for your husband and sue-and-forget sexual harassment lawsuit and just wait for the company to pay multi-million dollars (or Euros) settlement to your bank account. But for entire Europe? "Take heed, Europe"? It's good that Europe is still not overrun by such self-centered narcissistic feminists, but they will march on...
Myth & Reality
By Rana Foroohar
Newsweek International http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11435567/site/newsweek/
People in America have been long told that Europe, especially Scandinavian countries, is more progressive, liberal society in which women enjoy equality with men and all the benefits provided by progressive, socialist governments. The article lists very long maternity leave, etc, etc, as some of such benefits European women enjoy. However the feminists in Europe were still not satisfied with all the extensive benefits and decided to claim that their status is worse than America where women have only 12 weeks of maternity leave, etc.
The criteria for comparison that this kind of power-hungry gender feminists use of course are percentage of women in political power and in large corporations ・nothing else. Even here some facts that they usually self-congratulate in other fora, such as near 50 percent of women in cabinet and parliament in Sweden and other Nordic countries, are conveniently forgotten and focus is shifted to statistic provided by extremely-feminist-friendly ILO which provides that while women account for 45 percent of high-level decision makers in America・ in Sweden, only 29 percent hold high-power posts. If you show this to American feminists, I am sure they would counter-claim the far-far-worse women・status in America by screaming something like ・women hold less than 15 percent of Senate seats compared to Sweden's 40-some percent, uh, it takes another 500 years to reach parity!!! Damn patricarchy!!・
What's the solution to the dismal status of European women as a result of "cushy" welfare system? The most common-sensical and straightforward solution would be to eliminate all these extensive benefits and special entitlements for European women, such as up to 3 years (!) paid maternity leave, state-sponsored day-care centers, that European women seem to have too much of? Of course not! Instead they would push the envelope further, and call for forced paternity leave, and more flex time. They are also envy of American style guilty-until-proven, sue-as-you-go sexual harassment law and tax structure based on single working (lesbian) women. And of course, (who can miss this, it's such a staple), gender quota in corporate board room and MBA schools, strict enforcement of pay parity between sexes (I wonder what the number would be in Europe, as opposed to men's 1 dollar to women's 76 cents in US - whatever the number feminists want us to believe).
According to the authors, Europe's future depends on whether more women will be in the corporate ranks and all Europe will benefit from it. This is a good example of 努omen-think・ so self-centered and self-congratulatory and lacking in ability to see the big picture and distinguish yourself's interest from others. Of course it would be good for you, militant gender feminists and your comrades, and power-hungry women, because you will be having ecstasy looking at the pie chart showing parity between men and women in power, and getting a high-powered post with flex time, 3-year no-question-asked maternity leave, forced paternity leave for your husband and sue-and-forget sexual harassment lawsuit and just wait for the company to pay multi-million dollars (or Euros) settlement to your bank account. But for entire Europe? "Take heed, Europe"? It's good that Europe is still not overrun by such self-centered narcissistic feminists, but they will march on...
Myth & Reality
By Rana Foroohar
Newsweek International http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11435567/site/newsweek/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)