NBA coach troubled by ills of feminism

Another case of high-profile sexual harassment allegation, this time involving New York Knick’s President Isiah Thomas. Thomas and his lawyers are right on the mark – the allegations, just like many other high-profile sexual harassment cases – is “a blatant and cynical attempt …. to get a large sum of money”, by an individual “seeking a financial windfall”, who “use ..(Thomas) as a pawn for their financial gain,".

And looks like the accuser is not the first time offender of politically and financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits, but a repeat offender. It’s also interesting to note that the reason this women was fired a while ago was her “inability to fulfill professional responsibilities”. I told you that hiring of people, especially to senior positions, based on gender and race, is not good.

Sometimes I think filing of sexual harassment lawsuits by old, fat, or/and ugly women serves to fulfill hidden, subconscious desire of these women to be recognized sexually, as such cases, if substantiated, would underscore that the accusing women are attractive enough to get “unwanted”, random sexual advances by men despite their age, look or weight.

Anyway, this case all the ills brought about by modern feminism; an old, incomptent woman hired for a senior position based solely on her gender repeatedly filing financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits against high-profile person.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600279.html

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-nba-knicks-thomas.html

Merkel and more discrimination

There seems to be a pattern that the more women achieve something, especially things that fit nicely into feminists’ plan of action to bring about matriarchy on the planet earth, such as winning elections or becoming the first women to this or do that, the more feminists will complain about gender discrimination. Quite expectedly, or even a bit belatedly if you consider feminists zealotry to exploit any opportunity to advance their agenda, European edition of the Time magazine carried a cover story about the sorry state of women in Germany. I guess this story could have been published whether Merkel captured the Chancellor post or not - if she lost it, after spectacularly losing almost all of the wide lead that her conservative party had over its main rivals – something that not many male politicians in Germany had done in the past (but somehow mysteriously was able to hold on the post of the party leader and then eventually become the Chancellor -again something that not many male politicians were able to do in the past), Time will claim gender bias for the her not being able to become the Chancellor. In the article, as in any other article of this sort, feminists do two things at once, trumpet women’s achievement in Germany (Merkel) and whine about the sorry state of women in general in Germany.

The kind of statistics used in the article are all too familiar to American readers (gender wage gap, relation between the number of child day care and women’s participation in politics, percentage of women in politics, business, etc, etc), and women who took up non-traditional, stereotype-shattering occupations are glorified. It is the cookie-cutter feminist advocacy article.

It’s a little confusing when feminists refer to Sweden and other Scandinavian countries as a model for gender equality, when many Swedish feminists are whining about gender discrimination in their country and how men are comparable to pigs and so on. Well, actually in Sweden, feminists whining will go much further and female politicians discuss seriously about what to do with Swedish men who take almost as much parental leaves as mommy do but spend far less time actually holding and caring babies – what’s the solution – passing a law that that requires if women hold babies for 5 minutes and smile at him for 10 minutes, men have to do the same or more? It’s a country where when men travel abroad, a secret police of sort would follow you so that they can arrest (arrest! a number of legal arrangements between Sweden and host countries to this effect have been made) any Swedes who try to make use of local brothels. Well, feminists may want to look up to this great country.

Feminists’ logic in this advocacy article is, as usual, shaky, to put it mildly. For example, if the German economy is doing so well and is so big (the third biggest in the world) and their science is so advanced compared to other countries, what exactly is the problem? Actually couldn’t you say that overrepresentation of men in these areas is responsible for strong economic growth and academic quality? Certainly the under-representation of women is not a problem in any way with regard to the economic growth and technological advancement, because presently women are under-represented and these two areas in question are doing great. Wouldn’t it be that if we were to artificially boost the women’s number in top business circles and academia by instating various social engineering schemes, it would actually hurt the economy and academia? Would anyone have ever given a thought that the absence of various social engineering schemes, such as affirmative action or positive discrimination, tapering or lowering of criteria and employing less qualified people over more qualified people actually hurt the competitive edge?

Failing boy's grade and Newsweek

Gender feminists have vested interest in keeping boys grades down. In short, it ensures that more girls than boys go to better colleges, more girls than boys will get better jobs, with higher salaries, social status and power, thus, gender wage gap will be narrowed and reversed, percentage of women in the Congress, CEO of Fortune 500 and partners of prestigious law firms will increase and eventually dominate majority. It will also create favorable (for feminists, of course) stereotype that girls and women are smarter, better and occupy high positions, while boys and men are dumber and languish in less-skilled jobs and overrepresented in prisons. In short, keeping the current situation will enable creation of feminists’ utopia.

That is why gender feminists will need to suppress or at least spin the discussions about boys’ failing grades in school. In this week’s Newsweek’s cover story, renowned feminists Carol Gilligan, who was very instrumental in raising the profile of problem with girls in school back in 80’s and 90’s in the first place, is now pretending to care about boys (she is a mother of three boys – was sex selection of babies not available to her back then?). It is profoundly ironic (or predicted?) that the Newsweek is turning to the very gender feminists who is the chief suspect of causing todays’ boy’s failure in school system by systematically slanting educational priorities, criteria and methodologies to benefit girls over boys.

Before discussing about boys’ failure, she reminds us that “We are only a generation away from the time when girls were effectively off the map”, and spends much time boasting the achievements made with respect to girls’ education. When she finally turns to the core issue, she continues her agenda by trying to foster sensitivity in boys, along the favored feminists’ line of immasculating males to achieve gender-neutral or blind society. Of course, as a devoted feminist; she does not forget to warn the readers of the danger of “trouble boys are having with school becomes grounds for reinstituting traditional codes of manhood, including a return to the patriarchal family” and whines that “men still outnumber women at the highest levels of academia, as well as in business and government”. She concludes by saying “we now have an opportunity to redress a system of gender relationships that endangers both sexes”. Feminists will always be feminists, aren’t they?

If the discussion on boys’ failing grade, a problem that deserves the highest attention, that finally made into the attention of major news media is so much spun along gender feminists ideology who had created this very problem in the first place, we are reminded that the problem of boy’s failing grade goes much deeper than simply a creating all-boy school or employing more boy-friendly educational methods. The Newsweek’s story is like turning to Hitler or Goeling for ways to redress the poor living and social condition of Jews in the Third Reich. Yeah, I’m sure you will get the right answer.






http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965127/site/newsweek/

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/ (main story)

Of sexual harassment and gender discrimination

It’s good to see that there is still a man with common sense, uninfected by politically correct virus, is writing pieces for Newsweek, a kind of news magazine which routinely put up advocacy articles and special cover stories to promote various feminists’ agenda (do anyone still remember “When women lead?” ?)

The author’s view on the recent spate of crackdowns by the Wall Street firms on the use of adult-entertainment facility by its employees is a result of PC hysteria. It is true. But there is more to it. Such allegations and lawsuits on sexual harassment and gender discrimination is not really about harassment or discrimination, it is about women getting back at big companies, which they see as a symbol of patriarchy and male power. The gender feminists ideology posits that such male dominated institution must be weakened, disbanded and replaced by female-dominated institution, to achieve true gender “equality” (yeah, of course). In their eternal quest for power, control and money, lawsuits, or threat to bring lawsuits, are the quickest, easiest and most effective way to redistribute millions or billions of money from company (male domain) to women employee and female lawyers who specialize in this area, and any foundation or NGO or whatever they set up with the payoff money to promote agenda (female domain), and oust male execs from their position and fill in the position with one of their cohorts (how difficult it would be for companies to replace the man just fired for sexual harassment with yet another man?). This is the quickest way to correct the so-called “gender wage gap” and increase the percentage of women in executive positions, the two top priorities for feminists and women executives, far more important than creating profits for company they work for or for the US economy as a whole. Of course it is the fastest way because you don’t need to actually work hard and produce results which they seem to be most reluctant to do or largely incapable of doing, but you just need to whine in the court or to the media and who are more than willing to take up your case. This is why they just can’t stop bringing lawsuits and no matter how much companies bend over backward to create PC workplace, feminists will keep inventing new kind of discrimination, new kinds of harassment, so that they can continue this cycle of redistribution of power and money through litigation. They will keep honing their sensitivity so that their sexual harassment/discrimination antenna can pick up the most subtle hint of sexual connotation and turn it into multi million/billon dollar sexual harassment/discrimination lawsuit.

I hope that the author can continue to write articles like this one for Newsweek. That is, I hope that he can withstand the avalanche of e-mails (hate-mail) and other more direct or subtle organized harassment campaign by gender feminists this author will most likely face as a result of publishing this article.

Liberia fiasco

Coupled with another gender feminist taking the highest office in a country in Latin America, this news from Liberia, Africa would mark January 16, 2006 as a very stark, grim day for all the men in the world. Bascially, this election in Liberia is completely a UN-international feminists coalition-staged election to steal the presidency from a former soccer star George Weah. The lopsided support to Johnson by UN officials, both formerly and informerly, while putting up fake pretense of neutrality, was so obvious during the entire election campaign during both general election and (even more so) run-off campaign. You can almost see grinning in the faces of UN officials when they talk about the prospect of Johnson winning before the election. No wonder George Weah's supporters are so pissed off. If Liberia relapsed into instability and turmoil, who is going to take responsibility? UN? Feminists? I'm sure they are going to blame on men.

Chilean President - It's a girl!

Quite shameful that Chile has elected a woman president - a woman who only know to say "I'm a woman, I'm woman, (hear me roar!) - according to BBC, her top priority after assuming the office will be to name half of her cabinet women - pretty much all of her priority and policy during her term, I suppose.

Expect loads of bandwagon reporting from BBC and other left-leaning feminists - worshipping media about how women are changing politics or Latin America or world politics or universe or whatever they wish they could change - or America should follow suit or how women needs to be mo respresented in politcs or women this and women that.......

Women as a pivot vote

My favourite radio show NPR reported on 6 January that Maine Senator Olimpia Snowe could have a key vote in Alito's confirmation hearing as a Supreme Court judge. Wind back a clock a little bit and you would remember that the former Supremem Court justice Sandra O'Conner, a jostice whom Alito is poised to replace, was also known as a key "pivot" judge in important cases, casting crucial ballot in many of the 5-4 split decisions.

Both Snowe and O'Conner are women. Is it a coincidence? Is it because women are more independently minded and wouldn't follow strict party or ideological line, or is it because they do not have strong stance or views on any issue and be easily swayed by the tide of the time or convenient political calculation? Does it play into generally held stereotype that women are just standing out there waiting for other people (men) to woo? Probably so. But mainstream media are busy portraying those women as independently minded, key voter, and shaker and mover, shaping American judicial history, when in fact they are incapable of holding stong ideological footing that are requisite for their important positions.

fightredfemis: Discrimination in ……of course, Sweden.

fightredfemis: Discrimination in ……of course, Sweden.

Feminists' agenda in World Cup Soccer 2006

On 3 Janury, the National Public Radio (NPR) reported about a story on the World Cup Soccer which will be held in Germany this summer. Their story? Prospect for US team in the tournament? A favorite to win the tournament? No way. Don’t forget that this is left-wing, very, very politically correct NPR. They reported on the ongoing efforts, led by German feminists, to stop forced prostitution during the World Cup. The first thing that came to my mind when I heard this story was the Superbowl hoax. Remember this hoax? – a hoax which held that during the Superbowl Sundays, instances of domestic violence increase dramatically.

Feminists tend to bring this kind of hoax up at regular intervals. The cycle goes like this - one hoax with phony facts and half-truths, much celebrated and promoted by major media is debunked by responsible media and people (but get much lesser attention by the original hoax), and eventually fade away from people’s collective memory, only to be followed by yet another hoax. But major sporting events are their favourite time to launch phony campaign- and there are a few reasons for this.

First, gender feminists don’t like major sporting events – unless of course it is women’s event. They cannot stand the fact that much spotlight is falling on men, their “potential batterer” and “potential rapists”. In their mind, men should be at home doing housework in sitting in prison attending sexual harassment courses.

Second, it is good opportunity to promote their cause. Major sporting events, especially the one like the World Cup soccer, the world’s biggest sporting event surpassing even Olympics, attract eyes and ears of literally billions of people worldwide. Why not link you pet cause to the event and raise your profile? You don’t need an advice of expensive ad agency to realize the potential advertising or “awareness-raising” value of the World Cup. Feed NPR with press releases approach media representatives, and hijacking of world’s biggest sporting events with your pet cause, at least within the elite circle who listens to NPR on regular basis, is complete.

Third, feminists cannot accept deep down prostitution, which was legalized in Germany two years ago. (do I need to mention that many gender feminists cannot stand the notion of intimate and happy relationship between male and female?) To circumvent the fact that prostitution is legalized, gender feminists have changed tactics and now focuses on “forced prostitution”. While such forced labor is unethical and illegal and thus need to be prevented, as one of their sister feminist inadvertently admitted it, it constitutes only a tiny fraction of prostitution in Germany. Gender feminists’ overemphasis on this issue reveals their true intent.

Discrimination in ……of course, Sweden.

My belief is that gender feminists will never stop their accusing of men and society in general for gender discrimination, no matter how much progress women make, or how many gender quota laws were enacted, how many daycare centers were established, how many so called “deadbeat dads” were thrown into prison and how fewer number of men go to college. The victimology and demonization of men are so deeply entwined in basic tenets of gender feminism, indeed it is theoretically impossible to conceive of modern gender feminism in other way. One example to prove this point is an article published in an international edition of newsweek titled “The Gender Gap: Moms Not Wanted”.

The female author of this article claims that Sweden’s welfare system, which, to feminist’s dream, provides 480 day parental leave with 80% pay, is actually hurting women, because private sector is, oh what a surprise, "less willing to deal with the disruption caused by very long maternity leaves," and thus is less likely to hire women. I emphasize with Swedish companies. I emphasize with them even more when you think that there are looming threat to these companies of a new gender quota in the boardroom, just like the one that has hitted its neighbor, Norway. Long maternity leave is a course of a new "glass ceiling" and a “subtle discrimination”, as one gender feminists put it in the article.

What do these feminists want? Didn’t they want ridiculously long, macro-and micro-economically-challenged maternity leave for every women with all the perks and privileges? Now that they've got that in this northern feminist utopia, they are blaming it a discrimination? This would lead one to wonder as to the solution to this dilemma in the feminist-utopia - get rid of this long maternity leave or force companies to ban considering the possibility of long maternity leave in hiring of new personnel? Of course the correct answer, as gender feminist would tell us, will be the latter, but how? Another gender-quota law or re-education camp?
This is a good example that feminists will never stop their accusation of discrimination, and perpetual blaming of men and society. It is ironic that their supposedly women-friendly programme actually turned out to hurt some of the women (and needless to say rest of the society), it predictably led to cry for further corrective social engineering scheme, with more vengeance.