One more story related to the Turin Olympic. So the US and Canada are dominant in the women’s hockey. And so dominant like ’27 Yankees? Who cares who are “dominant” in women’s hockey? If there are only two countries who seriously play in this category (note that I’m not talking about hockey as a sport, but as “Women’s hockey in Olympic” as a “category”), why it is in the Olympic in the first place? There are many other sports that are longing to be included in Olympics. Just because the IOC needs to play some “gender balance” game, by adding more women’s game in Olympics? They shouldn’t act like NCAA and college officials who are forced under Title IX to eliminate men’s collegiate programs to be more “gender balanced”.
And the Washington Post (or Associated Press) needs to apologize to ’27 Yankees and the other baseball teams from that era and the whole baseball industry and fans for comparing women’s hockey to ’27 Yankees. At least they had more than two teams (or six teams, if you want to include those token women hockey teams) in the league back then.
Related stories..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022000873.html
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Well, now it’s Olympic season, and judging from the rather low attendance and ticket sales in Turin, I do not know how many people are paying attention to this sporting event, but there was one interesting story on Washington Post.
First thing gender feminists do, when things don’t go in their way or confronted with hard facts, is to fight straight back, and not just fight back, but make it a vehicle to further promote their agenda. Thus, when several female luge racers crashed in a difficult Turin luge course while only one male crashed in the same course, and the question of women’s aptitude in this luge race arise, they not only declared unilaterally that the crashes were gender-blind, but also cheered for inclusion of women’s ski jump, making downhill skiing course more difficult, and allowing bodycheck in women’s ice hockey.
It’s the same kind of knee-jerk reaction by militant gender feminists, who, when confronted with such uncomfortable and inconvenient fact that women commit domestic violence almost as often as men do, deny the fact, scream about the patriarchal oppression of women by the society and call for more research, funding, advocacy legislation to “protect” women.
I do not know if these people are really worried about the safety of female athletes or just interested in playing statistics game, - you know, to achieve 50 - 50 parity in every sphere of society.
First thing gender feminists do, when things don’t go in their way or confronted with hard facts, is to fight straight back, and not just fight back, but make it a vehicle to further promote their agenda. Thus, when several female luge racers crashed in a difficult Turin luge course while only one male crashed in the same course, and the question of women’s aptitude in this luge race arise, they not only declared unilaterally that the crashes were gender-blind, but also cheered for inclusion of women’s ski jump, making downhill skiing course more difficult, and allowing bodycheck in women’s ice hockey.
It’s the same kind of knee-jerk reaction by militant gender feminists, who, when confronted with such uncomfortable and inconvenient fact that women commit domestic violence almost as often as men do, deny the fact, scream about the patriarchal oppression of women by the society and call for more research, funding, advocacy legislation to “protect” women.
I do not know if these people are really worried about the safety of female athletes or just interested in playing statistics game, - you know, to achieve 50 - 50 parity in every sphere of society.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Mainstream modern feminists
Very interesting site...If you want to know what today's cutting-edge feminists are thinking, you've got to visit this site....
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/
Friday, February 10, 2006
Finally girls are winning over boys!!!
Girl rules, yeah!!!!
… needless to say, according to political orthodoxy, teenage girls suffer more from drug abuse than boys do, and unlike boys, girls who abuse drugs are “victims”……just need to push girl agenda no matter where…….
… needless to say, according to political orthodoxy, teenage girls suffer more from drug abuse than boys do, and unlike boys, girls who abuse drugs are “victims”……just need to push girl agenda no matter where…….
Gender feminists again reached its new high (or low) in meaningless, trivial gender representation statistics, in their relentless pursuit of absolute statistical parity in every nook and cranny of the social sphere (insofar as they deem it is advantages to them).
In a latest story, the first woman president (of course only in TV, and it WILL be only in TV) laments such triviality as (it doesn’t even qualify as trivial in my view, though) less than one to four female to male ratio in crowd scenes in movies and deplore how it negatively affects girl’s self-image, and our venerated Washington Post is more than happy to promote this kind of nonsense put up by professional whiners. I remember some feminists complaining that Lord of the Rings series put male characters too much on the centerstage, they just can’t stand the fact that men (or boys) are in the limelight, not taking orders from or hiding behind strong, trailblazing, stereotype-shattering (to use feminists favorite word) girls.
Well, actually they should remember that girls are doing great in movie too, they can be in a special force (G.I. Jane), and lots of other stuffs, but, oh, still men are better, because we can fly the sky (Superman) and bend railway and throw trains around (Spyderman) and travel though times. What’s the gender breakdown of people who have traveled though time, feminists? That must be one interesting statistics.
In a latest story, the first woman president (of course only in TV, and it WILL be only in TV) laments such triviality as (it doesn’t even qualify as trivial in my view, though) less than one to four female to male ratio in crowd scenes in movies and deplore how it negatively affects girl’s self-image, and our venerated Washington Post is more than happy to promote this kind of nonsense put up by professional whiners. I remember some feminists complaining that Lord of the Rings series put male characters too much on the centerstage, they just can’t stand the fact that men (or boys) are in the limelight, not taking orders from or hiding behind strong, trailblazing, stereotype-shattering (to use feminists favorite word) girls.
Well, actually they should remember that girls are doing great in movie too, they can be in a special force (G.I. Jane), and lots of other stuffs, but, oh, still men are better, because we can fly the sky (Superman) and bend railway and throw trains around (Spyderman) and travel though times. What’s the gender breakdown of people who have traveled though time, feminists? That must be one interesting statistics.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Looking for girl power in all the wrong places
For years, gender feminists have been busy trying to project girl power in the areas of politics, corporation, academia and sports among others, which are traditionally seen as male dominated areas. This is largely because gender feminists decided a few decades ago that women have to be like men, or just “be men” and symbols and bastion of male dominance have to be destroyed and be replaced by women. As a result of this unbalanced focus to turn women into men, gender feminists have neglected to project girl power in traditionally more girly areas, such as fashion design or cooking. Most of the famous fashion designers or top chefs at five-star restaurants or celebrity chefs on TV are men. But now, rather a bit belatedly, Cathy Horn of New York Times attempts to do a little chest-thumping to say that girls are becoming claiming their places in fashion design, too.
It is quite interesting that men tend to dominate the fashion and other industries that cater mostly to women. The majority of clients are women, and majority of students who study in fashion design and other related areas are also women. But somehow, when it comes to the gender breakdown of top fashion designers, it is overwhelmingly men. Is it because the sexist nature of the industry, or because they want to hire or promote people who look like them to top jobs? Not likely. Guys in the fashion industry are one of the most immasculated type, kind of guys that cherish feminine sensitivity, and it is hard to think that they would suddenly turn “neandelthaar” and deny promotion for women.
I think the main reason for this gender imbalance in this girly industry is because, first, as I stated above, gender feminists have paid much less attention to these areas at the expense of their focus on getting more women in politics and corporate boardrooms and editor’s office in major newspapers and magazines. They didn’t cook up many fabricated statistics to show discrimination against women in pay, hiring, and promotion, bring baseless lawsuits on sexual harassment or discrimination, and did not push for gender quota in the number of designers who participate in such and such fashion show. Second, to be a top designer means you need to be competitive and beat other designers in terms of creativity. And when it comes to competition, it is men’s game, even if the men we talk about here is actually more on the girly side than regular men.
This lead me to think, if women cannot even become top fashion designers or top chefs in a fair competition, how women would be able to reach pinnacle in other more male dominated area of politics, corporations and others? Quota, lawsuits, fabricated statistics, media campaign? You bet. Those are the only options.
It is quite interesting that men tend to dominate the fashion and other industries that cater mostly to women. The majority of clients are women, and majority of students who study in fashion design and other related areas are also women. But somehow, when it comes to the gender breakdown of top fashion designers, it is overwhelmingly men. Is it because the sexist nature of the industry, or because they want to hire or promote people who look like them to top jobs? Not likely. Guys in the fashion industry are one of the most immasculated type, kind of guys that cherish feminine sensitivity, and it is hard to think that they would suddenly turn “neandelthaar” and deny promotion for women.
I think the main reason for this gender imbalance in this girly industry is because, first, as I stated above, gender feminists have paid much less attention to these areas at the expense of their focus on getting more women in politics and corporate boardrooms and editor’s office in major newspapers and magazines. They didn’t cook up many fabricated statistics to show discrimination against women in pay, hiring, and promotion, bring baseless lawsuits on sexual harassment or discrimination, and did not push for gender quota in the number of designers who participate in such and such fashion show. Second, to be a top designer means you need to be competitive and beat other designers in terms of creativity. And when it comes to competition, it is men’s game, even if the men we talk about here is actually more on the girly side than regular men.
This lead me to think, if women cannot even become top fashion designers or top chefs in a fair competition, how women would be able to reach pinnacle in other more male dominated area of politics, corporations and others? Quota, lawsuits, fabricated statistics, media campaign? You bet. Those are the only options.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Gender imbalance in an Utah university (..not so common imbalance)
A few days ago I wrote my views on the Newsweek cover story about boys’ failing grades at schools. Maybe related or not related to this, not to be outdone, liberal mainstream media have found one university in the state of Utah, out of thousands in the nation, where enrollment of women is lower than that of men, and decided to counter-claim their cherished victim status. It is so rare that they decided to make it a story and claim discrimination against women.
Of course, if you find just one university in some state in the Midwest where men’s enrollment is just 8 points higher than women (or mere 4 points above the absolute statistical parity of 50-50), you need to be in a crisis mode and the university and community need to “make it easier for women to go to school, as well as educate them on why they need a college degree” (start educating on the need to go to college before actually educating about knowledge, I guess some people need to start from there), and “(use) research and creative recruiting methods to draw more women, even more scholarships especially for women”. This after years of much higher enrollment of women in colleges and universities across the board in the whole nation and much higher achievement by girls in the entire school system from K-1 to high school.
No outcry back then. So much for equality. This is one of the best evidence that gender feminists are not concerned about equality between sexes, but superiority of females over males.
I don’t comprehend the sentence “most (universities in Utah) are much more balanced and mirror the national trend of more women then men”. Does it mean that it is “balanced” to be closer to 50-50 or be balanced to be closer to a national average (which is more lopsided to women than this college in question in Utah is to men)
Of course, if you find just one university in some state in the Midwest where men’s enrollment is just 8 points higher than women (or mere 4 points above the absolute statistical parity of 50-50), you need to be in a crisis mode and the university and community need to “make it easier for women to go to school, as well as educate them on why they need a college degree” (start educating on the need to go to college before actually educating about knowledge, I guess some people need to start from there), and “(use) research and creative recruiting methods to draw more women, even more scholarships especially for women”. This after years of much higher enrollment of women in colleges and universities across the board in the whole nation and much higher achievement by girls in the entire school system from K-1 to high school.
No outcry back then. So much for equality. This is one of the best evidence that gender feminists are not concerned about equality between sexes, but superiority of females over males.
I don’t comprehend the sentence “most (universities in Utah) are much more balanced and mirror the national trend of more women then men”. Does it mean that it is “balanced” to be closer to 50-50 or be balanced to be closer to a national average (which is more lopsided to women than this college in question in Utah is to men)
Shooting in California
Oops, the perpetrator of this carnage is female, so I guess we need to be "gender-sensitive", do not gender-stereotype, and make every efforts to ensure that her women's right is not offended...gender-sensitive way of arresting, handcuffing, body searching and special treatment during detention, including larger and more sanitary prison with more free time and entertainment than males….oh, the woman killed herself already...
How come the media have not disclosed the identity of this woman yet? To protect the woman? If it were a man committing this carnage, his name and details will be all over the media, especially if he happened to be a deadbeat dad, or have a restraining order against him for domestic violence…
I wonder what will be the feminists’ reaction to this…they could be either;
a) Trumpet women’s capacity to commit violence, highlighting that women are ”catching up” with men in every aspect, including crime (most likely from power feminists who want to copy anything men do and gauge women’s progress in terms of how women closely resemble men), or
b) Fabricate the fact that this female culprit is actually a “victim” of domestic violence, or suffered from pervasive sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace (from victim feminists who think that all crime committed by women are in fact manifestation of oppression of women by men), or
c) Just shun the topic
I think C) is their preferred way to go because of the bad publicity but if asked comments in public or privately in their internet discussion board or their views and reactions on this horrible incident will be along the lines of b).
--I think so because they have a knee-jerk response to link anything to harassment and discrimination when cornered with tough facts or questions, and also because they can further advance their agenda on harassment and discrimination if they played the victim card.
What do you think?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013100239.html
Six Dead in Calif. Post Office Shooting
How come the media have not disclosed the identity of this woman yet? To protect the woman? If it were a man committing this carnage, his name and details will be all over the media, especially if he happened to be a deadbeat dad, or have a restraining order against him for domestic violence…
I wonder what will be the feminists’ reaction to this…they could be either;
a) Trumpet women’s capacity to commit violence, highlighting that women are ”catching up” with men in every aspect, including crime (most likely from power feminists who want to copy anything men do and gauge women’s progress in terms of how women closely resemble men), or
b) Fabricate the fact that this female culprit is actually a “victim” of domestic violence, or suffered from pervasive sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace (from victim feminists who think that all crime committed by women are in fact manifestation of oppression of women by men), or
c) Just shun the topic
I think C) is their preferred way to go because of the bad publicity but if asked comments in public or privately in their internet discussion board or their views and reactions on this horrible incident will be along the lines of b).
--I think so because they have a knee-jerk response to link anything to harassment and discrimination when cornered with tough facts or questions, and also because they can further advance their agenda on harassment and discrimination if they played the victim card.
What do you think?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013100239.html
Six Dead in Calif. Post Office Shooting
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)