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/
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Law firm partners
Here`s another cookie-cutter, why-are-there-not-enough-women-in-power-in..(insert any industry you can think of)..., advocacy article written by and for gender feminists. The article is a standard template for deploring the dearth of women in top positions and urging the society to change its attitude and calling for more women in top positions. It`s so predictable from the beginning to end.
Some people simply automatically assumes that achievements and grades at certain point in lifetime (percentage of women in top law schools in this case) must be reflected at the exact same proportion in any point in the following continuum of lifecycle (women ending in partner status in prestigious law firms) or there must be some reasons ・translation - discrimination, barrier, bias, and stereotype.
It is simply astounding that people with such high education and supposedly high intelligence so as to get a positions in big law firms and editorial room of newspaper do not understand that demographic group is nothing but an aggregate of individuals and individuals have choices in free country; moreover individuals choice is influenced by natural genetic differences or circumstance. May be there are well aware of this and are embarking on a massive campaign of denial, denial of and individual free choices, denial of nature and genetic differences, so that they could re-program our thought and behavior, and enforce their utopian vision of absolute statistical gender parity?
One thing that is repeated in this article and other similar article that advocates more women in top position is that retention and promotion of more women is "winning business strategy." However, I have never seen any data or evidence to backup this claim that is so central to their entire argument. Even though the author preemptively qualifies in the article that retention and promotion of women is not merely good-will gesture, it remains to be so as long as there is no rock-solid evidence to back it up.
Why will it be a winning business strategy? In order for one to categorically state that retention and promotion of women is a winning business strategy for law firm, there must be clear economic, not just moral or psychological, benefit to it.
Is there evidence that those female lawyers leaving law firms were better than male lawyers who are staying? Or is it simply a loss of average or sub-average employee for which the law firm`s loss is the money and time it expended for the training of such employees? If so, law firms could cover and eventually overcome such loss by employing male lawyers, who might have been passed over for female candidate due to explicit or inexplicit affirmative action/gender quota by the hiring manager. Many of the female lawyers would say there were disappointed, felt unwelcome, or the atmosphere was not conducive to exercising their maximum potential, or in any other pathetic whining way. But what would the law firms feel? Maybe they were also disappointed by the performance of these female lawyers? Especially after years of substantial efforts and expenditures to comply to feminist-dictated female friendly workplace, after so much bending backwards to cater and cajole to feminists demand, and still what all female lawyers, with brilliant education and six to seven-figure income, benefiting from female specific training and development programme and other gender-specific entitlements, could produce is a further whining about not women-friendly or sensitive enough workplace?
In addition to proven innate difference in the brain structure and the resultant behavior differences between men and women, there are other differences between them when it comes to work and how they view achievement; men simply do their job, by setting goals, plan and prioritize tasks. Achievement for men is something that they have to strive for and work hard for. For women, achievement, or a result is something that needs to be guaranteed by government or some authorities regardless of their ability or efforts or accomplishment, an accessory to a position that they get also through affirmative action or other government-sanctioned gender-empowerment programme.
New York Times March 19, 2006
Why Do So Few Women Reach the Top of Big Law Firms?
By TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/business/yourmoney/19law.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Some people simply automatically assumes that achievements and grades at certain point in lifetime (percentage of women in top law schools in this case) must be reflected at the exact same proportion in any point in the following continuum of lifecycle (women ending in partner status in prestigious law firms) or there must be some reasons ・translation - discrimination, barrier, bias, and stereotype.
It is simply astounding that people with such high education and supposedly high intelligence so as to get a positions in big law firms and editorial room of newspaper do not understand that demographic group is nothing but an aggregate of individuals and individuals have choices in free country; moreover individuals choice is influenced by natural genetic differences or circumstance. May be there are well aware of this and are embarking on a massive campaign of denial, denial of and individual free choices, denial of nature and genetic differences, so that they could re-program our thought and behavior, and enforce their utopian vision of absolute statistical gender parity?
One thing that is repeated in this article and other similar article that advocates more women in top position is that retention and promotion of more women is "winning business strategy." However, I have never seen any data or evidence to backup this claim that is so central to their entire argument. Even though the author preemptively qualifies in the article that retention and promotion of women is not merely good-will gesture, it remains to be so as long as there is no rock-solid evidence to back it up.
Why will it be a winning business strategy? In order for one to categorically state that retention and promotion of women is a winning business strategy for law firm, there must be clear economic, not just moral or psychological, benefit to it.
Is there evidence that those female lawyers leaving law firms were better than male lawyers who are staying? Or is it simply a loss of average or sub-average employee for which the law firm`s loss is the money and time it expended for the training of such employees? If so, law firms could cover and eventually overcome such loss by employing male lawyers, who might have been passed over for female candidate due to explicit or inexplicit affirmative action/gender quota by the hiring manager. Many of the female lawyers would say there were disappointed, felt unwelcome, or the atmosphere was not conducive to exercising their maximum potential, or in any other pathetic whining way. But what would the law firms feel? Maybe they were also disappointed by the performance of these female lawyers? Especially after years of substantial efforts and expenditures to comply to feminist-dictated female friendly workplace, after so much bending backwards to cater and cajole to feminists demand, and still what all female lawyers, with brilliant education and six to seven-figure income, benefiting from female specific training and development programme and other gender-specific entitlements, could produce is a further whining about not women-friendly or sensitive enough workplace?
In addition to proven innate difference in the brain structure and the resultant behavior differences between men and women, there are other differences between them when it comes to work and how they view achievement; men simply do their job, by setting goals, plan and prioritize tasks. Achievement for men is something that they have to strive for and work hard for. For women, achievement, or a result is something that needs to be guaranteed by government or some authorities regardless of their ability or efforts or accomplishment, an accessory to a position that they get also through affirmative action or other government-sanctioned gender-empowerment programme.
New York Times March 19, 2006
Why Do So Few Women Reach the Top of Big Law Firms?
By TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/business/yourmoney/19law.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Friday, March 17, 2006
Some cant take criticism
Female politicians always get away with anything they do or say by just uttering one of the following words; discrimination, harassment, gender-based, sexism, patriarchy.
Democratic frontrunner for the 2008 Presidential election, and a master of gender politics, Hillary Clinton is one of the most frequent user of this tactics. Of course when you make such deragatory comments about Republicans, you would draw a lot of criticism. But, girl, it was not a gender-based attack. It was rather mild, inhibited quips about such irresponsible and reckless comments uttered by such a high-office holder. If you were a man, you would get far harsher criticism from your opponents who do not have to worry about the consequences of looking to be criticizing women・ If you were a man, you could not sling completely baseless charge of gender-based・attack, because there is supposedly no such thing as gender-based attack against men, it goes in only one way, right? Well of course if you were a man, you couldnt marry Bill and became the First Lady, you political launching pad in the first place.
The only gender difference in this case is that, while male politicians would always have to face consequences of their words and actions and take responsibility in the end, female politicians can always get away with uttering the words, gender-based・and discrimination・ This is one of the biggest advantages that female politician have, and Hillary of course knows it best. She has mastered the art of accusation or insinuation of gender discrimination and employs it so tactfully and strategically, it could be now considered her biggest political asset.
Hillarys strategic use of gender victim card and medias willingness to make it into a big story creates two distinct categories of politicians; male politicians who are responsible and answerable to charges and female politicians, consequence / responsibility-free, and immune from criticism. American voters are presented with two such categories of politicians to choose from, and the current politically correct climate dictates that the politicians of the latter category (consequence-free females) be more represented in Senate and Congress.
Although male politicians have no chance of evading from the consequences of their actions by playing gender-victim card, the experiences of taking responsibility, facing consequences actually made male politicians tougher, more responsible, and better politicians, in their innate quality as well as to the eyes of public. By striving to be more responsible, cautious and Public also know that male politicians always have to answer to charges and critics as they have no gender-victim card to play with and thus would trust more on them.
On the other hand, paradoxically, female politicians, free from facing similar consequences that male politicians would otherwise have to face by simply uttering the word discrimination, havent had a chance to be trained in the same way as male politicians. Public would not trust politicians who do not take responsibility for what they say but would only scream gender discrimination, and whose questionable words and actions are not to be covered by mainstream media due to the prevailing politically correct atmosphere.
If feminists want to increase the number of women in politics, their often stated biggest goal in the movement (its not about equality anymore its about power grab) isnt it time for them to learn to take responsibility for what they say and do? It may hurt a bit, but it in the long run, it may help them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030700443.html
Democratic frontrunner for the 2008 Presidential election, and a master of gender politics, Hillary Clinton is one of the most frequent user of this tactics. Of course when you make such deragatory comments about Republicans, you would draw a lot of criticism. But, girl, it was not a gender-based attack. It was rather mild, inhibited quips about such irresponsible and reckless comments uttered by such a high-office holder. If you were a man, you would get far harsher criticism from your opponents who do not have to worry about the consequences of looking to be criticizing women・ If you were a man, you could not sling completely baseless charge of gender-based・attack, because there is supposedly no such thing as gender-based attack against men, it goes in only one way, right? Well of course if you were a man, you couldnt marry Bill and became the First Lady, you political launching pad in the first place.
The only gender difference in this case is that, while male politicians would always have to face consequences of their words and actions and take responsibility in the end, female politicians can always get away with uttering the words, gender-based・and discrimination・ This is one of the biggest advantages that female politician have, and Hillary of course knows it best. She has mastered the art of accusation or insinuation of gender discrimination and employs it so tactfully and strategically, it could be now considered her biggest political asset.
Hillarys strategic use of gender victim card and medias willingness to make it into a big story creates two distinct categories of politicians; male politicians who are responsible and answerable to charges and female politicians, consequence / responsibility-free, and immune from criticism. American voters are presented with two such categories of politicians to choose from, and the current politically correct climate dictates that the politicians of the latter category (consequence-free females) be more represented in Senate and Congress.
Although male politicians have no chance of evading from the consequences of their actions by playing gender-victim card, the experiences of taking responsibility, facing consequences actually made male politicians tougher, more responsible, and better politicians, in their innate quality as well as to the eyes of public. By striving to be more responsible, cautious and Public also know that male politicians always have to answer to charges and critics as they have no gender-victim card to play with and thus would trust more on them.
On the other hand, paradoxically, female politicians, free from facing similar consequences that male politicians would otherwise have to face by simply uttering the word discrimination, havent had a chance to be trained in the same way as male politicians. Public would not trust politicians who do not take responsibility for what they say but would only scream gender discrimination, and whose questionable words and actions are not to be covered by mainstream media due to the prevailing politically correct atmosphere.
If feminists want to increase the number of women in politics, their often stated biggest goal in the movement (its not about equality anymore its about power grab) isnt it time for them to learn to take responsibility for what they say and do? It may hurt a bit, but it in the long run, it may help them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030700443.html
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Gender-based appointment
Another example of “gender-based” appointment….Liberian female president picked a person who fled the country a decade ago and have no experience in policing since then, a teacher in New Jersey!, to assume the position of chief police in the country. This show the extent to which feminists would go to ensure that powerful and prominent post will not go to men. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031000557.html
Only WOMAN need apply
Massive campaign to choose the next Secretary-General of the United Nations based on gender, not capacity nor qualification, has been in full swing with active and willing cooperation of liberal media. While governments and people around the world are marveling about, in a more serious manner, what kind of person should be leading the United Nations in the coming years and who would be most qualified to take up the job after Kofi Annan, current Secretary-General, leaves the office in December, feminist organizations are trying to put forward their candidates for the post, - the ones with female organs. The short list that Jessica Neuwirth, president of the Equality Now, has presented in her article is impressive indeed, (a judge on the International Criminal Court ?), the most impressive about her short list is that all the candidates possess one MUST-HAVE ITEM for future leaders in this increasingly politically correct world – female organs. Sorry to repeat these rather untasteful words, but there is really no other words that are common to these candidates, - uh wait, how about irrelevant or inconsequential?
While their assertion that the Secretary-General has to have female organs is not likely to come to fruition this time, as we are already seeing some strong candidates emerging from Asia - unfortunately for feminists none of these candidates were born with female organ - feminists are covertly trying to introduce and mainstream the idea of “gender-rotation” in the appointment of the Secretary-General and other senior officials, in the hope that even they do not get their choice this time, they have a better shot next time 5 or 10 years from now when the next SG’s term expires, or increase the percentage of women in senior position in United Nations. This new and emerging concept of gender-rotation is feminists’ new arsenal in their Orwellian scheme of enforcing statistical gender parity in senior positions. If the post of Secretary-General or other senior positions are to be rotated based on gender, it would ensure automatic 100% compliance to statistical gender parity – feminists’ biggest goal in their social engineering scheme. While this notion is already bizarre by itself, it would look even more so in the light of feminists’ often-repeated assertion that men and women are exactly the same in their capacity, disposition, character, etc. If they are identical, why do you have to rotate by gender?
It is profoundly ironic (or was predicted?) that feminists, who were supposed to be championing “gender-blind” society (although they still do when it fits their purpose) are the ones most aggressively pushing for the appointment solely and strictly based on gender. We also know that these are the people who, after getting jobs, say, “gender has never played any role in my selection as the chief of ……”. - Whatever.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401126.html
While their assertion that the Secretary-General has to have female organs is not likely to come to fruition this time, as we are already seeing some strong candidates emerging from Asia - unfortunately for feminists none of these candidates were born with female organ - feminists are covertly trying to introduce and mainstream the idea of “gender-rotation” in the appointment of the Secretary-General and other senior officials, in the hope that even they do not get their choice this time, they have a better shot next time 5 or 10 years from now when the next SG’s term expires, or increase the percentage of women in senior position in United Nations. This new and emerging concept of gender-rotation is feminists’ new arsenal in their Orwellian scheme of enforcing statistical gender parity in senior positions. If the post of Secretary-General or other senior positions are to be rotated based on gender, it would ensure automatic 100% compliance to statistical gender parity – feminists’ biggest goal in their social engineering scheme. While this notion is already bizarre by itself, it would look even more so in the light of feminists’ often-repeated assertion that men and women are exactly the same in their capacity, disposition, character, etc. If they are identical, why do you have to rotate by gender?
It is profoundly ironic (or was predicted?) that feminists, who were supposed to be championing “gender-blind” society (although they still do when it fits their purpose) are the ones most aggressively pushing for the appointment solely and strictly based on gender. We also know that these are the people who, after getting jobs, say, “gender has never played any role in my selection as the chief of ……”. - Whatever.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401126.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)