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
.

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.

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.

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.

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

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