Hmmm…. for the sake of the argument let’s put aside very obvious and justified counter-arguments to this non-sense churned out by militant feminists for which there are too many, and be a devil’s advocate and try to find some justifications for this.
Yes, I have one, and this is the only one.
You know, in sports, men and women don’t compete together. We have created different classes for men and women: for example, only men can compete in 100 meters dash, and only women are allowed to compete in women’s 100 meters dash. Nobody argues that men and women should be competing together because then the result will be too obvious. If there is gender-mixed or (“blind”) 100 meters dash in national tournament or Olympics, all the winners will be men. There is no way women can beat men and be a winner in such a race. Women are never going to get anywhere near of winning gold medal at Olympics, not even advancing to second stage of preliminaries in your local states high-school tournaments. They are not going to be “represented” in the winner’s circle in the same manner as a larger population. There will be extreme “over-representation” of men and the “gender-balance” of winners is just way too lopsided.
Now let’s turn our eye at the corporate world. At this time of writing (at least yet), men and women work in the same companies, vie for the same corner offices, compete to become CEO under same condition (just now for the sake of argument, although of course in the real world it is already titled heavily in favor of women with all these affirmative actions, etc.). However, the gender balance of corporate CEO’s are pretty much like what gender balance of winners in my hypothetical gender-mixed 100 meters dash would look like. Is it because, just like men’s bigger muscle mass and long legs do in 100 meters dash, innate biological differences, such as men’s propensity for aggressiveness and leadership are giving huge edge over women in corporate life? If so, and if one manages to find some added value in having half the CEO’s chairs or boardroom filled by skirts and those company executive orders signed by polished-nail hands, and if one wishes to see some “women’s game”, then we might need to create a separate class and set aside venues for them to compete, otherwise men would trounce them all over.
If gender feminists are going to accept this argument, then maybe I could start giving some thoughts about gender quota policy for corporate board room, but will they?
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Paternity leave 3 – men not smiling enough to babies
Whenever needs arise to enforce more men to take paternity leave , inevitably gender feminists turn to “gender-equality utopia” Scandinavia for ideas, and thus ponder if introduction of a Scandinavian “daddy month” would be a good way to shape men into a women’s mold. Maybe. But don’t be content yet, because Scandinavians seem to have their own problems.
Feminists there are not happy (where in the world can you find “happy” feminists?) because Scandinavian men, even when they do take equal amount of paternity leave as women, spend less time with newborn babies, less holding and smiling and talking to babies….., which caused one distraught feminist to dub the paternity scheme in the country (Sweden in this case) as “near total failure.” So, what’s next? Record all the time the father and mother spend with the newborn, how many times each changed diaper, how many minutes they smiled at, and compile a national record?
Feminists there are not happy (where in the world can you find “happy” feminists?) because Scandinavian men, even when they do take equal amount of paternity leave as women, spend less time with newborn babies, less holding and smiling and talking to babies….., which caused one distraught feminist to dub the paternity scheme in the country (Sweden in this case) as “near total failure.” So, what’s next? Record all the time the father and mother spend with the newborn, how many times each changed diaper, how many minutes they smiled at, and compile a national record?
Paternity leave 2 – enforce “negative equality”
If there is a “resistance” among men to take the exact equal amount of time for paternity leave as mothers do for maternity leave, then their attitudes or thinking needs to be corrected. If "These policies (paternity leave) may simply not be what fathers want,", then thought-control is in order. Whatever the method required, whatever feel-good excuses they prefer to use such as “more equitable society” or “gender equality”, the goal of gender feminist is one and I mean only one; to enforce “NEGATIVE EQUALITY”, meaning that, if women are not able to go back to work after extended period after giving birth to take care of the babies, thereby losing out on chances to learn new things, meet and network with new people, gain experience in the work, THEN MEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO EITHER. (fem-speak) It’s about “leveling the playing field”, baby, so that later women can occupy more corner offices in companies, but we’re not saying so because then the resistance from Neanderthal males will predictably be much bigger, so instead we cloaked in nicer, gentler notion like “gender equality”…..
Paternity leave 1 - transferable maternity leave
Slowly but surely, the true intent of feminists’ social engineering scheme is coming to light.
The “transferable maternity leave”, which UK government reportedly plans to introduce in 2008, would allow new mothers to get back to work while transferring their unused maternity leave days to new fathers. With such legislation, the complete gender role reversal would be complete, with women out at work and men staying at home to care for children… It is quite clear from such obvious consequence from the planned “transferable maternity leave” legislation that current push by gender feminists for men to take more paternity leave, under the pretense of so-called “gender-equality” is just a stepping-stone for such complete gender role reversal.
The “transferable maternity leave”, which UK government reportedly plans to introduce in 2008, would allow new mothers to get back to work while transferring their unused maternity leave days to new fathers. With such legislation, the complete gender role reversal would be complete, with women out at work and men staying at home to care for children… It is quite clear from such obvious consequence from the planned “transferable maternity leave” legislation that current push by gender feminists for men to take more paternity leave, under the pretense of so-called “gender-equality” is just a stepping-stone for such complete gender role reversal.
Mo more male movie director please...
In socialist Europe, liberal bias in society is more pronounced than in the United States. It’s difficult to imagine that there is a mainstream media that is more blatantly biased towards left, but there is one: just look at an op-ed piece that calls for curbing male bias in film industry by packing up the women-directed films on their first weekend.
For card-carrying gender feminists whose mantra includes such famous slogan as “personal is political”, the act of going to movie on weekend is not just a private activities that you enjoy to take a break from weekdays’ stressful lives, but also a political action that advances specific cause and which needs to be organized and orchestrated by some feminist groups.
Under feminists’ leadership, you will no loner have a privilege of choosing whatever activities you wish to do on weekend, or if you do choose to go to see a movie, no longer a privilege of choosing whatever film you like to see. No, in Ms. Walter’s view, you need to go to see a movie and that movie BETTER BE directed by women. Whatever the genre of movie you are going to see, it BETTER BE a movie directed by women (and better be at the first weekend of it s release, or otherwise it doesn’t count much, we were told). And you better cheer enthusiastically after the end of the movie yelling “NO-MORE-MALE-DIRECTORS” and write rave on-line reviews of that women-directed movie. You may also be required to join the letter-writing/e-mail campaign to film companies, theaters, etc. to put more women-directed films – you think its a bit too overboard? Sorry, you commitment to gender-equality is not genuine, and we will book you to attend the next available ‘gender-sensitivity’ training. No, relax, we are not sending you to concentration camp in Siberia, it’s just a ‘gender-sensitivity’ training, in which you will discover the joy of living under matriarchy.
This kind of feminists’ your-personal-life-is-my-political-domain mentality is not limited in the film world. There is similar movement behind women’s sport, an organized efforts to drive up attendance at for example WNBA or women’s soccer league in US (when it still existed!!), or number of TV viewers for women’s sports. Everyday feminists' e-mail inboxes are flooded with information about next women’s college soccer game on local TV or e-mails calling to bring friends, co-workers, neighbours or passer-byes to the next WNBA games.
Thus we can speculate that a large chunk of spectators or TV viewers on women’s sports, and audiences for women-directed films are in a way staged political activists. If we were to subtract these claques from the number of spectatars/audiences to women's sport or women-directed films, maybe not enough to sustain as a business, unless of course theaters or TV stations are going to be owned not by market-driven business people but agenda driven feminists.
For card-carrying gender feminists whose mantra includes such famous slogan as “personal is political”, the act of going to movie on weekend is not just a private activities that you enjoy to take a break from weekdays’ stressful lives, but also a political action that advances specific cause and which needs to be organized and orchestrated by some feminist groups.
Under feminists’ leadership, you will no loner have a privilege of choosing whatever activities you wish to do on weekend, or if you do choose to go to see a movie, no longer a privilege of choosing whatever film you like to see. No, in Ms. Walter’s view, you need to go to see a movie and that movie BETTER BE directed by women. Whatever the genre of movie you are going to see, it BETTER BE a movie directed by women (and better be at the first weekend of it s release, or otherwise it doesn’t count much, we were told). And you better cheer enthusiastically after the end of the movie yelling “NO-MORE-MALE-DIRECTORS” and write rave on-line reviews of that women-directed movie. You may also be required to join the letter-writing/e-mail campaign to film companies, theaters, etc. to put more women-directed films – you think its a bit too overboard? Sorry, you commitment to gender-equality is not genuine, and we will book you to attend the next available ‘gender-sensitivity’ training. No, relax, we are not sending you to concentration camp in Siberia, it’s just a ‘gender-sensitivity’ training, in which you will discover the joy of living under matriarchy.
This kind of feminists’ your-personal-life-is-my-political-domain mentality is not limited in the film world. There is similar movement behind women’s sport, an organized efforts to drive up attendance at for example WNBA or women’s soccer league in US (when it still existed!!), or number of TV viewers for women’s sports. Everyday feminists' e-mail inboxes are flooded with information about next women’s college soccer game on local TV or e-mails calling to bring friends, co-workers, neighbours or passer-byes to the next WNBA games.
Thus we can speculate that a large chunk of spectators or TV viewers on women’s sports, and audiences for women-directed films are in a way staged political activists. If we were to subtract these claques from the number of spectatars/audiences to women's sport or women-directed films, maybe not enough to sustain as a business, unless of course theaters or TV stations are going to be owned not by market-driven business people but agenda driven feminists.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Another woman getting rich...
Too bad if you are born into male gender you won’t have a chance to bask in this kind of financial bonanza. As Mia Hamm once said in a TV commercial, “There’s never been a better time to be a woman” I REALLY AGREE, NO SERIOUSLY. While what this Japanese woman had suffered (if her allegation was true) is truly a hardship, there’s no way that a man can get 20 million dollar in one shot unless you have a huge talent in business or something and work your butt off.
20 million dollar is a kind of money that ordinary people would not earn even in their lifetime, not even close. Out-of-proportion amount for compensatory and punitive damages generally sought in sexual harassment (SH) cases serves many purposes, aside from the plain and too obvious factor that accuser gets rich (who doesn’t want to be rich?). It will finance the whole SH industry, including lawyers, lawfirms, various centers and groups related to SH, it will transfer the money (or “level the field” from male businesses to female-owned entities (the accuser, SH industry), in addition, the large amount of money itself has a sound-bite effect in the newsmedia and help promote their case and agenda.
The sound-bide effect, which is an incidental to the original SH lawsuit, has even far-reaching and long-lasting effect. It will force board or management of the accused company as well as other companies in the business to institute SH industry-approved guidelines on SH in workplace, hire or promote more women in the management. In short, it is the fastest ways to get steps closer to SH industry paradise. The more money you ask, the more you get, not just the money. It is like killing not just two, but three, four, five or even more birds with one stone.
Links:
http://nymag.com/daily/food/2006/09/a_sexual_harassment_lawsuit_fi.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/40110
20 million dollar is a kind of money that ordinary people would not earn even in their lifetime, not even close. Out-of-proportion amount for compensatory and punitive damages generally sought in sexual harassment (SH) cases serves many purposes, aside from the plain and too obvious factor that accuser gets rich (who doesn’t want to be rich?). It will finance the whole SH industry, including lawyers, lawfirms, various centers and groups related to SH, it will transfer the money (or “level the field” from male businesses to female-owned entities (the accuser, SH industry), in addition, the large amount of money itself has a sound-bite effect in the newsmedia and help promote their case and agenda.
The sound-bide effect, which is an incidental to the original SH lawsuit, has even far-reaching and long-lasting effect. It will force board or management of the accused company as well as other companies in the business to institute SH industry-approved guidelines on SH in workplace, hire or promote more women in the management. In short, it is the fastest ways to get steps closer to SH industry paradise. The more money you ask, the more you get, not just the money. It is like killing not just two, but three, four, five or even more birds with one stone.
Links:
http://nymag.com/daily/food/2006/09/a_sexual_harassment_lawsuit_fi.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/40110
Are model too skinny or beauty ban?
Is this “growing global campaign to fight anorexia within the fashion industry” born out of a sincere concern for anorexic young models and model-wannabees or is it thinly veiled assault on people’s perception of aesthetics and beauty that do not happen to conform to feminists version of those?
It is interesting that this unprecedented model ban came from a country not particularly known for high fashion but rather known for zealously legislating feminist fantasies, that is, Spain, which just passed a legislation requiring men to share half of the housework.
This feminists’ campaign to change people’s view of women and beauty has been going on for a while - recent examples, most of which focus on justifying or mainstreaming obese women, include movies (remember “Real women have curves”?) and recent campaign by cosmetic company to feature obese “ordinary” women as models for their product and NOW’s campaign to love your body (including all the excess fat).
In ancient time, a queen or some sort ordered all women who were more beautiful than her to be executed. Enlightened, sensitive modern-day re-incarnation of the queen, called gender feminists, will not execute them (then there will be no women other than angry, old feminists left to live on earth), but simply ban the livelihood of some women whom they especially target.
How about tall models? Aren’t they too tall? To me they look far taller than average women, and thus might harm women’s self-confidence who are not as tall as models. Aren’t they also too young? Most of them look like under 25 years old? Ordinary women over 25 may feel left out. Wait, aren’t they too beautiful? And not just models in the fashion shows but how about TV stars and actresses? Aren’t they also too skinny, tall, young, and beautiful? TV starts excessive beauty might drive young girls to flock to plastic surgeons, or may harm their self-confidence as they are not as beautiful as those stars. Should we also ban these people from public eyes too?
I guess we can keep adding one ban after another until the only ones who are left to walk the catwalk or appear on TV or silver screens are the exact mirror image the people on the forefront of skinny-ban - old, unhappy, fat, ugly feminists. Then at least I can save some money by not going to movies anymore.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/fashion/21MODELS.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092000819.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091900149.html
It is interesting that this unprecedented model ban came from a country not particularly known for high fashion but rather known for zealously legislating feminist fantasies, that is, Spain, which just passed a legislation requiring men to share half of the housework.
This feminists’ campaign to change people’s view of women and beauty has been going on for a while - recent examples, most of which focus on justifying or mainstreaming obese women, include movies (remember “Real women have curves”?) and recent campaign by cosmetic company to feature obese “ordinary” women as models for their product and NOW’s campaign to love your body (including all the excess fat).
In ancient time, a queen or some sort ordered all women who were more beautiful than her to be executed. Enlightened, sensitive modern-day re-incarnation of the queen, called gender feminists, will not execute them (then there will be no women other than angry, old feminists left to live on earth), but simply ban the livelihood of some women whom they especially target.
How about tall models? Aren’t they too tall? To me they look far taller than average women, and thus might harm women’s self-confidence who are not as tall as models. Aren’t they also too young? Most of them look like under 25 years old? Ordinary women over 25 may feel left out. Wait, aren’t they too beautiful? And not just models in the fashion shows but how about TV stars and actresses? Aren’t they also too skinny, tall, young, and beautiful? TV starts excessive beauty might drive young girls to flock to plastic surgeons, or may harm their self-confidence as they are not as beautiful as those stars. Should we also ban these people from public eyes too?
I guess we can keep adding one ban after another until the only ones who are left to walk the catwalk or appear on TV or silver screens are the exact mirror image the people on the forefront of skinny-ban - old, unhappy, fat, ugly feminists. Then at least I can save some money by not going to movies anymore.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/fashion/21MODELS.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092000819.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091900149.html
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Of course only women can save US science, although they have achieved very little so far.....
Did anyone expect that this kind of committee, headed by a doctrinaire feminist and a former Clinton cabinet member Donna Shalala, composed overwhelmingly of radical feminists (17 of 18 members were women), WILL NOT conclude that discrimination was a reason for dearth of top female scientists and engineers? Said Donna Shalala, “nothing was a foregone conclusion,” yeah, you’re right. The selection of chair, composition of members and the title of the report, everything single element of this committee-think, committee rubber-stamp report is geared to arrive at one, and I mean only one conclusion - women face discrimination in the science field.
Trying to give a benefit of a doubt that, or hypnotizing yourself hard to believe the charade that this committee was not biased in its approach to the subject matter is already a monumental task in its own right. Looks like even the most hard-headed feminists type in the committee was at least vaguely aware of what they were actually doing so she was already being a little defensive and had to qualify that the study was not meant to “lowering bars”.
The article citing the report doesn’t even bother to explain how US science field is facing global challenge or bad (or good) it is doing as compared to its past, but cited only the political slogans that are music to their ears, such as “we need overarching reform now” etc.
Global competition against who? Which countries? This argument wouldn’t stand unless the US academic excellence in science and engineering is challenged by those countries whose science and engineering field is dominated by women, or at least make more use of the so-called “female talent” (which doesn’t seem to make a dent even in Scandinavian countries). China, for one, who seemed to be rising in this field lately, is of course, a country known for putting gender quota ahead of academic excellence, ha, ha, ha…
Another question.. let’s for the sake of argument say that US science field is indeed in trouble - why turn to a group of people who have made very little contribution in this field in the past, and does not have a track record of producing great scientists on a consistent basis? Why don’t you try to tap into a group of people who have made countless scientific discoveries and made our lives so much convenient and made this country so great. Those group of people are waning out because of gender quota policies, gender politicking, mud-slinging of sexual-harassment or sexual-abuse charges, etc., etc..
Okay, here’s a simple science question or logic question for members of the committee, - when in crisis, should you turn to people with demonstrated abilities in the field in question and achievements in the past, or to people who with no such track record? The latter? Bing! You passed the test to become a member of the Donna Shalala’s committee! The bad news is that however as of today, you are still highly likely to fail an admission test for top universities but it won’t be so for so long, Donna is working around the clock so that logic-deficient people like you can be a part of diverse community of scientific experts that are representative of broader society …translation; (we’re gonna mandate gender quota for science professors and science awards winners).
If science field in this country is going to be dictated by this kind of committee-think and committee-politicking that are reminiscent of Stalin-era Soviet Union, and heads of science department at universities are going to be held by people who are chosen not on the basis of academic excellence but by their gender, then indeed the future of this country’s science field is in big trouble.
Trying to give a benefit of a doubt that, or hypnotizing yourself hard to believe the charade that this committee was not biased in its approach to the subject matter is already a monumental task in its own right. Looks like even the most hard-headed feminists type in the committee was at least vaguely aware of what they were actually doing so she was already being a little defensive and had to qualify that the study was not meant to “lowering bars”.
The article citing the report doesn’t even bother to explain how US science field is facing global challenge or bad (or good) it is doing as compared to its past, but cited only the political slogans that are music to their ears, such as “we need overarching reform now” etc.
Global competition against who? Which countries? This argument wouldn’t stand unless the US academic excellence in science and engineering is challenged by those countries whose science and engineering field is dominated by women, or at least make more use of the so-called “female talent” (which doesn’t seem to make a dent even in Scandinavian countries). China, for one, who seemed to be rising in this field lately, is of course, a country known for putting gender quota ahead of academic excellence, ha, ha, ha…
Another question.. let’s for the sake of argument say that US science field is indeed in trouble - why turn to a group of people who have made very little contribution in this field in the past, and does not have a track record of producing great scientists on a consistent basis? Why don’t you try to tap into a group of people who have made countless scientific discoveries and made our lives so much convenient and made this country so great. Those group of people are waning out because of gender quota policies, gender politicking, mud-slinging of sexual-harassment or sexual-abuse charges, etc., etc..
Okay, here’s a simple science question or logic question for members of the committee, - when in crisis, should you turn to people with demonstrated abilities in the field in question and achievements in the past, or to people who with no such track record? The latter? Bing! You passed the test to become a member of the Donna Shalala’s committee! The bad news is that however as of today, you are still highly likely to fail an admission test for top universities but it won’t be so for so long, Donna is working around the clock so that logic-deficient people like you can be a part of diverse community of scientific experts that are representative of broader society …translation; (we’re gonna mandate gender quota for science professors and science awards winners).
If science field in this country is going to be dictated by this kind of committee-think and committee-politicking that are reminiscent of Stalin-era Soviet Union, and heads of science department at universities are going to be held by people who are chosen not on the basis of academic excellence but by their gender, then indeed the future of this country’s science field is in big trouble.
It's BAAAACK at Newsweek again!!
It’s BAAAAACK again!, the routine, self-congratulating, self-lionizing campaign, of the feminists, by the feminists, for the feminists is back at Newsweek!
Last time they did this ritualistic “celebrate-me-womin” piece was when they a piece about black women, when feminists at the Newsweek marveled how the superiority of black women over black men in almost every spheres of life could spill over to the rest of society in order to establish matriarchy, while being completely oblivious to the need to helping poor black males standing on their own feet.
Ironically, contrary to what feminists are trying fanatically to have you believe that men and women are completely the same, this issue of the Newsweek magazine reminds you that men and women are different; men want from magazine news on politics, economy, society; women needs healing, therapy and a boost of self-confidence. Women are so in need of self-confidence that they periodically needs national weekly magazine to extol their virtues and extraordinary accomplishments that some of sisters made, such as being a deputy chief of an internet company.
Once every few months, the national weekly magazine that is called Newsweek is transformed into arena where one power-feminists celebrate another power-feminist, so that the rest of womin in the country can find solace living in what they see as a nation of wife-beater, sexual harasser and alpha males. The transformation of a magazine once respected for providing hard-hitting news, to a forum of feel-good-ism, mass-therapy is one of the changes brought about by ascendance of feminists at corporate and editorial rooms of media establishment.
I’m sure that this special coverage will be given special status among the archives of Newsweek articles (special of the specials) due to its subject matter and its link will be left on the top page of the website and made accessible for almost eternity as long as Newsweek and internet as we know it exists, as a sort of a public-service announcement. Just like somehow all articles related to gender issues are made available free of charge on subscription-only academic website.
Last time they did this ritualistic “celebrate-me-womin” piece was when they a piece about black women, when feminists at the Newsweek marveled how the superiority of black women over black men in almost every spheres of life could spill over to the rest of society in order to establish matriarchy, while being completely oblivious to the need to helping poor black males standing on their own feet.
Ironically, contrary to what feminists are trying fanatically to have you believe that men and women are completely the same, this issue of the Newsweek magazine reminds you that men and women are different; men want from magazine news on politics, economy, society; women needs healing, therapy and a boost of self-confidence. Women are so in need of self-confidence that they periodically needs national weekly magazine to extol their virtues and extraordinary accomplishments that some of sisters made, such as being a deputy chief of an internet company.
Once every few months, the national weekly magazine that is called Newsweek is transformed into arena where one power-feminists celebrate another power-feminist, so that the rest of womin in the country can find solace living in what they see as a nation of wife-beater, sexual harasser and alpha males. The transformation of a magazine once respected for providing hard-hitting news, to a forum of feel-good-ism, mass-therapy is one of the changes brought about by ascendance of feminists at corporate and editorial rooms of media establishment.
I’m sure that this special coverage will be given special status among the archives of Newsweek articles (special of the specials) due to its subject matter and its link will be left on the top page of the website and made accessible for almost eternity as long as Newsweek and internet as we know it exists, as a sort of a public-service announcement. Just like somehow all articles related to gender issues are made available free of charge on subscription-only academic website.
Monday, September 18, 2006
WNBA
Further thoughts on the issue of coverage of women・sports in media・
WNBA, a women’s professional basketball league in America is an interesting case; the games have been broadcasted in the US, mostly in local TV channels and game results are also broadcasted usually along with other major sports (men’s) such as baseball and football, despite the fact that WNBA draws much less stadium attendance and TV viewerships than men’s sports. -- Am I the only one who suspect pressure by PC forces here?
We are supposed to root for so-called “professional” female basketball player who cannot even dunk!! What is a “professional” basketball when there is no dunk shot? Today you’l see lots of dunk even at local high school (boys, of course) games. I even saw one time a local weather reporter (a man, of course) did a dunk shot, and he’s not even get paid for it! He is only paid for reading weather report on camera. In fact a dunk shot by women is so rare that a newspaper can cite all the instances of dunk sot by women player that took place in the official matches in the history of basketball, and it doesn’t take more than two lines. But feminists are still whining that there is a huge pay gap between men and women basketball players and coverage of the women’s basketball game is much less compared to men’s. In fact I wonder why these non-dunking women players should be paid at all! If there is money to be paid, and TV hours to be spent for broadcasting WNBA, those money and TV hours should go to high school kids (boys, of course) instead.
Equal opportunity? How about equal opportunity for a poor black high school kids who loves to play basketball and can dunk, but cannot go to join the college basketball team, because the college has just capped the size of men’s basketball team due to Title IX provision? Sure he may not be as good as the Michael Jordan, but he is better than most WNBA players, because at least he can dunk.
WNBA, a women’s professional basketball league in America is an interesting case; the games have been broadcasted in the US, mostly in local TV channels and game results are also broadcasted usually along with other major sports (men’s) such as baseball and football, despite the fact that WNBA draws much less stadium attendance and TV viewerships than men’s sports. -- Am I the only one who suspect pressure by PC forces here?
We are supposed to root for so-called “professional” female basketball player who cannot even dunk!! What is a “professional” basketball when there is no dunk shot? Today you’l see lots of dunk even at local high school (boys, of course) games. I even saw one time a local weather reporter (a man, of course) did a dunk shot, and he’s not even get paid for it! He is only paid for reading weather report on camera. In fact a dunk shot by women is so rare that a newspaper can cite all the instances of dunk sot by women player that took place in the official matches in the history of basketball, and it doesn’t take more than two lines. But feminists are still whining that there is a huge pay gap between men and women basketball players and coverage of the women’s basketball game is much less compared to men’s. In fact I wonder why these non-dunking women players should be paid at all! If there is money to be paid, and TV hours to be spent for broadcasting WNBA, those money and TV hours should go to high school kids (boys, of course) instead.
Equal opportunity? How about equal opportunity for a poor black high school kids who loves to play basketball and can dunk, but cannot go to join the college basketball team, because the college has just capped the size of men’s basketball team due to Title IX provision? Sure he may not be as good as the Michael Jordan, but he is better than most WNBA players, because at least he can dunk.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Feminists' worst nightmare - It's a boyin the Japanese royal family!!
Judging from the gender of the baby that was just born between Princess Kiko and her husband, the emperor’s younger son, the winners in this Japanese royal succession saga were the Japanese royal family and the conservatives who wanted to preserve two-thousand years old tradition of male-only succession of crowns. And the losers? Feminists, both inside and outside Japan, and leftist media. It is like their worst nightmare come true. They would have wished that the baby wasn’t born at all.
Too bad Japan’s leftist media’s opportunistic campaign to change the law to allow female succession to crown, which had been hailed and promoted for the last few years, employing scores of familiar leftist tactics, including filling op-ed with one-sided view (theirs, of course) and intentionally skewed sampling of data and surveys of public opinions, did not materialize. They were hoping that a law change would be a catalyst to seismic societal change in Japan to give more power to women and to see a “50-50” society. Feminists around the world collaborated with their counterparts in Japan and pushed hard for another female head of state in Asia, bringing aside for a moment their age-old argument that goes something like, a royal family is the most vivid manifestation of crushing patriarchy and male domination of female – as long as a female get to be the head. The Guardian may have already prepared an article that was intended to close the argument on whether women should be allowed succession of crown in the event the baby’s gender was female, but that draft had to be thrown out, at least for a while. But they haven’t given up yet. They are feminists, they are not going to give up. They’ve already reminded people that the debate on the issue is “not over” and that people’s view on the issue “remains split”. Feminists’ counterattack will begin?
Articles.
Japan Times
International Herald Tribune
Scotsman
Washingtinpost
The Independent
Too bad Japan’s leftist media’s opportunistic campaign to change the law to allow female succession to crown, which had been hailed and promoted for the last few years, employing scores of familiar leftist tactics, including filling op-ed with one-sided view (theirs, of course) and intentionally skewed sampling of data and surveys of public opinions, did not materialize. They were hoping that a law change would be a catalyst to seismic societal change in Japan to give more power to women and to see a “50-50” society. Feminists around the world collaborated with their counterparts in Japan and pushed hard for another female head of state in Asia, bringing aside for a moment their age-old argument that goes something like, a royal family is the most vivid manifestation of crushing patriarchy and male domination of female – as long as a female get to be the head. The Guardian may have already prepared an article that was intended to close the argument on whether women should be allowed succession of crown in the event the baby’s gender was female, but that draft had to be thrown out, at least for a while. But they haven’t given up yet. They are feminists, they are not going to give up. They’ve already reminded people that the debate on the issue is “not over” and that people’s view on the issue “remains split”. Feminists’ counterattack will begin?
Articles.
Japan Times
International Herald Tribune
Scotsman
Washingtinpost
The Independent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)