This totalitarian feminists now want to engage in “ambition management”, after finding out that girls` ambition tend to taper down compared to boys` after certain age. In their uniquely feminine reasoning, achievement with regard to social status is a direct result of one`s ambition, and nothing else is a factor. Thus, in the spirit of achieving total statistical gender parity both in external social and economical status and internal emotional and psychological realm, we would need to highten girls ambition, while at the same time lower that of boys, perhaps by imbuing them with the virtue of being a stay-at-home-husband.
Girls` ambition needs to be monitored so it remains sufficiently high to feminists` satisfaction, and so that they do not start dreaming about easy comfortable life as a housewife. Boys` ambition needs to be monitored so that it remains lower (this is an important point) than girls`, and so that at least certain percentage of them dream of becoming a perfect house-husband.
The author seems to wonder why girls` excellence in higher education is not mirrored to the exact proportion in the women`s status in political and economic realm. We can leave the speculation to feminists, and I`m sure they will come up with thousand ways in patriarchical society discriminates women to prevent the fulfillment of their full potential. But for the rest of us, it is good to know that not all the Fortune 500 CEOs come from the top universities, and not all the top graduates of Ivy League schools end up in top executive positions. It means that there is mobility in society and opportunity for second chance in life after college. You don` t need to graduate from top MBA schools to be a CEO of big company. You don`t need to spend your entire college life inside library and be a valedictorian to be a good politician. Bill Gates doesn`t even have a bachelor`s degree. It is good thing for most of us, except feminists.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Washington D.C. polce chief 2
Just one day after the Washington Post and other mainstream media rushed to extol the history-making, first-ever (fulltime) female police chief in Washington D.C., concerns over the way in which the new mayor-elect chose the woman were raised. Looks like gender-based appointment went too far. Expect soon feminists complaining “if a man was chosen, there wouldn`t have been such concerns. It`s discrimination!!”. Just amazing to see the extent to which, by ignoring all key advisors, this new young mayor-elect would go to bypass all the eligible male candidates for the police chief post and appoint a woman, who were far down the list. As the newsstory noted, Ms. Lanier is likely to be confirmed despite all this media hype, because she is a “woman”. Of course, nobody wants to risk being labeled as “anti-woman”, however such labeling is unfair and not based on facts.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
D.C. police chief
Recent politically-correct fever of appointing women as chief of security units, traditionally thought as a male bastion, is sweeping the Washington D.C. as well. In an article about this blatant, nothing-but gender-based appointment, Lanier recounts that “…and as a woman in the department, she said, her path has not always been smooth. She doesn't expect it to become any easier when she's chief….” Are you kidding? The only reason you are chosen as the chief of D.C. police is because you are a woman. Wake up!
"Just for being female"
The male columnist mourns the fact that a report on violence against women released by the United Nations was greeted with “collective yawn” in mass media.
Why is it? How can liberal media NOT rush into judgement and indict all men on earth guilty of discrimination against women? Is it because there have been too many of this kind of agenda-driven, advocacy researches, with identical conclusions and recommendations (more women in political position is by far the perennial number one in the latter category) that even liberal media is getting tired of this?
Is it because in this chivalrous male columnist`s view, anything less than days of consecutive top-page coverage by all major media outlets on the issue amounts to willful ignorance by male-dominated media? (We already have enough of this kind of advocacy media reporting, don`t we?)
Or is it simply because the article and the UN report itself doesn`t stand close scrutiny?
Maybe all of the above.
The examples cited by the columnist and others mentioned in the report are indeed awful, but do they represent “war against women all over the planet” Here touches of ideological feminism creeps in. A “war against women all over the planet”? That`s a quite a statement to make, isn`t it? In order for an accusation “war against women all over the planet” to hold true, it has to pass many hurdles. First, it has to exist on every part of the world, not just in some limited regions of the world or cultures. Second, these misdeeds need to be carried out with the explicit purpose to execute “war against women all over the planet” Third, the level and pervasiveness of violence and its negative effect are in such proportion that it constitutes a “war”.
The author mentions that in the United States, “homicide was the second leading cause of death for girls 15 to 18” and that “8 percent of all the homicide victims in the study had been killed by an acquaintance or intimate partner” While the statistic looks horrible indeed, until you actually start to use your brain and take into account the fact that women suffer far, far less violence from non-acquaintance / intimate partners than men suffer, thereby proportionally raising the percentage.
What does the author means by “just being female”? Thousands of women are killed in India for unacceptable reasons. OK. But because just being female? Then how about the crime of “just being female” for the rest of 5 billion female in the country? Are they burned? Of course not. However horrible the reasons these women were killed for, you smell the sulfur, or, the smell of militant feminism and professional man-haters when one starts asserting that those women were killed for “just being female”.
If a group of men beat up a man in a bar because the poor bumped into one of the guys` arm and spilled cocktail all over the guy, isn`t he also punished just for being male? Women spilling cocktail on other men will most likely not going to be punished, but be rewarded and wooed. And how about thousands of men, many of them conscripts, who die in war all over the world every year?
The real motive behind this kind of advocacy-study-through-feminists-mouth-piece-UN and chivalrous commentators is obvious. By focusing world`s attention solely on women victims of violence, which is already far fewer than male victims, they want to tilt feminists-owned political landscape even further in favor of women species. They are also sending out a clear message that men do not deserve any attention or resource; only women do.
Why is it? How can liberal media NOT rush into judgement and indict all men on earth guilty of discrimination against women? Is it because there have been too many of this kind of agenda-driven, advocacy researches, with identical conclusions and recommendations (more women in political position is by far the perennial number one in the latter category) that even liberal media is getting tired of this?
Is it because in this chivalrous male columnist`s view, anything less than days of consecutive top-page coverage by all major media outlets on the issue amounts to willful ignorance by male-dominated media? (We already have enough of this kind of advocacy media reporting, don`t we?)
Or is it simply because the article and the UN report itself doesn`t stand close scrutiny?
Maybe all of the above.
The examples cited by the columnist and others mentioned in the report are indeed awful, but do they represent “war against women all over the planet” Here touches of ideological feminism creeps in. A “war against women all over the planet”? That`s a quite a statement to make, isn`t it? In order for an accusation “war against women all over the planet” to hold true, it has to pass many hurdles. First, it has to exist on every part of the world, not just in some limited regions of the world or cultures. Second, these misdeeds need to be carried out with the explicit purpose to execute “war against women all over the planet” Third, the level and pervasiveness of violence and its negative effect are in such proportion that it constitutes a “war”.
The author mentions that in the United States, “homicide was the second leading cause of death for girls 15 to 18” and that “8 percent of all the homicide victims in the study had been killed by an acquaintance or intimate partner” While the statistic looks horrible indeed, until you actually start to use your brain and take into account the fact that women suffer far, far less violence from non-acquaintance / intimate partners than men suffer, thereby proportionally raising the percentage.
What does the author means by “just being female”? Thousands of women are killed in India for unacceptable reasons. OK. But because just being female? Then how about the crime of “just being female” for the rest of 5 billion female in the country? Are they burned? Of course not. However horrible the reasons these women were killed for, you smell the sulfur, or, the smell of militant feminism and professional man-haters when one starts asserting that those women were killed for “just being female”.
If a group of men beat up a man in a bar because the poor bumped into one of the guys` arm and spilled cocktail all over the guy, isn`t he also punished just for being male? Women spilling cocktail on other men will most likely not going to be punished, but be rewarded and wooed. And how about thousands of men, many of them conscripts, who die in war all over the world every year?
The real motive behind this kind of advocacy-study-through-feminists-mouth-piece-UN and chivalrous commentators is obvious. By focusing world`s attention solely on women victims of violence, which is already far fewer than male victims, they want to tilt feminists-owned political landscape even further in favor of women species. They are also sending out a clear message that men do not deserve any attention or resource; only women do.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Divorce rights to unmarried couples??
There are a few ways to look at the new proposal in the UK to extend the divorce rights to unmarried couples.
One is to see it as an attempt by divorce industry to find new clientele, as one of the comments pointed out.
Second is to see it as an extension of efforts to protect or “empower” one party of the unmarried couple, and of course I am referring to a female party (why would government even bother about males?). Married women are now sufficiently protected under current divorce laws - they can now file for divorce, get the house, alimony, custody of children and child support from men - all of them by simply flinging the accusation of child abuse or domestic violence, no question asked and the government will guarantee she will get the as much as possible. But poor unmarried women still do not enjoy these splendid benefits courtesy of anti-male government.
Third is to see it as a continued effort by anti-family feminists to trivialize the status of marriage vis-a-vis other form of intimate arrangement or cohabitation, by bringing up the level of legal protection of these to that of formal traditional marriage. By extending same legal benefits to cohabitation, formal marriage will become more undistinguishable from couples living together and will become just one of any different types of cohabitation.
New 'divorce' rights for unmarried couples
Clare Dyer, legal editor
Tuesday October 31, 2006
The Guardian
One is to see it as an attempt by divorce industry to find new clientele, as one of the comments pointed out.
Second is to see it as an extension of efforts to protect or “empower” one party of the unmarried couple, and of course I am referring to a female party (why would government even bother about males?). Married women are now sufficiently protected under current divorce laws - they can now file for divorce, get the house, alimony, custody of children and child support from men - all of them by simply flinging the accusation of child abuse or domestic violence, no question asked and the government will guarantee she will get the as much as possible. But poor unmarried women still do not enjoy these splendid benefits courtesy of anti-male government.
Third is to see it as a continued effort by anti-family feminists to trivialize the status of marriage vis-a-vis other form of intimate arrangement or cohabitation, by bringing up the level of legal protection of these to that of formal traditional marriage. By extending same legal benefits to cohabitation, formal marriage will become more undistinguishable from couples living together and will become just one of any different types of cohabitation.
New 'divorce' rights for unmarried couples
Clare Dyer, legal editor
Tuesday October 31, 2006
The Guardian
It`s in women`s advantage
If the stats are in their disadvantage, they will shriek and scream discrimination, if the stats are in their advantage, they will gloat and try to turn it into a foundation for establishing matriarchy - and of course we know feminists are only fight for “equality”, right?
While lamenting the relatively small pay gap between men and women which is about 19 point gap, they gloat over women`s huge advantage (women influence 90 percent of purchase, control 80 percent of every consumer dollar spent, make 70 percent of all travel decisions, etc.) - any call for equality here, ma’am?
While lamenting the relatively small pay gap between men and women which is about 19 point gap, they gloat over women`s huge advantage (women influence 90 percent of purchase, control 80 percent of every consumer dollar spent, make 70 percent of all travel decisions, etc.) - any call for equality here, ma’am?
Musings from Sweden Part 1
Here are compilations of interesting stories from the feminists` wonderland a.k.a Sweden…
After the shocking defeat in general election, some party members of the outgoing Social Democrat which ruled the nation for years have manufactured and echoed convenient "consensus" that next leader of the party should be a woman because, “man will not be able” to beat the new ruling party, which is run by, alas, a man. May I ask why it has to be a woman, since there seems to be nothing in the article which backs such a claim (other than militant feminists` chest-thumping that you can read from between the lines)?
Feminists, not only in Sweden, but across the world are busy creating this kind of convenient “consensus” among general public that political leaders “should be” women, not so subtle shift from their original egalitarian position of “equal” rights for women to be elected political leaders. In recent race to succeed Kofi Annan as the next Secretary-General of the United Nations, feminists from across the world have asserted that next SG should be a woman, saying that “gender barrier” has to be taken down. But if you ague that only woman can become next SG, then who is it that is setting up gender barrier? While most non-feminists would like to judge candidates on their own merit, feminists would want to see gender as the first sifter to ensure that a man would not get the job.
Though barrage of op-ed pieces and sympathetic liberal western media who accepted them to print, feminists try to hypnotize public into thinking that choosing a man for a top job is somehow immoral and also an obstacle to furthering women`s rights. They partially succeeded in manufacturing “consensus” that next SG should be a woman, at least a consensus among liberal elite.
I`m not sure if the ex-minister for equality and deputy prime minister (no less) was regretting the fact Sweden has become too gender-equal as, according to her, it actually prompted men to be more violent against women. If that`s true, that would be quite a hard choice for feminists to turn back the clock and reinstate patriarchy to reduce violence against women or enjoy current care-free feminists utopia and see high rate of violence? But one need not ponder this question seriously as long as the statement is coming out from the mouth of gender feminists who based her argument on study done by - as it turned out, a fellow feminist. Swedish feminists seem to be not much behind their American cohorts in manufacturing and hyper-boling hysteria about statistics concerning women - she inflated percentage of women who experience violence from three percent to forty percent! That`s 13 times more than original figure!
The fact is that for these feminists and their pet industry to survive, there needs to be a growing or at least a continuing “crisis” for women, otherwise their raison d`etre will disappear and the huge government subsidies and other goodies they receive will dwindle.
Once I heard a feminist say that her dream is to see a true gender-equal society so that committed feminists like her will not have to fight for equality any more and retire. Looks like they`ve gotten accustomed to and even addicted to the perks and power that were conferred upon them as a representative of women are not willing to relinquish them.
After the shocking defeat in general election, some party members of the outgoing Social Democrat which ruled the nation for years have manufactured and echoed convenient "consensus" that next leader of the party should be a woman because, “man will not be able” to beat the new ruling party, which is run by, alas, a man. May I ask why it has to be a woman, since there seems to be nothing in the article which backs such a claim (other than militant feminists` chest-thumping that you can read from between the lines)?
Feminists, not only in Sweden, but across the world are busy creating this kind of convenient “consensus” among general public that political leaders “should be” women, not so subtle shift from their original egalitarian position of “equal” rights for women to be elected political leaders. In recent race to succeed Kofi Annan as the next Secretary-General of the United Nations, feminists from across the world have asserted that next SG should be a woman, saying that “gender barrier” has to be taken down. But if you ague that only woman can become next SG, then who is it that is setting up gender barrier? While most non-feminists would like to judge candidates on their own merit, feminists would want to see gender as the first sifter to ensure that a man would not get the job.
Though barrage of op-ed pieces and sympathetic liberal western media who accepted them to print, feminists try to hypnotize public into thinking that choosing a man for a top job is somehow immoral and also an obstacle to furthering women`s rights. They partially succeeded in manufacturing “consensus” that next SG should be a woman, at least a consensus among liberal elite.
I`m not sure if the ex-minister for equality and deputy prime minister (no less) was regretting the fact Sweden has become too gender-equal as, according to her, it actually prompted men to be more violent against women. If that`s true, that would be quite a hard choice for feminists to turn back the clock and reinstate patriarchy to reduce violence against women or enjoy current care-free feminists utopia and see high rate of violence? But one need not ponder this question seriously as long as the statement is coming out from the mouth of gender feminists who based her argument on study done by - as it turned out, a fellow feminist. Swedish feminists seem to be not much behind their American cohorts in manufacturing and hyper-boling hysteria about statistics concerning women - she inflated percentage of women who experience violence from three percent to forty percent! That`s 13 times more than original figure!
The fact is that for these feminists and their pet industry to survive, there needs to be a growing or at least a continuing “crisis” for women, otherwise their raison d`etre will disappear and the huge government subsidies and other goodies they receive will dwindle.
Once I heard a feminist say that her dream is to see a true gender-equal society so that committed feminists like her will not have to fight for equality any more and retire. Looks like they`ve gotten accustomed to and even addicted to the perks and power that were conferred upon them as a representative of women are not willing to relinquish them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)