I’ve always wondered why most of the top chefs in the word are men, even though most of the home cooking, throughout the world and history have been done by women. This article in the New York magazine tells you that it is because of a blatant sexism.
Perhaps the author of the article graduated from Women’s Studies programme just a few months ago, and employ a pure gender-feminist style analytical framework - The author knows the answer to the low number of top female chefs already – so she does not stop just because “ the chefs we spoke to were at first reluctant to cite sexism as the reason there aren’t more women among the city’s elite chefs .”. Instead she pushed, cajoled and guided the women until she get desired answers and arrived at a pre-set conclusion “ it became clear that gender bias is still an issue.”
So you round up seven of not-exactly-top-tier chefs in New York restaurants, who, to a various degree, are holding anguish and resentment against their male colleagues who pass them over for whatever reasons, real (not as good as male colleagues) or imagined (I am discriminated against because I am a woman), and spit out their rants against male colleagues and patriarchy in consciousness-raising-group-style interview.
Off course food cooked women is better since;
“It’s more from the heart and more from the soul.” And
“more accessible, it’s easier to understand, it’s friendlier, it’s more comforting, and it doesn’t get bogged down in all these nutty freaking trends. And
“because it’s comfort food or it’s very nurturing."
Wait, is this a feminists-approved line?
Anyway, I think the reason why there is a dearth of top-female chefs is the same for why there are fewer top female politicians or scientists or whoever rose to the highest level in whatever fields, compared to males. Men put extraordinary energy and determination to rise to the top. You cannot just do the same job as every others do and wait for someone to promote you over the others. You have to be better than others and have an edge that differentiates between you and the rest of them.
Feminists have now become too accustomed to the idea of just doing ordinary job and waiting for the government or media to pick up on you and push you to the top of the ladder due to your specific demographic character. That complacency (“I am a woman, and I WORK (as opposed to EXCEL), THEREFORE I need to be promoted) seems to be slowly spreading to the chef world too.
Maybe it is not too long before some feminist organizations would start screaming “discrimination” against women in the restaurant business, call for immediate government action and file a string of multi-million dollar sexual harassment lawsuits. It would be soon followed by Five-year government or industry action plan to affirmative- action women into more top chef posts – only then they could see their number increase. Bottom line; they can never rise to the top on their own merit, they need government / industry backed affirmative-action plan to rise to the top.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
True face of gender-feminist warrior
WOOOOOWWWW…
Do men (and women) want this face to be on TV, newspaper and all over the media for the next four or eight years telling you to do this and do that, and preaching that men should be more like women and other her feminists nonsense? Do we REALLY want that?
In Asia (and many other parts of the world) people say that the face gives insights to the inner mind of the people. Hillary looks OLD (indeed really, really OLD) in the picture, but it’s not just being old that make most people feel awfully disgusted. I think the picture shows a true FACE of a person (happens to be a woman, yeah!) who have been pursuing unbridled power and control over other people, a true face of radical gender feminist warrior and petit-totalitarianist.
Even though feminists still want to spin this to their advantage as much as possible; e.g. this is a new female face of power, people should challenge their inner unconscious sexism that make them want to vomit to this image and instead embrace it, need a sensitivity training to old female leaders’ faces or the society is generally hard on women because of sexism and this was the result, etc. etc., the undeniable fact throughout history is that people prefer younger, fresh-looking face over tired, exhausted, senile face.
Why did Nixon lose to Kennedy in 1960? Is it sexism against men? Why Ronald Reagan had to wear make up in front of camera? Do face and style never matter in politics? What, are you living in 19th century?
Managing and projecting good (and young, fresh) images is an important pillar of modern-day political campaigning. That’s why many campaigns hire scores of image consultants, stylists, etc. But when a woman stumbles on this one time, and all of a sudden there is huge cry of sexism?
I remember long time ago, in one of the late night talk show (I forgot which show, but it was many years ago), the guest was Sting, who was famous for his tireless efforts to save Amazon rainforests and the host said that if Sting could finish his guest appearance that night without uttering a word “Amazon rainforest”, the host would give him some small prize. I think he didn’t get the prize, because, you know, he was an activist.
Likewise, I want to offer feminists some small gifts if they could see this picture and hold the urge to scream out the word “sexism”. But I bet they cannot, because they are ‘feminists”. Their brains are wired to remote a computer in feminists world headquarter where they are programmed to scream the word “sexism” at least three times per minute when they see a picture of an old, haggard woman. The feminist programmer meant to program one scream per minute but since she was not so good at computer (she only joined her computer class after the Women in Math and Science programme at her school compelled her to take the class and her grade was padded to atone for past injustices against women in science field)
Althouse: That picture of Hillary on Drudge right now.
Immodest Proposals: The Most Significant Photo of 2007 . . .
Do men (and women) want this face to be on TV, newspaper and all over the media for the next four or eight years telling you to do this and do that, and preaching that men should be more like women and other her feminists nonsense? Do we REALLY want that?
In Asia (and many other parts of the world) people say that the face gives insights to the inner mind of the people. Hillary looks OLD (indeed really, really OLD) in the picture, but it’s not just being old that make most people feel awfully disgusted. I think the picture shows a true FACE of a person (happens to be a woman, yeah!) who have been pursuing unbridled power and control over other people, a true face of radical gender feminist warrior and petit-totalitarianist.
Even though feminists still want to spin this to their advantage as much as possible; e.g. this is a new female face of power, people should challenge their inner unconscious sexism that make them want to vomit to this image and instead embrace it, need a sensitivity training to old female leaders’ faces or the society is generally hard on women because of sexism and this was the result, etc. etc., the undeniable fact throughout history is that people prefer younger, fresh-looking face over tired, exhausted, senile face.
Why did Nixon lose to Kennedy in 1960? Is it sexism against men? Why Ronald Reagan had to wear make up in front of camera? Do face and style never matter in politics? What, are you living in 19th century?
Managing and projecting good (and young, fresh) images is an important pillar of modern-day political campaigning. That’s why many campaigns hire scores of image consultants, stylists, etc. But when a woman stumbles on this one time, and all of a sudden there is huge cry of sexism?
I remember long time ago, in one of the late night talk show (I forgot which show, but it was many years ago), the guest was Sting, who was famous for his tireless efforts to save Amazon rainforests and the host said that if Sting could finish his guest appearance that night without uttering a word “Amazon rainforest”, the host would give him some small prize. I think he didn’t get the prize, because, you know, he was an activist.
Likewise, I want to offer feminists some small gifts if they could see this picture and hold the urge to scream out the word “sexism”. But I bet they cannot, because they are ‘feminists”. Their brains are wired to remote a computer in feminists world headquarter where they are programmed to scream the word “sexism” at least three times per minute when they see a picture of an old, haggard woman. The feminist programmer meant to program one scream per minute but since she was not so good at computer (she only joined her computer class after the Women in Math and Science programme at her school compelled her to take the class and her grade was padded to atone for past injustices against women in science field)
Althouse: That picture of Hillary on Drudge right now.
Immodest Proposals: The Most Significant Photo of 2007 . . .
Stay-at-home mom
At the hands of able writers in the NYT, even a stay-at-home mom was portrayed as a well-traveled, influential and efficient campaigner ……. just a small spin, and indeed as a wife of one of the serious contenders in the race of President, she might be just so, but at the same time in the way they title and frame the whole article I can see their hatred against stay-at-home-mom and their desire to “rescue” such moms from their abject circumstances through spin…..
Monday, December 17, 2007
Sexual harassment between politicians in Canada
This is what happens when you have loads of, or to use feminists' favorite line, "critical mass" of female politicians. She is doing merely what her ideology tells her to do; reduce male politicians as much as possible, since, nothing is more important than increasing women's share in politics, or, in other words, again to use their catch phrase, "empowering women". In their eternal fight to reduce men's presence from any socially significant arena, the charges of sexual harassment only becomes yet another tool.
Thus, it doesn't matter whether the male politician was only looking at his private computer, or whether the female politician was in fact violating his privacy, or whether in fact the material he was looking at was sexually explicit or not. The only thing that matter in this case, at least to politically-correct mainstream media, ,was that the female politician "felt" that there was something wrong in his computer, and the fact that sexual harassment complaint was made. And they were looking only for one thing: to kick another male out from the Canadian legislature, and possibly replace him with ‘a woman”, to drive up female gender ratio a notch. And in the way, they might have figured that they would even be able to highlight the issue of sexual harassment again, focusing this time on sexual harassment by high-ranking men, and against high-ranking woman, as well as against women well past their prime age.
The definition of sexual harassment has been on the constant expansion; gone were the days when strict traditional “quid pro quo” type was the definition and now we are entering the time when vindictive women or women with agenda would go all the way, even sneaking into men’s private computer or correspondence to see the slightest hint of “sexism” and claim that they were victimized by it.
Thus, it doesn't matter whether the male politician was only looking at his private computer, or whether the female politician was in fact violating his privacy, or whether in fact the material he was looking at was sexually explicit or not. The only thing that matter in this case, at least to politically-correct mainstream media, ,was that the female politician "felt" that there was something wrong in his computer, and the fact that sexual harassment complaint was made. And they were looking only for one thing: to kick another male out from the Canadian legislature, and possibly replace him with ‘a woman”, to drive up female gender ratio a notch. And in the way, they might have figured that they would even be able to highlight the issue of sexual harassment again, focusing this time on sexual harassment by high-ranking men, and against high-ranking woman, as well as against women well past their prime age.
The definition of sexual harassment has been on the constant expansion; gone were the days when strict traditional “quid pro quo” type was the definition and now we are entering the time when vindictive women or women with agenda would go all the way, even sneaking into men’s private computer or correspondence to see the slightest hint of “sexism” and claim that they were victimized by it.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Women and alcohol
One has to wonder, after reading yet another gender one-sided article by the Newsweek; so this time what kid of new, special treatment exclusively for women do Newsweek recommend? Special studies on effects of alcohol on women? Special treatment plan funded by government? Special awareness raising programme about women and alcohol and special programme to counter negative stereotype associated with women and alcohol?
We can pass a legislation limiting alcohol consumption by women, for example raise the age limit from current 21 to 25 or 30 for women only, or limit the sales of alcohol to women (say, no more than one glass per female customer) or ban consumption of alcohol by women altogether. Is it a discrimination, or simply trying to "protect" these extremely vulnerable creatures?
We can pass a legislation limiting alcohol consumption by women, for example raise the age limit from current 21 to 25 or 30 for women only, or limit the sales of alcohol to women (say, no more than one glass per female customer) or ban consumption of alcohol by women altogether. Is it a discrimination, or simply trying to "protect" these extremely vulnerable creatures?
Female DJs
Blind celebration of women in stereo-type defying role continues in the New York Times. This time, a gender-bender in…DJ.
Just look at these fem-ideology loaded words that seem to be lifted directly from a textbook in some women’s studies programme; They cannot shake off feminists’-crusade-against-patriarchy mentality even when discussing DJs.
“The barrier was high for females trying to enter an essentially male-dominated field, ”
“D.J.-dom has definitely been a boy’s club, a kind of cabal,” …… It is a club, she noted, that women are only now penetrating in significant numbers.”
Of course, they cannot help but do the bean-counting…otherwise how can you come up with xx-year plan to achieve 50-50 gender parity?
“Today, women are less intimidated, Mr. Principe said. In 2002, when the school was established, 10 to 15 percent of applicants were women. Now that figure is closer to 40 percent.”
Just look at these fem-ideology loaded words that seem to be lifted directly from a textbook in some women’s studies programme; They cannot shake off feminists’-crusade-against-patriarchy mentality even when discussing DJs.
“The barrier was high for females trying to enter an essentially male-dominated field, ”
“D.J.-dom has definitely been a boy’s club, a kind of cabal,” …… It is a club, she noted, that women are only now penetrating in significant numbers.”
Of course, they cannot help but do the bean-counting…otherwise how can you come up with xx-year plan to achieve 50-50 gender parity?
“Today, women are less intimidated, Mr. Principe said. In 2002, when the school was established, 10 to 15 percent of applicants were women. Now that figure is closer to 40 percent.”
Female football reporters
I have some comments on the entry by Glenn Sacks in his blog on the subject of female reporters in the football..
When women comments on male sports like football, it is NOT JUST" a qualified, knowledgeable expert commenting on the sport and that person just happens to be of female gender" NO, life is not so simple today.
In our politicaly-correct society, that knowledgeable person is not simply commeting on the plays and players and fulfilling her personal dream or ambition as a sport commentator, but wittingly or unwittingly she is an accomplice in promoting supposedly greater and noble cause just by her sheer gender, - breaking stereotypes, increasing visibility of women in media and sports, empowering female viwers, etc., etc. This is what media who hires female reporters want to push for, and the companies that sponsors such sports sprogrammes on TV wants to see. And it is precisely this kind of politically correct plot, disguised as a qualified, knowledgable persons's quest to make comment son TV, shoved down our throat even in our comfort of watching our favourite sports, that is causing some men to resent.
There are now fewer and fewer places in this society were men could be free of the forces of political correctness and constant male-bashing, and you are reminded that one of the last bastions of those gender-feminist-free, stereotype-breaking, tailbraizing women-free world is being breached when you see "women" commenting on men's football games.
When women comments on male sports like football, it is NOT JUST" a qualified, knowledgeable expert commenting on the sport and that person just happens to be of female gender" NO, life is not so simple today.
In our politicaly-correct society, that knowledgeable person is not simply commeting on the plays and players and fulfilling her personal dream or ambition as a sport commentator, but wittingly or unwittingly she is an accomplice in promoting supposedly greater and noble cause just by her sheer gender, - breaking stereotypes, increasing visibility of women in media and sports, empowering female viwers, etc., etc. This is what media who hires female reporters want to push for, and the companies that sponsors such sports sprogrammes on TV wants to see. And it is precisely this kind of politically correct plot, disguised as a qualified, knowledgable persons's quest to make comment son TV, shoved down our throat even in our comfort of watching our favourite sports, that is causing some men to resent.
There are now fewer and fewer places in this society were men could be free of the forces of political correctness and constant male-bashing, and you are reminded that one of the last bastions of those gender-feminist-free, stereotype-breaking, tailbraizing women-free world is being breached when you see "women" commenting on men's football games.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Reverse pay gap - borad directors
Uhhhh… where’s the outrage?? Where is NEWSWEEK’s 20-page special report on appalling wage discrimination against male corporate directors who were so discriminated against that they earn only 87 percent of what female directors earn?
I also looked through New York Times, Washington Post and the Time magazine for any special reports, article, or op-ed that bring the nation’s attention to this outrageous discrimination, but I found none. And then I realized, - oh, yes, it is WOMEN who is outearning men, not the other way around – of course in this case the whole media would go silent.
But why is the disparity? I could speculate a few reasons behind this.
Maybe the board has to put token women director in senior posts, which would come with higher compensations than the rest of directors – this would be understandable as corporations would naturally want to advertise their diversity efforts by putting the token hires in more visible, senior positions.
Also, a larger corporation are more likely to have additional financial resources to place token directors, who cannot contribute to substantive works but could contribute, by their very presence, to meet diversity goals and satisfy diversity-compliance monitors, and one could expect that compensations for directors at large corporations are higher than that of smaller corporations who may not have much room for diversity hires.
Of course, these are my mere speculations and do not have nay data to back up, but looks quite plausible. Maybe I should look into the data someday.
I also looked through New York Times, Washington Post and the Time magazine for any special reports, article, or op-ed that bring the nation’s attention to this outrageous discrimination, but I found none. And then I realized, - oh, yes, it is WOMEN who is outearning men, not the other way around – of course in this case the whole media would go silent.
But why is the disparity? I could speculate a few reasons behind this.
Maybe the board has to put token women director in senior posts, which would come with higher compensations than the rest of directors – this would be understandable as corporations would naturally want to advertise their diversity efforts by putting the token hires in more visible, senior positions.
Also, a larger corporation are more likely to have additional financial resources to place token directors, who cannot contribute to substantive works but could contribute, by their very presence, to meet diversity goals and satisfy diversity-compliance monitors, and one could expect that compensations for directors at large corporations are higher than that of smaller corporations who may not have much room for diversity hires.
Of course, these are my mere speculations and do not have nay data to back up, but looks quite plausible. Maybe I should look into the data someday.
Coffee shop discrimination
I am always amazed by feminists' bottomless ability to find/cook up gender discrimination in every place imaginable. According to this article, it seems that women are discriminated against literally in every aspect of life, even in coffee shops, which to me seems a rather women-friendly world, with all the “double-macchiat,, blah, blah, blah,….. I don’t even pretend to understand those things on Starbuck’s menu. But one can definitely say that it is more feminine and women-friendly than, say, dive bars.
Is it a really discrimination that on average it takes longer time for coffee shops to serve women? Or is it because male employees spend more time to make sure that cups of coffee or cappuccino for female customers are made to exact recipes and taste perfect, while they don't bother to do so with orders by male customers because they couldn't care less about what male custmers think of them and thier coffees? Now it is discriminaton against whom? Do people really belive that the guys making cappuccinos, upon receiving orders from another sales asscoiate and upon knowing that the orders were placed by female customers, intentionally take another 20 seconds or so off just to remind them of women's place in society?
A few questions popped into my mind as I read the article;
Should Starbucks ban hiring of male employees, to preempt lawsuits by feminist lawyers?
And more importantly, do anyone even care about discrimination anymore? Now the new frontier in a battle for compete gender equality is formed in reducing waiting time for female customers at Starbucks. WHO CARES? Isn’t their any other pressing issues in this society than trying to spare 20 or so seconds of snobbish female customers who have a luxury of patronizing Starbucks?
And on Tim’s last point, it’s interesting to note that the McDonald in Japan has already introduced “women-only” floors, where only women customers are allowed to get in. While they didn’t ban men from getting into their premise entirely, this may be one way to pander more to women customers while not alienating male customers too much.
http://timharford.com/2007/11/smell-the-discrimination-undercover-economist/
Is it a really discrimination that on average it takes longer time for coffee shops to serve women? Or is it because male employees spend more time to make sure that cups of coffee or cappuccino for female customers are made to exact recipes and taste perfect, while they don't bother to do so with orders by male customers because they couldn't care less about what male custmers think of them and thier coffees? Now it is discriminaton against whom? Do people really belive that the guys making cappuccinos, upon receiving orders from another sales asscoiate and upon knowing that the orders were placed by female customers, intentionally take another 20 seconds or so off just to remind them of women's place in society?
A few questions popped into my mind as I read the article;
Should Starbucks ban hiring of male employees, to preempt lawsuits by feminist lawyers?
And more importantly, do anyone even care about discrimination anymore? Now the new frontier in a battle for compete gender equality is formed in reducing waiting time for female customers at Starbucks. WHO CARES? Isn’t their any other pressing issues in this society than trying to spare 20 or so seconds of snobbish female customers who have a luxury of patronizing Starbucks?
And on Tim’s last point, it’s interesting to note that the McDonald in Japan has already introduced “women-only” floors, where only women customers are allowed to get in. While they didn’t ban men from getting into their premise entirely, this may be one way to pander more to women customers while not alienating male customers too much.
http://timharford.com/2007/11/smell-the-discrimination-undercover-economist/
Friday, November 09, 2007
Korean feminists
Oops, it was a “wrong” kind of woman, in the light of gender feminists’ approved ideal women model, because - she was a motherly, traditional woman. Trained in western man-hating brand of feminism, Korean feminists are up in arms against the recent government’s decision to put a woman on the face of its national banknote for the first time, and they are not going to be happy until they see trail-brazing, lesbian militant feminist-type in politics or military or large corporations (in other words, THEIR role model) adorn the banknotes.
In the western media (BBC) the “row” is rather simple and one-sided, a gender feminists’ rant against the decision of the government dominated by reactionary males, but local media (English version) reports a more complicated affair, with another feminist supporting the government’s decision by saying that the woman was actually a modern, western-type independent woman who was unfortunately portrayed as a “motherly” figure as a result of patriarchal conspiracy to keep women barefooted and pregnant, and that restoration of the woman was necessary. Very complicated indeed.
Anyway, if feminists were not happy with the public celebration of a historical woman in national banknotes, why not scrap it altogether? Who needs a little gender-mainstreaming and affirmative action in bank notes? Who wants to be reminded everyday as they reach for money in their wallets a result of gender feminists’ relentless push for affirmative action?
In some other countries (or regional organizations, to be more precise), they could not even celebrate any historical personality, however great their contribution to humanity and history might have been, because - it would discriminate against women. If they start putting faces of historical figures in banknotes, feminists argue, it would be almost all-male affair (understandably, of course). And since nothing carries more weight than feminists’ whims and words in the modern European life, the Euro banknotes do not to adorn any human faces on their notes. Quest for gender equality banned people from celebrating historical (male) personalities. It would not be long before that history would be dead in Europe because of feminism. But I guess they wouldn’t bother because they want to replace history (“his-story”) with “her-story”.
In the western media (BBC) the “row” is rather simple and one-sided, a gender feminists’ rant against the decision of the government dominated by reactionary males, but local media (English version) reports a more complicated affair, with another feminist supporting the government’s decision by saying that the woman was actually a modern, western-type independent woman who was unfortunately portrayed as a “motherly” figure as a result of patriarchal conspiracy to keep women barefooted and pregnant, and that restoration of the woman was necessary. Very complicated indeed.
Anyway, if feminists were not happy with the public celebration of a historical woman in national banknotes, why not scrap it altogether? Who needs a little gender-mainstreaming and affirmative action in bank notes? Who wants to be reminded everyday as they reach for money in their wallets a result of gender feminists’ relentless push for affirmative action?
In some other countries (or regional organizations, to be more precise), they could not even celebrate any historical personality, however great their contribution to humanity and history might have been, because - it would discriminate against women. If they start putting faces of historical figures in banknotes, feminists argue, it would be almost all-male affair (understandably, of course). And since nothing carries more weight than feminists’ whims and words in the modern European life, the Euro banknotes do not to adorn any human faces on their notes. Quest for gender equality banned people from celebrating historical (male) personalities. It would not be long before that history would be dead in Europe because of feminism. But I guess they wouldn’t bother because they want to replace history (“his-story”) with “her-story”.
Operah Winfrey school
Note that the perpetrator of this sex crime is a WOMAN! But of course we cannot blame women for anything in this society, since women are the victims of patriarchal oppression . So the article tries to shit blame to society and (men, of course);
"perhaps because of the sexually freer environment that girls and women are experiencing and the portrayal of women as sex objects. "
But maybe even this female author sensed that shifting blame to soceity and men do not fly in this case, so she desparately try to muddle the issue....
"Most also come from extremely difficult, disorganized circumstances in which affection, love and relationships are deeply rooted in sexual behavior."
Typical Newsweek job.
"perhaps because of the sexually freer environment that girls and women are experiencing and the portrayal of women as sex objects. "
But maybe even this female author sensed that shifting blame to soceity and men do not fly in this case, so she desparately try to muddle the issue....
"Most also come from extremely difficult, disorganized circumstances in which affection, love and relationships are deeply rooted in sexual behavior."
Typical Newsweek job.
Hillary's woman defence
So now it’s official that in the Democratic field for the Presidential race, we have six contenders, who discuss policy issues, trade questions and criticism at each other and could be and held responsible for one’s words and actions, and one who would only announce her policy and intentions but is above any criticism or question.
It portends what Hillary Presidency will look like, if it ever going to happen; she will only announce what she wants to do, or what her policy would be, and any criticism against her decisions or policies would be judged sexual discrimination and silenced by her cronies and liberal mainstream media. Maybe we should think again about whether America should elect someone only for the sake of achieving a diversity milestone and feel good about ourselves or if we want to elect someone who could be held accountable, who do not hide behind gender (or any other identity politic’s) victim card. U.S. Presidency is much, much more important than simply being a trophy for diversity movement. After all, isn’t it the cornerstone of democracy that citizens freely elect some one who is accountable to their constituents?
In a way Hillary is smart in letting her cronies do all the work of playing gender victim card, while she herself keep away from that kind of cheap trick. She could appear strong, statesmanlike, rising above the cheap gender card, all the while ensuring that her opponents and the media will think twice before leveling any criticism against her in the future. And it’s also a rare time that Ferraro could get a media spotlight, after her historic landslide defeat as a token woman candidate for Vice President of the U.S. She surely knows how to play the gender victim card very well because she was the foremost expert on this, in fact it is her only expertise in politics to this date, and her only qualification for VP candidacy was that she was a woman.
It portends what Hillary Presidency will look like, if it ever going to happen; she will only announce what she wants to do, or what her policy would be, and any criticism against her decisions or policies would be judged sexual discrimination and silenced by her cronies and liberal mainstream media. Maybe we should think again about whether America should elect someone only for the sake of achieving a diversity milestone and feel good about ourselves or if we want to elect someone who could be held accountable, who do not hide behind gender (or any other identity politic’s) victim card. U.S. Presidency is much, much more important than simply being a trophy for diversity movement. After all, isn’t it the cornerstone of democracy that citizens freely elect some one who is accountable to their constituents?
In a way Hillary is smart in letting her cronies do all the work of playing gender victim card, while she herself keep away from that kind of cheap trick. She could appear strong, statesmanlike, rising above the cheap gender card, all the while ensuring that her opponents and the media will think twice before leveling any criticism against her in the future. And it’s also a rare time that Ferraro could get a media spotlight, after her historic landslide defeat as a token woman candidate for Vice President of the U.S. She surely knows how to play the gender victim card very well because she was the foremost expert on this, in fact it is her only expertise in politics to this date, and her only qualification for VP candidacy was that she was a woman.
Friday, November 02, 2007
CIA, feminized
Espionage and intelligence collection ain’t what it used to be – just like any other organizations, public or private, CIA is not immune from relentless onslaught by litigation-happy gender-feminists. America’s battle against terrorism and other threats just got a little more complicated with adventure-seeking trail-brazing women types who see career advancement in the world’s foremost intelligence organizations as a part of their self-fulfillment and self-actualization. And when they are done with bean-counting of men and women at the rank and file and investigating subtle gender discrimination and hostile working environment, which they do when they are not doing their jobs as case offices or intelligence analysts, they are ready to launch a sexual discrimination lawsuit so that, the intelligence agency could proud itself as being at least gender-sensitive even when they are not winning its battle against terrorism and other threats.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Feminists want to control your perceptions
I don’t know exactly when it started, but from sometime in the late 20th century, feminism began to explore ways to regulate and control human’s mind at both conscious and unconscious levels. This was actually a quite a large shift in their focus from their previous emphasis on ensuring equal rights and opportunity in the external social and political settings (this endeavor seems to have ended by the 1960’s), to seeking statistical sameness in the behaviors of two sexes and working of inner minds of human being. This, needless to say, originates from their hypothesis that continuing non-existence of statistical parity in political and economical powers between the sexes (also termed as “gender discrimination” by some) and in their endless quest to achieve such statistical parity, in other words, equality of results. Subtle, even unconscious or sub-conscious bias of otherwise perfectly PC people may be hindering women’s progress in workplace, as they do not value masculine women who exhibits anger and aggressiveness, which is understood as a necessary elements to be successful in today’s cutting-edge, dog-eats-dog world of business and politics. What’s need to be done?
Maybe more researches need to be done to look into the psychology of human beings, and how they perceive gender roles and stereotypes. And subsequently more researches may be in order to rectify such biased perception of the people.
People’s inner mind, which many people would understandably consider to be the most private of all private lives, free of any governmental or outside control, could no longer be out of bounds, if biases in inner minds were “proven”, by some untouchable feminist advocacy groups, to be hindering women’s workplace progress.
Trying to regulate people’s inner mind poses fundamental challenges to ideas and principles of individual liberties and freedom. But such concern could be easily overrun by much larger societal need to urgently ensure the absolute statistical sameness between men and women.
After all, of course, these notions of individual liberties and freedom were created long long time ago, when women didn’t have a right to vote and when there was no affirmative action and gender quota, by a bunch of old men who kept their sorry housewives to mandane lives of domesticity while they engage in esoteric discussion on rights and freedom. Right, feminists?
Maybe more researches need to be done to look into the psychology of human beings, and how they perceive gender roles and stereotypes. And subsequently more researches may be in order to rectify such biased perception of the people.
People’s inner mind, which many people would understandably consider to be the most private of all private lives, free of any governmental or outside control, could no longer be out of bounds, if biases in inner minds were “proven”, by some untouchable feminist advocacy groups, to be hindering women’s workplace progress.
Trying to regulate people’s inner mind poses fundamental challenges to ideas and principles of individual liberties and freedom. But such concern could be easily overrun by much larger societal need to urgently ensure the absolute statistical sameness between men and women.
After all, of course, these notions of individual liberties and freedom were created long long time ago, when women didn’t have a right to vote and when there was no affirmative action and gender quota, by a bunch of old men who kept their sorry housewives to mandane lives of domesticity while they engage in esoteric discussion on rights and freedom. Right, feminists?
Nancy Peloci
Look what happens when you give too much power to women. They would savor it, abuse it, in a scale that would even eclipse the worst of male-kind.
It is even exacerbated by the fact that a gang of blind supporters who would respond with shrill cry of sex discrimination at the slightest hint of criticism on any actions, statement made by people born with XX genes.
It is even exacerbated by the fact that a gang of blind supporters who would respond with shrill cry of sex discrimination at the slightest hint of criticism on any actions, statement made by people born with XX genes.
Feminization of a profession
This is quite an interesting article. By the way, both for and against the original idea by professor Clark - that feminization of medicine profession could lead to losing of influence and status - could be labeled as pro-women, and therefore, of course, anti-women. It depends on the gender of the speakers primarily and also on which side of the political spectrum you are coming from. Thus, men can always be labeled “sexist” whether you are for or against the original position – if you agree with Prof. Clark, you are sexist since you think that occupations consisting primarily of women have less stature, and if you oppose her view, you are denying the fact that those feminine fields are regarded in lower status than predominantly male profession, thus wanting to perpetuate the inequality.
Anyway, there is also a feminists’ favorite line that teachers’ salaries are low because it is a predominantly female occupation. I wonder if they ever care to consider some facts and numbers (which maybe difficult for women as Lawrence Sommers explained);
-Do the salary of teachers decline in real terms since the time when it was primarily male occupation?
-Or is it when compared to private sectors that teachers’ salaries are considered to be low?
-Or is it when compared to other public, government sectors?
-Would local governments be able to afford to pay law firm or hedgefund companies-like salaries to teachers?
-Do teachers and schools make huge financial profits from which they could be reimbursed as their salaries and bonuses?
-What are the qualifications of teachers and difficulties of getting in the field?
But of course, crunching numbers and talking data would not be as sexy and has as much headline-grabbing potential as simply shouting at the top of their voice that “Teacher’s salaries are low because of gender discrimination against predominantly female profession!”
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/412
Anyway, there is also a feminists’ favorite line that teachers’ salaries are low because it is a predominantly female occupation. I wonder if they ever care to consider some facts and numbers (which maybe difficult for women as Lawrence Sommers explained);
-Do the salary of teachers decline in real terms since the time when it was primarily male occupation?
-Or is it when compared to private sectors that teachers’ salaries are considered to be low?
-Or is it when compared to other public, government sectors?
-Would local governments be able to afford to pay law firm or hedgefund companies-like salaries to teachers?
-Do teachers and schools make huge financial profits from which they could be reimbursed as their salaries and bonuses?
-What are the qualifications of teachers and difficulties of getting in the field?
But of course, crunching numbers and talking data would not be as sexy and has as much headline-grabbing potential as simply shouting at the top of their voice that “Teacher’s salaries are low because of gender discrimination against predominantly female profession!”
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/412
Karen hughes failed
It is intresting that all 3 persons charged with the task of promoting the US public diplomacy in Arab world after 9/11, including Karen Hughes herself, the perons who is subject of this article, are WOMEN. And all FAILED MISERABLY. Of course it is not all attributable to the fact that they were women (in fact maybe far from it), but for the record, it must be noted that these WOMEN failed. Because it is easy for many poeple in the liberal circle (and of course among feminist sisters) to get selective amneisa and recall only the achievements of women in senior roles and somehow start believing that women are better in politics and diplomacy.
It is also intersting to see that Hughes was not taken very well among Arab women. Here the Republican's uncharcteristic foray into Democrat-style feminist-pandering has failed. They should know that they shouldn't be playing by gender-feminist playbooks. It seems that even the so-called "oppressed Arab women" know that American-style militant feminism, characterized by its hatred against men and children (boys) and most of all, against family and family values, is not what they want.
In fact, there is something unsettling about the supposedly conservatie Bush admnistration's blind pursuit of diversity in its administration. The administration was even credited by some liebral media as the most diverse administration in history, but it seems that many of the "diversity" appointments have backfired (Gonzales, and now Hughes)
It is also intersting to see that Hughes was not taken very well among Arab women. Here the Republican's uncharcteristic foray into Democrat-style feminist-pandering has failed. They should know that they shouldn't be playing by gender-feminist playbooks. It seems that even the so-called "oppressed Arab women" know that American-style militant feminism, characterized by its hatred against men and children (boys) and most of all, against family and family values, is not what they want.
In fact, there is something unsettling about the supposedly conservatie Bush admnistration's blind pursuit of diversity in its administration. The administration was even credited by some liebral media as the most diverse administration in history, but it seems that many of the "diversity" appointments have backfired (Gonzales, and now Hughes)
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Immigrant women
A typical “You go, girl” advocacy article, with a hint of “what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine” mentality el Latino version.
Of course what husbands earn in foreign countries in hard and often dangerous labor remitted back home should totally belong to women, so that they can make important financial and household decisions, which may have been traditionally done by men, and thereby “empowering’ women, when these women do go to work in foreign countries, money is not going to flow to men back in their home countries, but of course, to other women, women relatives or friends. To put it simply, “Men’s money is mine, and my money is mine, or in the temporary custody of other female members of the family.” This is justified by one study done by some obscure organization that belongs to feminist-pandering United Nations (upon closer look it is an UN research institute that deal exclusively with women’s issue - so much for independent, objective study) since men are lazy and tend to squander money on unworthy things.
Wait, the radical feminist is not done with her one-sided gender bashing yet, she went on to complain that those men who are left behind do not take up new role of child rearing, in the mold of feminists’ ideal “new feminine-men”, and laments that the gender wage gap in “comparable works” (these words sound familiar, don’t they?) is persistent even in country like Argentina who is otherwise happy to elect the wife of current President as a new President and establish gender quota for women in the parliament. Their goal: use whatever resources and social phenomena, including men’s remittance from abroad, more female immigrants, to re-engineer society in the image of feminist utopia.
What's troubling here is this kind of gender-feminist's proponsity to look for every opportunity to "empower" women and blame patriarchy. If men work in foreign countries, it is not seen as sacrifice by men to earn money for families back home (by the way, "families" include not only wives, but children also, remember!), but opportunity to be capitalized, with the money men remit,and the void in household decision making authority. And if women work abroad and need to remit home, money is to go to female members of families, so that these women and the women immigrant themselves when they return home could use the resource as basis for further women's economic empowerment. What is entirely lacking throughout in the article is a viewpoint of, and the need of, "family", but in radical feminist's myopic world where outdoing men gets the ONLY priority, economic empowerment of women by whatever means takes precedent.
Of course what husbands earn in foreign countries in hard and often dangerous labor remitted back home should totally belong to women, so that they can make important financial and household decisions, which may have been traditionally done by men, and thereby “empowering’ women, when these women do go to work in foreign countries, money is not going to flow to men back in their home countries, but of course, to other women, women relatives or friends. To put it simply, “Men’s money is mine, and my money is mine, or in the temporary custody of other female members of the family.” This is justified by one study done by some obscure organization that belongs to feminist-pandering United Nations (upon closer look it is an UN research institute that deal exclusively with women’s issue - so much for independent, objective study) since men are lazy and tend to squander money on unworthy things.
Wait, the radical feminist is not done with her one-sided gender bashing yet, she went on to complain that those men who are left behind do not take up new role of child rearing, in the mold of feminists’ ideal “new feminine-men”, and laments that the gender wage gap in “comparable works” (these words sound familiar, don’t they?) is persistent even in country like Argentina who is otherwise happy to elect the wife of current President as a new President and establish gender quota for women in the parliament. Their goal: use whatever resources and social phenomena, including men’s remittance from abroad, more female immigrants, to re-engineer society in the image of feminist utopia.
What's troubling here is this kind of gender-feminist's proponsity to look for every opportunity to "empower" women and blame patriarchy. If men work in foreign countries, it is not seen as sacrifice by men to earn money for families back home (by the way, "families" include not only wives, but children also, remember!), but opportunity to be capitalized, with the money men remit,and the void in household decision making authority. And if women work abroad and need to remit home, money is to go to female members of families, so that these women and the women immigrant themselves when they return home could use the resource as basis for further women's economic empowerment. What is entirely lacking throughout in the article is a viewpoint of, and the need of, "family", but in radical feminist's myopic world where outdoing men gets the ONLY priority, economic empowerment of women by whatever means takes precedent.
Monday, October 29, 2007
HELP!! - there are too few women rappers!!
Yes, of course, it is one of THE major issues facing UK, US and perhaps other western democratic countries, along with global warming and Darfur genocides and myriad of other problems – an APPALING DEARTH of female rappers. (British feminists like use the "appalled" whenever they discuss gender balances that are not in their favor - although they did not use the word this time) Even more troubling, according to this author, is that even when these endangered species that is female rappers do get rare media exposures, they often have to play up to stereotyped views of women, and appear sexy and adjust their lyrics to fit that stereotypes, rather than doing what they really want to do. There is nothing more that feminists hate than being stereotyped, maybe even more so than lack of gender balance.
TOO BAD that women aren’t given equal chance to yell “f..K” and ”ni...er” and other expletives as loud and as freely as men do.
But I’m sure that a small sub-section of radical feminists who work on women and media (or music or rap) issues are working around the clock to correct this "unacceptable" problem, carefully counting all the albums released and sold by men and women by all the record labels, do some “wage-gap” check on income of all male and female rappers, and keep all related statistics as they do when creating gender-discrimination hysteria in any other field, because that is what feminists is all about.
I guess this is also an area where "girl power" needs to be asserted. I remember one feminist very fondly reacted to a recent satistic on increasing violence by young women as a good sign that females are breaking stereotypes and asserting their own powers. Leaving aside the question of whether rappers are a good role model for young people or the kind of influence their music, lyrics and lifestyles bring on to young people, it is another area where MEN RULE, and according to feminist dicta, men's rule has to be challenged and destroyed anywhere, anytime. So much for a moral judgment but a pure display of hatred against men.
TOO BAD that women aren’t given equal chance to yell “f..K” and ”ni...er” and other expletives as loud and as freely as men do.
But I’m sure that a small sub-section of radical feminists who work on women and media (or music or rap) issues are working around the clock to correct this "unacceptable" problem, carefully counting all the albums released and sold by men and women by all the record labels, do some “wage-gap” check on income of all male and female rappers, and keep all related statistics as they do when creating gender-discrimination hysteria in any other field, because that is what feminists is all about.
I guess this is also an area where "girl power" needs to be asserted. I remember one feminist very fondly reacted to a recent satistic on increasing violence by young women as a good sign that females are breaking stereotypes and asserting their own powers. Leaving aside the question of whether rappers are a good role model for young people or the kind of influence their music, lyrics and lifestyles bring on to young people, it is another area where MEN RULE, and according to feminist dicta, men's rule has to be challenged and destroyed anywhere, anytime. So much for a moral judgment but a pure display of hatred against men.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Being a man bad for the environment
Here is an article on a study that looks into a critical link between two of the most (politically-correct) issues today – environment and feminism. Now that these two are “proven” to be inter-linked, (it’s vouched by non other than the government of Sweden and the United Nations – no more “discussions”, but only “actions” are allowed - ) it is now official that persecuting men is good for the environment. Nature and women will join hand in hand to attack their enemy – men.
Come to think of it, not only men drive 3 out of 4 cars in Sweden (really?), but men owns most of the car companies, and other industrial manufactures and factories, large corporations that utilities (assuming that Sweden is still not tainted by Norwegian women-must-make-up-40%-of-boardroom law) that causes environmental havoc.
Wait, if we continue our current women-promotion and gender-bender programmes and increase women in boardrooms, champion women in untraditional roles like drivers, and meat eaters, would it increase women’s part in environmental destruction – do we need to start persecuting women also? No! Remember that women ARE the environment, the mother nature!
Come to think of it, not only men drive 3 out of 4 cars in Sweden (really?), but men owns most of the car companies, and other industrial manufactures and factories, large corporations that utilities (assuming that Sweden is still not tainted by Norwegian women-must-make-up-40%-of-boardroom law) that causes environmental havoc.
Wait, if we continue our current women-promotion and gender-bender programmes and increase women in boardrooms, champion women in untraditional roles like drivers, and meat eaters, would it increase women’s part in environmental destruction – do we need to start persecuting women also? No! Remember that women ARE the environment, the mother nature!
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Very bureaucratic execution of a man
I don't know if the female judge closed the court at 5PM because the inmate was a man. But if the inmate was a woman, it would have been on her mind for a whole day, because the media wold have been reporting it for days, as "the first women to be executied in...." and run sympathetic stories after stories about her, how childhood abuse by father,stepfather, brothers or abusive spouse have caused her to commit the crime..usual "woman defence", and the female judge would have never though about closing the office at 5PM.
I'm also sure, as a woman, the judge had to leave at 5PM to tend to her family, beause as feminsts repeatedly tell us, that even career women are burdened with "double-shift", while men can simply focus on work and slouch in the couch rest of the time. So in a nutshel, it is men's fault, right?
I'm also sure, as a woman, the judge had to leave at 5PM to tend to her family, beause as feminsts repeatedly tell us, that even career women are burdened with "double-shift", while men can simply focus on work and slouch in the couch rest of the time. So in a nutshel, it is men's fault, right?
Looking at women = illegal
This incredible new proposed bill from New York - my home town!
Why don't you simply make it illegal for men to BREATH? That's the fastest and easiest way to get rid of all men from the street, if that's what women and feminists want. Instead of proposing, debating, amending and passing thousands of new laws that are designed to criminalize various activitiesof men and ensnarle more and more men into prisons, why not just have one comprehensive bill? It will save lots of time, energy and resources that would have been otherwise spent on considering numerous anti-male bills. It is good for environment and saves cost.
Why don't you simply make it illegal for men to BREATH? That's the fastest and easiest way to get rid of all men from the street, if that's what women and feminists want. Instead of proposing, debating, amending and passing thousands of new laws that are designed to criminalize various activitiesof men and ensnarle more and more men into prisons, why not just have one comprehensive bill? It will save lots of time, energy and resources that would have been otherwise spent on considering numerous anti-male bills. It is good for environment and saves cost.
Criminalizing prostitution
Here is an interesting line from the far-left Guardian….
“In some parts of the UK, up to 80% of the women working indoors are from other countries, but only a minority of them are trafficked. According to Lithuanian anti-trafficking police, even trafficked women often know that they are coming to the UK to work in the sex industry. They make the decision to come because they are living in poverty.”
This would weaken the case presented by feminist groups on anti-trafficking (plus some conservative groups as well), who want to imprint the image that ALL women from foreign countries are TRAFFICKED, and trafficked AGAINST THEIR WILLS. Ooops, how could Guardian editorials missed this line which contravene their official line? I don’t know.
I’ve always had impressions that, however pitiful their plight may be, it is hard to understand that those trafficked women did not know anything about the actual work that they had to do (prostitution) when they were recruited in Romania or Hungary or elsewhere…even though they are young and maybe mostly uneducated, at least they’ve got to have some sense of what’s going on, especially if it such a widespread phenomenon as feminists claim…
While experience and studies have shown that criminalizing prostitutions does not work, that does not matter to ideologically-driven feminists (and again, right-wingers, too). The reality needs to fit their ideology, not the other way around.
“Such a law was introduced in Sweden eight years ago, but research has shown that instead of wiping out street prostitution, it has simply become more hidden, placing the women involved in it at greater risk of violence from punters. The most socially marginalised women who work on the streets have suffered most. Meanwhile, sex for sale on the internet has increased.”
“In some parts of the UK, up to 80% of the women working indoors are from other countries, but only a minority of them are trafficked. According to Lithuanian anti-trafficking police, even trafficked women often know that they are coming to the UK to work in the sex industry. They make the decision to come because they are living in poverty.”
This would weaken the case presented by feminist groups on anti-trafficking (plus some conservative groups as well), who want to imprint the image that ALL women from foreign countries are TRAFFICKED, and trafficked AGAINST THEIR WILLS. Ooops, how could Guardian editorials missed this line which contravene their official line? I don’t know.
I’ve always had impressions that, however pitiful their plight may be, it is hard to understand that those trafficked women did not know anything about the actual work that they had to do (prostitution) when they were recruited in Romania or Hungary or elsewhere…even though they are young and maybe mostly uneducated, at least they’ve got to have some sense of what’s going on, especially if it such a widespread phenomenon as feminists claim…
While experience and studies have shown that criminalizing prostitutions does not work, that does not matter to ideologically-driven feminists (and again, right-wingers, too). The reality needs to fit their ideology, not the other way around.
“Such a law was introduced in Sweden eight years ago, but research has shown that instead of wiping out street prostitution, it has simply become more hidden, placing the women involved in it at greater risk of violence from punters. The most socially marginalised women who work on the streets have suffered most. Meanwhile, sex for sale on the internet has increased.”
Monday, October 22, 2007
Women's soccer
Just rambling thoughts on women’s soccer. Like many other women’s sports, women’s soccer is not just a form of entertainment, but a noble political cause in itself. To play, to watch, to root for and to cover the games in media all are acts of noble political cause that elevate the status of women in sports and the agenda of feminism. The better the quality of the game, the more fans pack the stadium, the more viewers tune in, the more coverage it gets in the press, the standing of the women’s soccer increase vis-Ã -vis men’s soccer and in the whole sports. Thus ensues mainstream media’s understandable (in a politically-correct atmosphere) rush to exhort plays in the Women’s World Cup, when most of the male soccer fans know the level of play is quite dismal, (especially those of keepers), give more-than-deserved time in TV broadcast and space in printed papers, and treat some of the female players like true heroes who should be treated in the same vain as way as male star players. It’s all about equality, isn’t it?
Equally rampant are self-congratulations about how the sport is growing, how it help’s girls’ self-esteem, how it empowers women, how it help defy gender stereotypes, etc. etc. all the usual litany of feminists' hyperboles. At the same, interestingly enough, when the women’s sport is supposedly doing superb, media also wail on the sorry state of the sport, e.g. how it is held in low regard, how little support it gets from sport’s association compared to male counterparts, how little (or none) they are being paid, etc. etc., - this is where feminists' adrenaline and their man-hating instincts kicks in, and blast about how the male-dominated soccer associations in many countries, media, fans and society at large discriminate against women and girls.
Watching soccer on TV is not relaxing activities that you can enjoy while slouching in your couch on weekends. That is, when you watch women’s soccer. The experience might not be as relaxed and enjoyable, as you are constantly bombarded with female commentators’ political agitprops about the greatness of women’s game, and the plays you see on TV should rather belong to high school sports, but at least you can take comfort in the fact that you are participating in a noble act of empowering women, taking part in feminists’ crusade against men and patriarchy.
Equally rampant are self-congratulations about how the sport is growing, how it help’s girls’ self-esteem, how it empowers women, how it help defy gender stereotypes, etc. etc. all the usual litany of feminists' hyperboles. At the same, interestingly enough, when the women’s sport is supposedly doing superb, media also wail on the sorry state of the sport, e.g. how it is held in low regard, how little support it gets from sport’s association compared to male counterparts, how little (or none) they are being paid, etc. etc., - this is where feminists' adrenaline and their man-hating instincts kicks in, and blast about how the male-dominated soccer associations in many countries, media, fans and society at large discriminate against women and girls.
Watching soccer on TV is not relaxing activities that you can enjoy while slouching in your couch on weekends. That is, when you watch women’s soccer. The experience might not be as relaxed and enjoyable, as you are constantly bombarded with female commentators’ political agitprops about the greatness of women’s game, and the plays you see on TV should rather belong to high school sports, but at least you can take comfort in the fact that you are participating in a noble act of empowering women, taking part in feminists’ crusade against men and patriarchy.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
YOU MUST VOTE for the Madame President
Here is a peice that goes "YOU HAVE TO VOTE HILLARY BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!!".
I amazed that the author of this article actually went so far as to say that guys (Obama and Edwards) cannot and should not be the President because they are “guys”. I think it’s OK for him to say these things without fear of repercussion because, first, he is are discriminating against men and it is sooooo OK in this country, and second, he is also a black, which means that he is not going to be fired since the management will be in trouble for diversity non-compliance for one less black face in the editorial room.
But one thing he may got right is that women can only vote for other women, because, well, they are women and do not have ability to weigh pros and cons of each candidacy and see deeply into policy alternatives offered by different candidates. Maybe those analytical traits, fair and balanced, belong only to men. Maybe women are a kind of species that could only see the sex of the candidates, could note only whether they speak in high tone, wear skirts, wear pink or red clothes, and have breasts and bigger hips. And if none of the candidates have breasts or large hips, then maybe, maybe look at policy issues. Maybe women are so myopic in their visions and entrapped in a feeling-based, analysis-free thinking that could only care about being in a very, very good mood on November 2008 over the fact that a woman finally become the President, but could not and do not care to think about the political, economic and social long-term consequences that the Hillary presidency might bring. And these people now comprise majority of American electorates – isn’t it a tragedy?
if you endorse the author's view, then you agree with the above statement.
What media is trying to do here is to frame the Clinton candidacy as a sort of referendum on women becoming the US President. Instead of asking what Hillary has done in the past and what she would do in the future, and whether it is good or bad for America, the questions are framed as "whether Americans are ready for Madame President?" or "Americans are sexist enough to not vote for Hillary?" This is a very shrewd tactics. Of course if questions are framed in these ways, most Americans, who do not want to be caught saying politicaly-incorrect thing, would answer that they are ready to elect a female president - but that does not necessarily mean that they want Hillary to be the one. But the media hastily treat this as people's endorsement of Hillary as the next President. I don't know how long this kind of CHEAP TRICK would work.
I would imagine that as Clinton's campaign starts to flounder, and trail behind Guilliani, she and her mediA allies would resort to usual "women" defence. A kind of defence that were in full display when French female presidential candidate Ms. Royal sank behind THE eventual and WELL-deserved winner Mr. Sarkozy in the polls right before the election. You know, "The media, the society are sexist, biased against women", "I was unfairly attacked for being a woman", or "Men are still afraid of women in power", that kind of usual emotional rhetoric favoured by feminists.
I amazed that the author of this article actually went so far as to say that guys (Obama and Edwards) cannot and should not be the President because they are “guys”. I think it’s OK for him to say these things without fear of repercussion because, first, he is are discriminating against men and it is sooooo OK in this country, and second, he is also a black, which means that he is not going to be fired since the management will be in trouble for diversity non-compliance for one less black face in the editorial room.
But one thing he may got right is that women can only vote for other women, because, well, they are women and do not have ability to weigh pros and cons of each candidacy and see deeply into policy alternatives offered by different candidates. Maybe those analytical traits, fair and balanced, belong only to men. Maybe women are a kind of species that could only see the sex of the candidates, could note only whether they speak in high tone, wear skirts, wear pink or red clothes, and have breasts and bigger hips. And if none of the candidates have breasts or large hips, then maybe, maybe look at policy issues. Maybe women are so myopic in their visions and entrapped in a feeling-based, analysis-free thinking that could only care about being in a very, very good mood on November 2008 over the fact that a woman finally become the President, but could not and do not care to think about the political, economic and social long-term consequences that the Hillary presidency might bring. And these people now comprise majority of American electorates – isn’t it a tragedy?
if you endorse the author's view, then you agree with the above statement.
What media is trying to do here is to frame the Clinton candidacy as a sort of referendum on women becoming the US President. Instead of asking what Hillary has done in the past and what she would do in the future, and whether it is good or bad for America, the questions are framed as "whether Americans are ready for Madame President?" or "Americans are sexist enough to not vote for Hillary?" This is a very shrewd tactics. Of course if questions are framed in these ways, most Americans, who do not want to be caught saying politicaly-incorrect thing, would answer that they are ready to elect a female president - but that does not necessarily mean that they want Hillary to be the one. But the media hastily treat this as people's endorsement of Hillary as the next President. I don't know how long this kind of CHEAP TRICK would work.
I would imagine that as Clinton's campaign starts to flounder, and trail behind Guilliani, she and her mediA allies would resort to usual "women" defence. A kind of defence that were in full display when French female presidential candidate Ms. Royal sank behind THE eventual and WELL-deserved winner Mr. Sarkozy in the polls right before the election. You know, "The media, the society are sexist, biased against women", "I was unfairly attacked for being a woman", or "Men are still afraid of women in power", that kind of usual emotional rhetoric favoured by feminists.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
MI5 calls for more woman applicants
Feminists are eager to cry discrimination and call for immediate remedies as soon as the women’s gender ratio in British intelligence agency drops to 44 %, - which wouldn’t be such a lopsided figure in the first place, but maybe quite a decrease from “more than half” that they were enjoying in the 1990s. Wait, let’s say that the “more than half” were, say, 55 or 56 percent, consequently men’s ratio would have been 45 or 44 percent respectively – that is same as the current percentage of women! Were there any outcry and remedial measures to correct the “gender imbalance”? Of course not! Gender-balance discussion is always only one-way street – how to increase ratio of women.
By the way, I think 44 percent, or above 40 percent is a range of gender balance that even Swedish feminists, who are in no way less militant than their British counterparts, view as acceptable, but evidently not British feminists.
Is there any correlation between the large percentage of women in the agency and the its recent intelligence failures, such as the London bombing? I know, it’s a question no one could ask without being held criminally responsible for bigotry and misogyny. If the intelligence agency’s central focus is on recruiting a kind of people who are most attracted by such socialism perks as two full year of maternity leave, then the prospect for winning the fight against terrorism and crimes are not really bright. It will only make the agency look more like a postal office or other sleepy bureaucratic office. And what if significant portion of its employees (don’t forget that women in their 40’s and 50’s get pregnant these days) take up to 2 years of consecutive leave – it will undoubtedly cripple the organization.
By the way, I think 44 percent, or above 40 percent is a range of gender balance that even Swedish feminists, who are in no way less militant than their British counterparts, view as acceptable, but evidently not British feminists.
Is there any correlation between the large percentage of women in the agency and the its recent intelligence failures, such as the London bombing? I know, it’s a question no one could ask without being held criminally responsible for bigotry and misogyny. If the intelligence agency’s central focus is on recruiting a kind of people who are most attracted by such socialism perks as two full year of maternity leave, then the prospect for winning the fight against terrorism and crimes are not really bright. It will only make the agency look more like a postal office or other sleepy bureaucratic office. And what if significant portion of its employees (don’t forget that women in their 40’s and 50’s get pregnant these days) take up to 2 years of consecutive leave – it will undoubtedly cripple the organization.
Quizz shows' lack of women
In US, there used to be shrieking demand by feminists to increase women in the hit TV quiz sow “Who wants to be a millionaire”, saying that the questions were biased against women, etc., etc. By doing so, feminists were showing their eagerness to enforce correct gender ratio in all spheres of social life, including in a hit TV show where people would simply want to relax and enjoy the entertainment. But the Big sisters weren’t so relaxed, as you know, one of their main goals is to monitor and counter pervasive gender stereotypes in mainstream media,..
Across the Atlantic, their sister feminists are doing the same….
Across the Atlantic, their sister feminists are doing the same….
Gas station for women
Go Sweden! A land of “man-tax” (proposed but didn’t materialize). I think its auto-maker Volvo has once assembled women-only team to build a car for women, which has all the essential needs for women (beggier mirros, etc.). Here comes a gas station for women….
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
"Gray rape" part 2
Part 2 on the "gray rape"
It looks quite strange that people who look most remote from chance sex encounters (such as sexual assault experts who may not have had one date when they were in college, busy attending women's study class or going to "take back the night" rally) are defining and determining for the rest of us what legitimate sexual encounters is and what is not (therefore automatically qualifies as a rape) it's as though people who never seen basebll and in fact hate it more than anything in the world trying to call the baseball games.
Also there are some strange males that appear in the original column, the so-called male actvisits against rape - those people may think that if they cry the feminist-approved slogan loudest, they would be exempt from feminists' persecution of men, but they should know that that kind of moral posturing would not save them from feminists ire.
There are a group of people who take responsibility for their own actions and words, and held to a higher standard - they are called MEN.
There are also a group of people who do not have to take responsibility for their own actions or words, who can change the mind after the thing happened, and who are held to a lower (or no) standard - they are called WOMEN. Oh, I also forgot to add in the latter category people like kids, teenagers, mentally-challenged persons, etc.
It is kind of strange to see gender feminists endorse my viewpoint - that since men are more capable, they should be held to a higher standard - men are totally up to that challenge, as we have done so in the past millenia.
It looks quite strange that people who look most remote from chance sex encounters (such as sexual assault experts who may not have had one date when they were in college, busy attending women's study class or going to "take back the night" rally) are defining and determining for the rest of us what legitimate sexual encounters is and what is not (therefore automatically qualifies as a rape) it's as though people who never seen basebll and in fact hate it more than anything in the world trying to call the baseball games.
Also there are some strange males that appear in the original column, the so-called male actvisits against rape - those people may think that if they cry the feminist-approved slogan loudest, they would be exempt from feminists' persecution of men, but they should know that that kind of moral posturing would not save them from feminists ire.
There are a group of people who take responsibility for their own actions and words, and held to a higher standard - they are called MEN.
There are also a group of people who do not have to take responsibility for their own actions or words, who can change the mind after the thing happened, and who are held to a lower (or no) standard - they are called WOMEN. Oh, I also forgot to add in the latter category people like kids, teenagers, mentally-challenged persons, etc.
It is kind of strange to see gender feminists endorse my viewpoint - that since men are more capable, they should be held to a higher standard - men are totally up to that challenge, as we have done so in the past millenia.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
"Gray rape"
First there was a rape, and then there was a "date rape" now let me introduce you to a newest form of rape, or rape 2.0 - it's dubbed "gray rape" - no it's not a rape of a gray woman by a gray guy (I don't want to think about that, do you? but this also may be a new frontier for gender feminists)
Read this article...in the NY Times City page...
One solution, just like minors under the age of 21, make it illegal for ALL WOMEN to drink alchohol. If they can not be held legally responsible for their actions, or if they cannot take responsibility over their own actions after drinking alchohol, then ban it altogether. If feminists want to treat women like kids, then so be it. Only men, but no kids and women, will be allowed to consume alchohol becaue they are the only ones who will take reponsibilities for their own actions.
If all-rights-and-no-responsibility womenkind are barred from drinking, then there wil be no incidents of so-called “gray rape”, (and no jobs for feminist experts citedin the article), no female “victims” as well as male “victims” who are painted as “rapist” under this new capricious (just like women) legal concepts. And no more fun of course. Welcome to Brave New Feminist World.
I think where we are heading to is a society where all forms of sexual intercourse is deemed a rape, as a prominent feminist once famously proclaimed. While many of the even die-hard radical feminists would on surface try not be associated with this radical notion, they believe deep in their heart that all forms of sexual intercourse is rape.
Perhaps, five or ten years down the road, this emerging new legal concept of “gray rape” will be imposed on us as a established leagl concept even though most of us think it absurd, supported by “research after research” (as feminists like to add to most of their spurious claims), and would move on to claim that even explicitly consensual sex is a form of rape, because in a strongly patriarchal environment women live in (as in present day U.S.), women will not be totally free of its evil patriarchal incluence that permeats every facets of society and even personal lives, and therefore cannot be said to have consented to the sexual acts on a completely independent, free will. Long live Andrea Dworkin!
Read this article...in the NY Times City page...
One solution, just like minors under the age of 21, make it illegal for ALL WOMEN to drink alchohol. If they can not be held legally responsible for their actions, or if they cannot take responsibility over their own actions after drinking alchohol, then ban it altogether. If feminists want to treat women like kids, then so be it. Only men, but no kids and women, will be allowed to consume alchohol becaue they are the only ones who will take reponsibilities for their own actions.
If all-rights-and-no-responsibility womenkind are barred from drinking, then there wil be no incidents of so-called “gray rape”, (and no jobs for feminist experts citedin the article), no female “victims” as well as male “victims” who are painted as “rapist” under this new capricious (just like women) legal concepts. And no more fun of course. Welcome to Brave New Feminist World.
I think where we are heading to is a society where all forms of sexual intercourse is deemed a rape, as a prominent feminist once famously proclaimed. While many of the even die-hard radical feminists would on surface try not be associated with this radical notion, they believe deep in their heart that all forms of sexual intercourse is rape.
Perhaps, five or ten years down the road, this emerging new legal concept of “gray rape” will be imposed on us as a established leagl concept even though most of us think it absurd, supported by “research after research” (as feminists like to add to most of their spurious claims), and would move on to claim that even explicitly consensual sex is a form of rape, because in a strongly patriarchal environment women live in (as in present day U.S.), women will not be totally free of its evil patriarchal incluence that permeats every facets of society and even personal lives, and therefore cannot be said to have consented to the sexual acts on a completely independent, free will. Long live Andrea Dworkin!
Monday, October 08, 2007
Newsweek's annual women & power orgy
It is a time for Newsweek’s annual (?) celebration of woman, an issue when all the female writers, editors, etc in the Newsweek come out to celebrate themselves, dance around, and feel good about themselves.
It is the “special” among “special reports” in the Newsweek, with unusually large spaces, or pages in the publication devoted to the issue. No other cover stories, or “special report” are given such huge coverage, because it is a topic of “super-special” or “extra-special” importance, and it is easy to see the reason why – why wouldn’t female editors devote just a few extra pages on a cause that make them feel better about themselves, make prospects of their future promotion bigger (women in power is the future of organization!), and advance their cause? A shortcut icon will be left for almost forever in its website to signify its uniquely special status of the topic.
It is also an opportunity for female writers and editors at the publication to mingle with so-called “women leaders” through interviews, etc; and exchange stories about the subtle or not-so-subtle discriminations they both face, whine about difficulty of achieving work-life balance (if female staffers at the Newsweek were ever married) and exchange tips on how to get ahead of men in a career race – I am sure women in the Newsweek are wishing that magazine's all 52 issues in a year could be devoted to the same topic! It is almost like a mass group therapy played out on a mass scale, on the pages of national news magazine.
You see what happens when “women take charge” - they came out to celebrate themselves to feel better.
With a considerable lead Hillary has gained over other Democratic contenders and possible Republican candidates in the polls, the Newsweek will no doubt notch up this kind of “women-leader” hype, to safeguard this lead and condition people into thinking that it is better to have a woman leader for the country and for your lives. Expect to see more special reports and articles that will portray Hillary positively, and her opponent, especially Guilliani, negatively. Expect to see a barrage of brainwashing articles that whispers you, or hypnotize you into thinking that women leaders are not only ok or good, but better than men. In fact the current issue took a small jab at this by suggesting that women governors are better at bi-partisan politics.
It is the “special” among “special reports” in the Newsweek, with unusually large spaces, or pages in the publication devoted to the issue. No other cover stories, or “special report” are given such huge coverage, because it is a topic of “super-special” or “extra-special” importance, and it is easy to see the reason why – why wouldn’t female editors devote just a few extra pages on a cause that make them feel better about themselves, make prospects of their future promotion bigger (women in power is the future of organization!), and advance their cause? A shortcut icon will be left for almost forever in its website to signify its uniquely special status of the topic.
It is also an opportunity for female writers and editors at the publication to mingle with so-called “women leaders” through interviews, etc; and exchange stories about the subtle or not-so-subtle discriminations they both face, whine about difficulty of achieving work-life balance (if female staffers at the Newsweek were ever married) and exchange tips on how to get ahead of men in a career race – I am sure women in the Newsweek are wishing that magazine's all 52 issues in a year could be devoted to the same topic! It is almost like a mass group therapy played out on a mass scale, on the pages of national news magazine.
You see what happens when “women take charge” - they came out to celebrate themselves to feel better.
With a considerable lead Hillary has gained over other Democratic contenders and possible Republican candidates in the polls, the Newsweek will no doubt notch up this kind of “women-leader” hype, to safeguard this lead and condition people into thinking that it is better to have a woman leader for the country and for your lives. Expect to see more special reports and articles that will portray Hillary positively, and her opponent, especially Guilliani, negatively. Expect to see a barrage of brainwashing articles that whispers you, or hypnotize you into thinking that women leaders are not only ok or good, but better than men. In fact the current issue took a small jab at this by suggesting that women governors are better at bi-partisan politics.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Women small business failing
Prime example of equality of results mentality.
Gender feminists are not content with the fact that there is an equality of opportunity between men and women in opening up small business (actually women now far surpass men in terms of opening new small business by account of two to one), but they are demanding that result, the profit earned by those small companies by men and women, be same.
Gender feminists’ frenzied quest for achieving absolute equality, on paper, in statistical terms, in opportunity and in results never ends.
Once small business is opened, it is entirely up to the business owners’ ability to make it big or fail it. I don’t know how feminists think that it is possible to ensure that the outcome is same, that is, the earning by the small business operated by men and women are the same. The free market is competitive and relentless, as it may seem sometimes, but it is a fair system that rewards good business with increased profits and punish bad ones with decreased profits. Sorry if this reality is too harsh for gender feminists who’s been told by their bigger sisters that the world is theirs, is there to please them, and help them achieve maximum self-actualization. It is not.
Here again for gender feminists, individual choice or plan does not matter. While briefly acknowledging that women small business owner, by the very reason many of them started small business, would prefer more free time over profit, she quickly laid out myriad of plans to boost women business’ profits. In order to catch up with men, they need to be taught to “think big” and need lots of “coaching”. If women can’t still catch up with men, despite all these extra-helping hands (and don’t forget those government contracts that favor women and minorities), maybe feminists would want to cap men’s business’ profits at the level women business can reach. Then everybody will be “equal”, and happy.
By the way, I thought we were told by feminists that women are better at operating small business as they were more adept in “multi-tasking”, a requisite ability for small business owners and as small business address needs of common women. But after all these preferential treatments by government, special financial and incentive programmes exclusively for women, and extra-coaching, networking and mentoring for women, women still cannot catch up with men – what’s wrong with them?
Gender feminists are not content with the fact that there is an equality of opportunity between men and women in opening up small business (actually women now far surpass men in terms of opening new small business by account of two to one), but they are demanding that result, the profit earned by those small companies by men and women, be same.
Gender feminists’ frenzied quest for achieving absolute equality, on paper, in statistical terms, in opportunity and in results never ends.
Once small business is opened, it is entirely up to the business owners’ ability to make it big or fail it. I don’t know how feminists think that it is possible to ensure that the outcome is same, that is, the earning by the small business operated by men and women are the same. The free market is competitive and relentless, as it may seem sometimes, but it is a fair system that rewards good business with increased profits and punish bad ones with decreased profits. Sorry if this reality is too harsh for gender feminists who’s been told by their bigger sisters that the world is theirs, is there to please them, and help them achieve maximum self-actualization. It is not.
Here again for gender feminists, individual choice or plan does not matter. While briefly acknowledging that women small business owner, by the very reason many of them started small business, would prefer more free time over profit, she quickly laid out myriad of plans to boost women business’ profits. In order to catch up with men, they need to be taught to “think big” and need lots of “coaching”. If women can’t still catch up with men, despite all these extra-helping hands (and don’t forget those government contracts that favor women and minorities), maybe feminists would want to cap men’s business’ profits at the level women business can reach. Then everybody will be “equal”, and happy.
By the way, I thought we were told by feminists that women are better at operating small business as they were more adept in “multi-tasking”, a requisite ability for small business owners and as small business address needs of common women. But after all these preferential treatments by government, special financial and incentive programmes exclusively for women, and extra-coaching, networking and mentoring for women, women still cannot catch up with men – what’s wrong with them?
Cheap publicity stunt
Spokeswoman for the Bloomberg got it exactly right. IT IS a publicity stunt and the ploy to extort more money. Nothing else.
What kind of people would think that they are entitled to 486 million dollars for the some discrimination? That’s 162 million dollars each!! For some phychological stress that those women alleged to have experienced for the alleged sexual harassment!! They must be super-prestine people since a small psychological stress on their inflated by ultra-fragile feminine ego could take 162 million dollars to fix. If they suffer a genuine psychological stress that many men suffer, as a result of false domestic violence charges, or phony sexual harassment charges flung as a tactical ploy like in this case, they should be receiving 900 trillion dollars each! (I don’t know the unit above trillion)
I think the money amount sought by the 3 women is to a large extent determined by how much these women (and their lawyers of course) think that the Bloomberg corporation is capable of paying. They must have looked at the financial book of the corporation. Not the amount that the women think would be appropriate to compensate for their own alleged suffering caused by the alleged discrimination. In other words, IT IS A EXTORTION.
Note that there is no quote attributed to Mike Bloomberg in the plaintiff’s document. Instead, they blamed “culture” that "fostered, condoned and perpetuated” hostile working environment for women. Wow, sounds very evil, uh?
Like many other bogus sexual harassment lawsuits against large corporations, the suit simply refers to corporate “culture” as a culprit. This is a smart tactical move, as it achieves two things. First, it makes filing of SH lawsuits dramatically easier as it does not require corroboration by hard evidence. It is a convenient charge when there is no evidence at hand to present, or when there is actually no such discrimination, but it allows you go ahead and press charge anyway. The affected women’s perception that such culture exists is everything, and believe me, women after huge financial gain could feel anything under any circumstances. And of course their feeling is absolute and final, and no one, especially men, are supposed to question it.
Second, it allows women to blame not only the person who may or may not have undertaken such discriminatory acts, who tend to be their immediate bosses and not very high up in the rank, but senior management, the president or owner of a company as well and ultimately the entire company, because a one can assume that the “culture” would permeate throughout the company and partly or wholly reflect the culture or thinking of top management. Thus it drastically expands the scope of the discrimination and rev up the compensatory money their could expect, from a range of thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars (in this case, hundreds of millions)
This is a charge that could be thrown only against men. Just as people started talking about the possibility of Bloomberg running as an independent candidate for US President, a cheap political ploy like this was leveled against him. Guilliani should keep in mind that as his Presidential prospects grow, and if he is chosen as Republican candidate, he could expect to face a barrage of gender-ideology based lawsuits (sexual harassment, or violence) who were bent on sabotaging his campaign and on installing the first female President.
What kind of people would think that they are entitled to 486 million dollars for the some discrimination? That’s 162 million dollars each!! For some phychological stress that those women alleged to have experienced for the alleged sexual harassment!! They must be super-prestine people since a small psychological stress on their inflated by ultra-fragile feminine ego could take 162 million dollars to fix. If they suffer a genuine psychological stress that many men suffer, as a result of false domestic violence charges, or phony sexual harassment charges flung as a tactical ploy like in this case, they should be receiving 900 trillion dollars each! (I don’t know the unit above trillion)
I think the money amount sought by the 3 women is to a large extent determined by how much these women (and their lawyers of course) think that the Bloomberg corporation is capable of paying. They must have looked at the financial book of the corporation. Not the amount that the women think would be appropriate to compensate for their own alleged suffering caused by the alleged discrimination. In other words, IT IS A EXTORTION.
Note that there is no quote attributed to Mike Bloomberg in the plaintiff’s document. Instead, they blamed “culture” that "fostered, condoned and perpetuated” hostile working environment for women. Wow, sounds very evil, uh?
Like many other bogus sexual harassment lawsuits against large corporations, the suit simply refers to corporate “culture” as a culprit. This is a smart tactical move, as it achieves two things. First, it makes filing of SH lawsuits dramatically easier as it does not require corroboration by hard evidence. It is a convenient charge when there is no evidence at hand to present, or when there is actually no such discrimination, but it allows you go ahead and press charge anyway. The affected women’s perception that such culture exists is everything, and believe me, women after huge financial gain could feel anything under any circumstances. And of course their feeling is absolute and final, and no one, especially men, are supposed to question it.
Second, it allows women to blame not only the person who may or may not have undertaken such discriminatory acts, who tend to be their immediate bosses and not very high up in the rank, but senior management, the president or owner of a company as well and ultimately the entire company, because a one can assume that the “culture” would permeate throughout the company and partly or wholly reflect the culture or thinking of top management. Thus it drastically expands the scope of the discrimination and rev up the compensatory money their could expect, from a range of thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars (in this case, hundreds of millions)
This is a charge that could be thrown only against men. Just as people started talking about the possibility of Bloomberg running as an independent candidate for US President, a cheap political ploy like this was leveled against him. Guilliani should keep in mind that as his Presidential prospects grow, and if he is chosen as Republican candidate, he could expect to face a barrage of gender-ideology based lawsuits (sexual harassment, or violence) who were bent on sabotaging his campaign and on installing the first female President.
NY Knicks, MSG and sexual harassment lawsuit
Jurors' verdict was out on the famous sexual harassment (SH) lawsuit against New York Knicks coach.There are a few articles on NY Times, here, here and One more.
Well, actually the verdict was out when the moment the suit was filed as the plaintif was “black woman”, a demografic status that gives automatic win in laswuits in this politically corret society. From there the real focus was rather on how to trumpet this issue as evidence of enduring sexism in the workplace, how women are discriminated, and other usual feminism issues. The large payout to her is of course good for her (who doesn’t need money), but in grander scheme of things it facilitates redistribution of wealth from men (who owns and control MSG and NY Knicks) to a “woman”.
Why does supposedly strong, independent, and successful trail-brazing woman have to go so whiny and need more than 11 million dollars to heal her wounds (and 10 million more in the waiting), a dent on her super-inflated ego that is cultured as a result of being educated and living in this country which is filled with toxic influence of man-hating brand of feminism. The ego and self-importance of these so-called “strong, independent” women are so inflated, so much so that in their own fanatasy land, their own inability to live up to the requirement of senior positions that they were affirmative-actioned into are conveniently replaced with so-called gender-discrimination, and somehow become a rallying cry for more women in senior position.
Great financial bonanza for the plaintiff and her feminist lawyers. I guess they could use the money to set uo a fund or something to continue their moral crusade against men.
The large amount awarded to the woman plaintiff is to a large extent informed by feminist worldview that large corporations represnt maleness and therefore patriarhy, with all its hierarchy, structure, power and money, and therefore needs to be ripped of as extensively as possible as opportunity provides, and re-distribute to women, just to get little bit more “even” in financial terms in the ongoing gender war. I wonder how will they think if more and more women join large corporations as they do in recent days, would corporations still be targets of extortion through sexual discrmination charges or will their thinking change?
The charge of declining performace of the plaintiff will not stick in the court of course since in progressive liberal views, the criteria of evaluating perfomance would no longer be based on such male values as efficiency or productivity, but on more “women-centered” attributes, and ultimately, just being a woman and come to office.
That is already a super-achievement by itself because of the so-called “role-model” effect it will have on other women and girls. This should be valued above anything else, including such boring and worldly values as yielding more ptrofits or enhancing corporate productivity.
This is a truly remarkable, memorable day for gender-feminists. First, as a background, they have installed a black woman as a senior executive earning 260k per year in a large company just for born into right gender (and a race). Second they were able to rip over 10 million dollars off from MSG and thereby enriching the coffers of plaintiff and radical feminist law firms. (close to 10 millions more in sight). Third, they could play out the entire saga on public eye, and “raised awareness” on the issue of sexual harassment with most liberal mainstream media putting up op-ed and articles” regurgitating their righteous moral stance on the issue. The sexual harassment industry will no doubt welcome this publicity, and their list of clients (plaintiffs) and potential target companies for litigation/extortion will be miles long.
Well, actually the verdict was out when the moment the suit was filed as the plaintif was “black woman”, a demografic status that gives automatic win in laswuits in this politically corret society. From there the real focus was rather on how to trumpet this issue as evidence of enduring sexism in the workplace, how women are discriminated, and other usual feminism issues. The large payout to her is of course good for her (who doesn’t need money), but in grander scheme of things it facilitates redistribution of wealth from men (who owns and control MSG and NY Knicks) to a “woman”.
Why does supposedly strong, independent, and successful trail-brazing woman have to go so whiny and need more than 11 million dollars to heal her wounds (and 10 million more in the waiting), a dent on her super-inflated ego that is cultured as a result of being educated and living in this country which is filled with toxic influence of man-hating brand of feminism. The ego and self-importance of these so-called “strong, independent” women are so inflated, so much so that in their own fanatasy land, their own inability to live up to the requirement of senior positions that they were affirmative-actioned into are conveniently replaced with so-called gender-discrimination, and somehow become a rallying cry for more women in senior position.
Great financial bonanza for the plaintiff and her feminist lawyers. I guess they could use the money to set uo a fund or something to continue their moral crusade against men.
The large amount awarded to the woman plaintiff is to a large extent informed by feminist worldview that large corporations represnt maleness and therefore patriarhy, with all its hierarchy, structure, power and money, and therefore needs to be ripped of as extensively as possible as opportunity provides, and re-distribute to women, just to get little bit more “even” in financial terms in the ongoing gender war. I wonder how will they think if more and more women join large corporations as they do in recent days, would corporations still be targets of extortion through sexual discrmination charges or will their thinking change?
The charge of declining performace of the plaintiff will not stick in the court of course since in progressive liberal views, the criteria of evaluating perfomance would no longer be based on such male values as efficiency or productivity, but on more “women-centered” attributes, and ultimately, just being a woman and come to office.
That is already a super-achievement by itself because of the so-called “role-model” effect it will have on other women and girls. This should be valued above anything else, including such boring and worldly values as yielding more ptrofits or enhancing corporate productivity.
This is a truly remarkable, memorable day for gender-feminists. First, as a background, they have installed a black woman as a senior executive earning 260k per year in a large company just for born into right gender (and a race). Second they were able to rip over 10 million dollars off from MSG and thereby enriching the coffers of plaintiff and radical feminist law firms. (close to 10 millions more in sight). Third, they could play out the entire saga on public eye, and “raised awareness” on the issue of sexual harassment with most liberal mainstream media putting up op-ed and articles” regurgitating their righteous moral stance on the issue. The sexual harassment industry will no doubt welcome this publicity, and their list of clients (plaintiffs) and potential target companies for litigation/extortion will be miles long.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Reverse pay gap - opportunity for feminists!
This is a follow-up article on the study done by New York college professor that was originally brought up by the New York Times a while ago.
Earlier on the same issue I wondered why there is no outrage and call for governmental programe to correct the gender pay imbalances but of course there is going to be none as long as women are on the upper hand. There would be rather much pondering and scheming on how to spread that superiority of women in other areas of world so that matriarchy could be established. The outrage and call for governmental plan is heard only when women are in disadvantage.
Note how the usual compassion that NYT exhibits toward economically disadvantaged is totally lacking in the article throughout, and the overall tone implicit in the article is a sort of ”how to deal with the men’s ingrained main-breadwinner mentality that is a legacy of patriarchy and condition them into accepting women’s superiority and the role of subservient partner in this new matriarchy where women dominate economy?”
Earlier on the same issue I wondered why there is no outrage and call for governmental programe to correct the gender pay imbalances but of course there is going to be none as long as women are on the upper hand. There would be rather much pondering and scheming on how to spread that superiority of women in other areas of world so that matriarchy could be established. The outrage and call for governmental plan is heard only when women are in disadvantage.
Note how the usual compassion that NYT exhibits toward economically disadvantaged is totally lacking in the article throughout, and the overall tone implicit in the article is a sort of ”how to deal with the men’s ingrained main-breadwinner mentality that is a legacy of patriarchy and condition them into accepting women’s superiority and the role of subservient partner in this new matriarchy where women dominate economy?”
BREAKING NEWS!! MEN EARN ONLY 80 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR WOMEN EARN!!
discrimination, BREAKING NEWS!!
MEN EARN ONLY 80 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR WOMEN EARN!!
At least this would be a logical conclusion that one would get from the study on income gap of young men and women in Dallas, if you were to employ the same method of women—earn-xx-cents –to-every-dollar-men-make myth (you can insert in any number you want in xx, it’s just up to feminists’ whim)
But of course everyone, at least men and most of women who are not infected by feminists disinformation and who could do some basic math (which feminists can’t – remember, women, or feminists, are not good at math) know that this kind of argument is completely fraud. Interestingly (and quite expectedly) feminists didn’t resort to this fraud math tactics this time, though the famous figure is still being recycled here without shame.
Instead, just like a broken record, feminists know to do only one thing - cry discrimination. How to cry discrimination in this kind of seemingly impossible situation (to cry discrimination) you ask? Pretty easy, if you are seasoned feminist.
One sayS, “middle-class black and Latino women who are making similar advances in income but are dealing in many cases with much more deep-rooted male prejudices.”
Another goes;
“When she comes back (from giving birth and child-rearing) she will find herself a year or two behind the rest of the workforce in terms of training, or might have missed on wage increases. In other words, the so-called "mommy trap" remains largely intact - and is waiting to ensnare the new batch of urban and educated 20-something women when they do decide to marry and raise a family, just as it has their predecessors.”
So the conclusion of this study inevitably is;
"The root causes of the pay gap between men and women still exist and could kick in later. This is not an occasion to stop talking about this problem."
In other worlds, their message is clear; don’t be complacent women, keep working and do not get married and take time off from career, outearn men and beat in promotion race, and tear down patriarchy!”
MEN EARN ONLY 80 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR WOMEN EARN!!
At least this would be a logical conclusion that one would get from the study on income gap of young men and women in Dallas, if you were to employ the same method of women—earn-xx-cents –to-every-dollar-men-make myth (you can insert in any number you want in xx, it’s just up to feminists’ whim)
But of course everyone, at least men and most of women who are not infected by feminists disinformation and who could do some basic math (which feminists can’t – remember, women, or feminists, are not good at math) know that this kind of argument is completely fraud. Interestingly (and quite expectedly) feminists didn’t resort to this fraud math tactics this time, though the famous figure is still being recycled here without shame.
Instead, just like a broken record, feminists know to do only one thing - cry discrimination. How to cry discrimination in this kind of seemingly impossible situation (to cry discrimination) you ask? Pretty easy, if you are seasoned feminist.
One sayS, “middle-class black and Latino women who are making similar advances in income but are dealing in many cases with much more deep-rooted male prejudices.”
Another goes;
“When she comes back (from giving birth and child-rearing) she will find herself a year or two behind the rest of the workforce in terms of training, or might have missed on wage increases. In other words, the so-called "mommy trap" remains largely intact - and is waiting to ensnare the new batch of urban and educated 20-something women when they do decide to marry and raise a family, just as it has their predecessors.”
So the conclusion of this study inevitably is;
"The root causes of the pay gap between men and women still exist and could kick in later. This is not an occasion to stop talking about this problem."
In other worlds, their message is clear; don’t be complacent women, keep working and do not get married and take time off from career, outearn men and beat in promotion race, and tear down patriarchy!”
Girls more likely to suffer concussion than boys
I don’t know why the New York Times, usually a reliable promoter of women and girls as strong, independent, stereo-type defying, trail-brazing amazons, reverted to this kind of article that would surly prompt some people to say, “I TOLD YOU SOOOOO…. Girls are too feeble and just not good for competitive sports.”
In the article, even faced with the super-obvious, the doctors chose to play dumb;
“Doctors are also uncertain as to why documented rates of concussion among high school girls are consistently higher than among boys in the same sports.”
Perhaps the doctors are the only people who cannot understand the reason, or maybe along with die-hard feminists, why women and girls suffer more concussion than men and boys while playing the same sports. I think even 10 year-old kid can understand it instinctively.
Their dumbness gets worse as they try to come up with politically-correct explanation which allow them avoid admitting the obvious physical weakness of females compared to males, and even give some credits to females for their honesty in reporting one’s own physical conditions;
The primary theory is that girls might be more honest in reporting injuries — though experts are confident that many girls, just like boys, hide injuries either because they are not aware of the risks or because they simply do not want to miss playing time.
But in the end they seemed to have realized that not mentioning even as mere “possibility” of the obvious reason that everyone else know is too damaging to their credibility;
Other rationales include the fact that girls’ neck muscles are less developed than boys’, providing less shock absorption during impact.
It is just one of the “other rationales”, of course….
Perhaps the writer at the NYT could not take the fact that attention is mostly on boys when it comes to concussions in school sports any longer, so he decided to highlight the plight of female athletes, just to “level the playing field”.. After all, we live in the Title IX world, where everything (except negative) needs to be shared equally by men and women…
In the article, even faced with the super-obvious, the doctors chose to play dumb;
“Doctors are also uncertain as to why documented rates of concussion among high school girls are consistently higher than among boys in the same sports.”
Perhaps the doctors are the only people who cannot understand the reason, or maybe along with die-hard feminists, why women and girls suffer more concussion than men and boys while playing the same sports. I think even 10 year-old kid can understand it instinctively.
Their dumbness gets worse as they try to come up with politically-correct explanation which allow them avoid admitting the obvious physical weakness of females compared to males, and even give some credits to females for their honesty in reporting one’s own physical conditions;
The primary theory is that girls might be more honest in reporting injuries — though experts are confident that many girls, just like boys, hide injuries either because they are not aware of the risks or because they simply do not want to miss playing time.
But in the end they seemed to have realized that not mentioning even as mere “possibility” of the obvious reason that everyone else know is too damaging to their credibility;
Other rationales include the fact that girls’ neck muscles are less developed than boys’, providing less shock absorption during impact.
It is just one of the “other rationales”, of course….
Perhaps the writer at the NYT could not take the fact that attention is mostly on boys when it comes to concussions in school sports any longer, so he decided to highlight the plight of female athletes, just to “level the playing field”.. After all, we live in the Title IX world, where everything (except negative) needs to be shared equally by men and women…
World Tourism Day is a day to....
Just like any other governmental agencies in any Western developed countries, this international organization called the United Nations is completely and thoroughly brainwashed by ideologies of gender feminism. You would think that the World Tourism Day is a day to promote more tourism, or raise awareness about the eco-tourism, if we were to follow the trend in the industry.
NO.
Once it come under the purview of UN and its affiliate agencies, of which the World tourism Organization (WTO) is one, it cannot escape the feminists dogma; it needs to be reinterpreted in the liking of gender feminists. So the day has been transformed (or hijacked) into a day when people are forced to celebrate “on-line photo contest to show women in leadership roles in the tourism sector.” - in the familiar vein of power-hungry UN feminists number –one obsession; taking more leadership positions.
Note that there is not even a call for, for example, more women-friendly travel accommodation, transportation, etc., which is more modest but still a “feminist” enough argument, but they went straight to demand more leadership position in tourism sector, as if they don’t even have a patience to hide their true intent.
And empowerment of women and education for girls? What exactly do these two have to do with tourism? Again, not much with the tourism itself. But they help the aim of women trying to attain more senior position in business industry, I guess.
NO.
Once it come under the purview of UN and its affiliate agencies, of which the World tourism Organization (WTO) is one, it cannot escape the feminists dogma; it needs to be reinterpreted in the liking of gender feminists. So the day has been transformed (or hijacked) into a day when people are forced to celebrate “on-line photo contest to show women in leadership roles in the tourism sector.” - in the familiar vein of power-hungry UN feminists number –one obsession; taking more leadership positions.
Note that there is not even a call for, for example, more women-friendly travel accommodation, transportation, etc., which is more modest but still a “feminist” enough argument, but they went straight to demand more leadership position in tourism sector, as if they don’t even have a patience to hide their true intent.
And empowerment of women and education for girls? What exactly do these two have to do with tourism? Again, not much with the tourism itself. But they help the aim of women trying to attain more senior position in business industry, I guess.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
men too good for women - It's a dsicrimination!
I’ve been emphasizing that the real motive for feminists’ so-called quest for gender equality has nothing to do with gender equality but simply a carefully disguised attack on males.
This article, also found on insidehighered.com, which I have been enjoying reading for the last few days, maybe one of a spinoffs from Linda Hirshmann’s article that provoked quite a controversy some time ago.
Anyway, excerpt from the article;
“why not simply require faculty fathers to produce half again as much (teaching, scholarship, whatever) at each step of the way that the faculty mothers do, rather than lowering the requirements for the women? Demanding of these pampered fellas that they work as hard, over all, as their female counterparts do would add a salutary dash of reality to their perceived superiority to women in the workplace, level the playing field and create some job opportunities for ambitious women who want to do a little extra. A modest proposal.”
So Linda openly advocates and thinks it “A modest proposal” to restrict men to produce half as much academic work as women do, to compensate for the fact that women cannot produce as much as men.
It is interesting. Employ any means necessary to achieve gender parity on paper. If women is lagging behind, first, give them a few extra hand. If women are still behind, keep men from going so far ahead so that women can catch up and, alas, men and women are the same and therefore equality achieved!
I think the feminists have come to grudging realization (though they never would admit to it) that men are simply superior and more productive in academic field and their s no way or women to trully catch up with them, and thus their focus has shifted from how to empower and give a few extra points for being a woman, to how to restrict or control men’s uncontrollably superior ability compared to women.
Thus feminists’ new gender-equality mantra is defined.
1. Men are too good for women to catch up – it’s a gender discrimination!
2. How we could restrict men’s ability so that women could catch up?
I think this could be called “negative equality” - an attempt to control everyone’s ability or outputs so that everyone’s outputs are equal and no one fall behind, as opposed to “positive equality”, where all people can exercise their full potential on a level playing field.
After decades of pursuing gender equality on the assumption on the latter positive equality, when feminists believed that men and women’s potential are the same, they have finally saw the reality, that it is not. But they haven’t given up the ‘gender-equality” game, or “gender-sameness” game, and I'll bet those militant feminists soon will be hell-bent on restricting men’s ability.
This article, also found on insidehighered.com, which I have been enjoying reading for the last few days, maybe one of a spinoffs from Linda Hirshmann’s article that provoked quite a controversy some time ago.
Anyway, excerpt from the article;
“why not simply require faculty fathers to produce half again as much (teaching, scholarship, whatever) at each step of the way that the faculty mothers do, rather than lowering the requirements for the women? Demanding of these pampered fellas that they work as hard, over all, as their female counterparts do would add a salutary dash of reality to their perceived superiority to women in the workplace, level the playing field and create some job opportunities for ambitious women who want to do a little extra. A modest proposal.”
So Linda openly advocates and thinks it “A modest proposal” to restrict men to produce half as much academic work as women do, to compensate for the fact that women cannot produce as much as men.
It is interesting. Employ any means necessary to achieve gender parity on paper. If women is lagging behind, first, give them a few extra hand. If women are still behind, keep men from going so far ahead so that women can catch up and, alas, men and women are the same and therefore equality achieved!
I think the feminists have come to grudging realization (though they never would admit to it) that men are simply superior and more productive in academic field and their s no way or women to trully catch up with them, and thus their focus has shifted from how to empower and give a few extra points for being a woman, to how to restrict or control men’s uncontrollably superior ability compared to women.
Thus feminists’ new gender-equality mantra is defined.
1. Men are too good for women to catch up – it’s a gender discrimination!
2. How we could restrict men’s ability so that women could catch up?
I think this could be called “negative equality” - an attempt to control everyone’s ability or outputs so that everyone’s outputs are equal and no one fall behind, as opposed to “positive equality”, where all people can exercise their full potential on a level playing field.
After decades of pursuing gender equality on the assumption on the latter positive equality, when feminists believed that men and women’s potential are the same, they have finally saw the reality, that it is not. But they haven’t given up the ‘gender-equality” game, or “gender-sameness” game, and I'll bet those militant feminists soon will be hell-bent on restricting men’s ability.
Insidehighered. No. 3
Insidehighered.com, hillarious article serios No. 3
Simple question; “overt discrimination was disappearing — but that its disappearance didn’t necessarily translate into women rising to the top ranks at the college or in departments.” – why the disappearance of (overt) discrimination automatically needs to result in more women at top ranks? Disappearance of discrimination only, if any, ensure that so-called playing field is leveled, but doesn’t guarantee promotion of people who were previously said to have been affected by the said discrimination. To gain promotion, you strive for it. You work for it. But it won’t be sent to your doorstep in a gift wrap or handed out to you by government or institution (actually it will in our current political climate)
“Three sociologists at the University of Arizona presented a paper on the impact of specialization on the academic careers of men and women.” What are those sociologists main research field? Maybe gender discrimination in their own university. It seems that the university hired ‘diversity officer” or “gender ration enforcement officer” when it really should be hiring sociologists. If the hiring committee of the university were less obsessed with meeting diversity goal or under less pressure to correct gender imbalance in its faculty makeup, they would have had hired ‘the best qualified candidate”, maybe male sociologists, who would be doing some real “sociological” study instead of pursuing narrow agenda that would only benefit their own chance of promotion. But I guess it really doesn’t matter; who cares whether sociologists were concerned about social phenomena that affects the society at large, or their interest is limited to advancing their own agenda (and their position) in faculty.
Another excerpt from the article; “The study found, for example, that departments routinely had smaller shares of women than could be found among younger members of their disciplines.” -Why the gender ratio (women professors) needs to mirror exactly the wider body (women’s ratio of Ph. Ds). It is obvious that the Title XI mentality is at play here. Whatever positions (usually women playing in college varsity teams in the Title XI world but in this case women professors) that feminists deem desirable or enhance women’s standing in feminists’ worldview (leadership role or non-traditional roles for women), at least needs to match the gender ratio of a wider body that happens to be in women’s advantage. Even if the logical connection between the two is hazy or difficult to establish definitively, (feminists could circumvent this by castigating the questioner male chauvinistic pig) it doesn’t matter, if the two gender ratio don’t match, it automatically becomes a ground for launching allegations of gender discrimination.
Simple question; “overt discrimination was disappearing — but that its disappearance didn’t necessarily translate into women rising to the top ranks at the college or in departments.” – why the disappearance of (overt) discrimination automatically needs to result in more women at top ranks? Disappearance of discrimination only, if any, ensure that so-called playing field is leveled, but doesn’t guarantee promotion of people who were previously said to have been affected by the said discrimination. To gain promotion, you strive for it. You work for it. But it won’t be sent to your doorstep in a gift wrap or handed out to you by government or institution (actually it will in our current political climate)
“Three sociologists at the University of Arizona presented a paper on the impact of specialization on the academic careers of men and women.” What are those sociologists main research field? Maybe gender discrimination in their own university. It seems that the university hired ‘diversity officer” or “gender ration enforcement officer” when it really should be hiring sociologists. If the hiring committee of the university were less obsessed with meeting diversity goal or under less pressure to correct gender imbalance in its faculty makeup, they would have had hired ‘the best qualified candidate”, maybe male sociologists, who would be doing some real “sociological” study instead of pursuing narrow agenda that would only benefit their own chance of promotion. But I guess it really doesn’t matter; who cares whether sociologists were concerned about social phenomena that affects the society at large, or their interest is limited to advancing their own agenda (and their position) in faculty.
Another excerpt from the article; “The study found, for example, that departments routinely had smaller shares of women than could be found among younger members of their disciplines.” -Why the gender ratio (women professors) needs to mirror exactly the wider body (women’s ratio of Ph. Ds). It is obvious that the Title XI mentality is at play here. Whatever positions (usually women playing in college varsity teams in the Title XI world but in this case women professors) that feminists deem desirable or enhance women’s standing in feminists’ worldview (leadership role or non-traditional roles for women), at least needs to match the gender ratio of a wider body that happens to be in women’s advantage. Even if the logical connection between the two is hazy or difficult to establish definitively, (feminists could circumvent this by castigating the questioner male chauvinistic pig) it doesn’t matter, if the two gender ratio don’t match, it automatically becomes a ground for launching allegations of gender discrimination.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Insidehighered.com No. 2 Productivity disproportionately affects women
hillarious article No. 2 on insidehighered.com.
Note that as time goes by, feminists’ allegation of gender discrimination is getting more and more specific. Before it was a discrimination against women in higher education. Period. Now it is, in “higher learning institution”, in the field of “academic medicine”, women suffers disproportionately by the “raising expectation” and they “get “consistently fewer” competing renewals grants than men” and “for every dollar a male primary investigator receives, women get 80 cents”. (in the last one they even succeeded in throwing some elements of “gender pay gap” trick.)
It may be true that men get promoted faster in academic medicine field and that men churn out more academic papers and work more productively, but the reason for that maybe is not because of the gender discrimination (when did the latter become evidence of discrimination by the way?) but because since simply men are better in general, and that superiority manifests itself in every aspects of academic career and life. You can keep on discovering almost infinite number of areas where “women are disproportionately affected” or in other words, “women are not as good as men’ in this or that area. Maybe men on average write better papers, better quality of research, better reviews, better at finding and collaborating with other researchers, better at finding opportunities to present their researches, better speech and presentation skills at conference., etc. etc., the list can go on and on. And my guess is that all of this, according to feminists, could be elements that can “disproportionately affect women.” Maybe men are better at more basic academic skills, such as writing composition, researching online, use of computer, use of library and lab, and these of course, would “disproportionately affect women”. Women, isn’t it time to simply admit the obvious?
I am still amazed that the author cites among the “bars” of rising expectation, “number of publications, numbers of collaborators and of graduate students and postdocs, invitations to speak and to present at national and international conferences”. In most people’s view, these would easily viewed as objective evaluation criteria on one’s productivity and excellence. In other words, productivity or excellence disproportionately affects women. I am very sorry.
Note that as time goes by, feminists’ allegation of gender discrimination is getting more and more specific. Before it was a discrimination against women in higher education. Period. Now it is, in “higher learning institution”, in the field of “academic medicine”, women suffers disproportionately by the “raising expectation” and they “get “consistently fewer” competing renewals grants than men” and “for every dollar a male primary investigator receives, women get 80 cents”. (in the last one they even succeeded in throwing some elements of “gender pay gap” trick.)
It may be true that men get promoted faster in academic medicine field and that men churn out more academic papers and work more productively, but the reason for that maybe is not because of the gender discrimination (when did the latter become evidence of discrimination by the way?) but because since simply men are better in general, and that superiority manifests itself in every aspects of academic career and life. You can keep on discovering almost infinite number of areas where “women are disproportionately affected” or in other words, “women are not as good as men’ in this or that area. Maybe men on average write better papers, better quality of research, better reviews, better at finding and collaborating with other researchers, better at finding opportunities to present their researches, better speech and presentation skills at conference., etc. etc., the list can go on and on. And my guess is that all of this, according to feminists, could be elements that can “disproportionately affect women.” Maybe men are better at more basic academic skills, such as writing composition, researching online, use of computer, use of library and lab, and these of course, would “disproportionately affect women”. Women, isn’t it time to simply admit the obvious?
I am still amazed that the author cites among the “bars” of rising expectation, “number of publications, numbers of collaborators and of graduate students and postdocs, invitations to speak and to present at national and international conferences”. In most people’s view, these would easily viewed as objective evaluation criteria on one’s productivity and excellence. In other words, productivity or excellence disproportionately affects women. I am very sorry.
Insidehighered.com
I found an interesting website where very high-educated women to gather to spew their misguided hatred against men and society. It is "insdeihighered.com. Actually if you want to go to a site of this sort, you can simply go to the website of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) or the National Organization for Women (NOW) if you prefer more general topic not necessarily specialized on issues rlated to higher institutions.
Anyway, below are some hillarious excerpts from this website;
From march 28 article;
“We found that women weren’t getting information about things as simple as timelines to becoming full professors. They didn’t know how to start the process.”
Women Ph.D don't even know those things? Or they don't even have a slightest motivation to research that on their own? How did they get Ph.D in the first place? Surely it would be very very hard to find, recruit, retain and promote such women. That's why feminist machinery has to be in a fll throttle to get more women in the profession to raise the gender balance. I feel sympathy for the author. My guess is that those women are too used to being treated like a pampered baby, as their big feminist sisters took care of them in all aspects of their academic career - from choosing the field in the first place, pursuing it, exam prep, recruitment, etc. Now their promotion will be taken care by their big sisters.
Another way to react to above quote is; uhh, do these women know how to write cover letters? uhhh, do they know how to use computer?
Anyway, below are some hillarious excerpts from this website;
From march 28 article;
“We found that women weren’t getting information about things as simple as timelines to becoming full professors. They didn’t know how to start the process.”
Women Ph.D don't even know those things? Or they don't even have a slightest motivation to research that on their own? How did they get Ph.D in the first place? Surely it would be very very hard to find, recruit, retain and promote such women. That's why feminist machinery has to be in a fll throttle to get more women in the profession to raise the gender balance. I feel sympathy for the author. My guess is that those women are too used to being treated like a pampered baby, as their big feminist sisters took care of them in all aspects of their academic career - from choosing the field in the first place, pursuing it, exam prep, recruitment, etc. Now their promotion will be taken care by their big sisters.
Another way to react to above quote is; uhh, do these women know how to write cover letters? uhhh, do they know how to use computer?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Women punk rock need to be put on pedestal
Yet another sub-section of vast discrimination cry-wolf industry– this one is on women punk rock! Now I admit that I am not a big fan of punk rock and I do not know much about it, but whining about discrimination and lecturing about patriarchy in the same manner as unhappy feminists in college women's study course isn’t exactly what I expect the (women) punk rockers to look like. Or perhaps this is exactly the reason why women punk rockers never rock, and need the punk-rocker-turned-ardent-feminists to feature them in a book, and the willing cooperation of left wing newspaper, to have any visibility in the media.
Beer for women
Just promote anything to women…and it is suddenly so fashionable (at least in the politically correct cultural standard).
Childless women's manifesto
The woman who penned this article looks quite beautiful in the photo, too bad her brain is intoxicated with man-hating brand of feminism…
After going through a few reasons why an option of not having children is good for women, (including for environment), she came to the same-old feminists line about men and society that are at the roots of the problem.
“But until men are warned not to put their careers first, and have to listen to constant dirges about time's winged chariot, I will continue to see this as a sexist discussion.”
hey, just keep shedding off your feeling of guilt (of not having children) by stoking up anger in you and your disgruntled sisters by blaming men and society. By infusing some feminists ideology of gender-relations and gender-struggle, she easily elevated her child-less free-wheeling life (and some guilt that comes from it, if any), into a noble cause.
In the end the author recounts the joy of playing with her niece. Just be thankful that her sister or brother wasn’t in the same mode of thinking as hers, otherwise she will have no niece to play with. And as she succeeds in promoting her ideology, there will be fewer and fewer nieces, nephews and children to play with. But I guess that is not necessarily bad for the environment.
After going through a few reasons why an option of not having children is good for women, (including for environment), she came to the same-old feminists line about men and society that are at the roots of the problem.
“But until men are warned not to put their careers first, and have to listen to constant dirges about time's winged chariot, I will continue to see this as a sexist discussion.”
hey, just keep shedding off your feeling of guilt (of not having children) by stoking up anger in you and your disgruntled sisters by blaming men and society. By infusing some feminists ideology of gender-relations and gender-struggle, she easily elevated her child-less free-wheeling life (and some guilt that comes from it, if any), into a noble cause.
In the end the author recounts the joy of playing with her niece. Just be thankful that her sister or brother wasn’t in the same mode of thinking as hers, otherwise she will have no niece to play with. And as she succeeds in promoting her ideology, there will be fewer and fewer nieces, nephews and children to play with. But I guess that is not necessarily bad for the environment.
Bourne Ultimatum - feminists' response
Somewhow there was a torrent of articles written by equal-opportunity feminists who attacks the movie "The Bourne Ultimatum". I know that there is a coterie of such feminists who demand every inch/space of movie review section in papers and on web to denounce all movies that feature men in positive or main roles, but I thought this one was a little over the top even by their standards.
Why does the author think that in all movies, women and men have to play EXACTLY equally important, equally meaningful roles (at least to feminists)? I hope the author will advocate giving more positive role for men in such classic man-hating movie as "Enough", in which men were only portrayed as abusers, and the general hatred against men were not only evident but the main theme of the movie.
The Bourne Ultimatum already gave a senior CIA officer's role to a woman - you can see that the screenwriter have already partially caved in to incessant feminists attack like the author to feature more women in politicaly correct roles-, this may be an accurate reflection of reality by the way as more and more women are affirmative-actioned into senior posts in real-life CIA. (points for the Talibans and islamic exremists!)
And exactly how not giving equal time or exposure or positive portray of women as men are labeled as "misogyny", then almost all the movies shot by women are examples of extreme anti-male, miandric flicks, but I guess the author don't care about those.
Why does the author think that in all movies, women and men have to play EXACTLY equally important, equally meaningful roles (at least to feminists)? I hope the author will advocate giving more positive role for men in such classic man-hating movie as "Enough", in which men were only portrayed as abusers, and the general hatred against men were not only evident but the main theme of the movie.
The Bourne Ultimatum already gave a senior CIA officer's role to a woman - you can see that the screenwriter have already partially caved in to incessant feminists attack like the author to feature more women in politicaly correct roles-, this may be an accurate reflection of reality by the way as more and more women are affirmative-actioned into senior posts in real-life CIA. (points for the Talibans and islamic exremists!)
And exactly how not giving equal time or exposure or positive portray of women as men are labeled as "misogyny", then almost all the movies shot by women are examples of extreme anti-male, miandric flicks, but I guess the author don't care about those.
Monday, August 20, 2007
A woman victimized by the guilt of killing her husband
It is simply amazing to see how low men’s status in this country could get. Newsweek is happy to discuss whether the woman who killed her so-called “abusive” husband (standard label for all men who were killed by wives in the US) could recover from PTSD that allegedly caused her to commit the action. Note that the entire article is filed with concern for Mary Winkler and how she could cope and recover from PTSD after walking free from prison. Gaining custody of her children and normal return to society are their next goals for Mary. Not a word on the man killed by the woman allegedly suffering from PTSD.
Uber-feminist-friendly Newsweek even notched up its feminist-friendly credential by showing its concern that the very act of killing a human being - husband – could add to the stress that murderer would feel. Get this - FEMINISTS EVEN WANT TO SAVE WOMEN FROM THE STRESS OF KILLING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS – maybe they can start a new programme in the women’s shelter, on how to kill husbands without any remorse or emotional consequence – just like killing a fly! – and feel good about, feel empowered by it.
Uber-feminist-friendly Newsweek even notched up its feminist-friendly credential by showing its concern that the very act of killing a human being - husband – could add to the stress that murderer would feel. Get this - FEMINISTS EVEN WANT TO SAVE WOMEN FROM THE STRESS OF KILLING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS – maybe they can start a new programme in the women’s shelter, on how to kill husbands without any remorse or emotional consequence – just like killing a fly! – and feel good about, feel empowered by it.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Usual "New York Times" - thing
You know that the New York Time is just doing their usual “New York Times” -things when you see articles that picks up and discusses every moves and words uttered by Hillary Clinton, both old and new, or articles that focus on daughters
and wives of male Presidential candidates; I mean any female relatives of the candidates, so that the main subject of the news is women, but not men. People in New York Times (mostly power-hungry women and their male sevants) are getting increasingly averse to the idea of featuring men in the news. Their sense of self-confidence is impaired by too much covering of male candidates in the Presidential election, and they cannot stand it anymore. So women and their servants have decided that the bulk of news must be either on Hillary or women surrounding the rest of the male candidates, so that "SHE" is the subject of the new, not "HE". (in NYT the only legitimate place for featuring "HE" is in crime section)
At the same time, they do not forget to lay a groundwork for pummeling of Giuliani as the likelihood of his winning the Republican nomination is getting higher and may eventually face Hillary (-they would certainly hope). Expect more of the same in coming months.
and wives of male Presidential candidates; I mean any female relatives of the candidates, so that the main subject of the news is women, but not men. People in New York Times (mostly power-hungry women and their male sevants) are getting increasingly averse to the idea of featuring men in the news. Their sense of self-confidence is impaired by too much covering of male candidates in the Presidential election, and they cannot stand it anymore. So women and their servants have decided that the bulk of news must be either on Hillary or women surrounding the rest of the male candidates, so that "SHE" is the subject of the new, not "HE". (in NYT the only legitimate place for featuring "HE" is in crime section)
At the same time, they do not forget to lay a groundwork for pummeling of Giuliani as the likelihood of his winning the Republican nomination is getting higher and may eventually face Hillary (-they would certainly hope). Expect more of the same in coming months.
Japanese career women
So the New York Times, a newspaper of career women, by career women, for career women, set out to investigate their sisters' conditions in other parts of the world with pre-determined conclusiond. If they wish, they could continue this campaign for the next 190 days, the number ofcountris in the world according to the United Nations, to cover all countries in the world; since in feminists’ worldview, there is no country where true gender equality exists (even in Norway or Sweden – just listen to what feminists in these countries are saying, if anything, they are even more vitriolic than their counterparts in other parts of the world).
You can notice that feminists have capitalized on the problem of shrinking population as their newest weapons to push for gender equality (read: more women in managerial positions).
The argument that by not utilizing the talent of women, the society “…is losing half of its brainpower as it faces a labor shortage.” is so bogus. There are many problems with statement like this. First, it assumes that there will be total employment of all people who are capable of working (meaning total elimination of unemployment) and that every one is able to maximize their potential in the work. Second, all women are to engage in occupations that utilize brainpower, not a muscle power, as in managerial positions. Obviously these assumptions are patently wrong. In fact, many Japanese companies are not suffering from shortage of brain power; managerial positions in these companies are always in very short supply, and competitions to get those positions (mostly internally) are very competitive. It is not as if these positions are left vacant in drove with many women staying at home and not willing to come out to work, as feminists want to have you believe (this is not the case unless, of course, you have government-imposed gender quota, just like those in Norway, that sets aside certain number of positions only for women). These positions have been filled mostly by men, however feminists hate the idea, who are very competent, talented and dedicated, and who have been primarily responsible for Japanese economic growth.
The void slogan for cultivating women’s talent is without a merit unless feminists could prove the concrete merit of it. What would be the merit? Because they bring in “feminine touch” to the job? I think now it is a criminal offense in some parts of the world to reinforce such sexist stereotype. Because they have different capacities, e.g. ability to multitask and attention to details? Though this is touted even in some liberal circles, again this is contrary to strict feminist orthodoxy which holds that men and women are exactly the same. Which brings me to the next question - if they are exactly the same, why society or company has to invest extra money and energy to recruit people with the exact same talent and capability, but who happen to wear skirt instead of pants?
Career Women in Japan Find a Blocked Path
By MARTIN FACKLER
Published: August 6, 2007
You can notice that feminists have capitalized on the problem of shrinking population as their newest weapons to push for gender equality (read: more women in managerial positions).
The argument that by not utilizing the talent of women, the society “…is losing half of its brainpower as it faces a labor shortage.” is so bogus. There are many problems with statement like this. First, it assumes that there will be total employment of all people who are capable of working (meaning total elimination of unemployment) and that every one is able to maximize their potential in the work. Second, all women are to engage in occupations that utilize brainpower, not a muscle power, as in managerial positions. Obviously these assumptions are patently wrong. In fact, many Japanese companies are not suffering from shortage of brain power; managerial positions in these companies are always in very short supply, and competitions to get those positions (mostly internally) are very competitive. It is not as if these positions are left vacant in drove with many women staying at home and not willing to come out to work, as feminists want to have you believe (this is not the case unless, of course, you have government-imposed gender quota, just like those in Norway, that sets aside certain number of positions only for women). These positions have been filled mostly by men, however feminists hate the idea, who are very competent, talented and dedicated, and who have been primarily responsible for Japanese economic growth.
The void slogan for cultivating women’s talent is without a merit unless feminists could prove the concrete merit of it. What would be the merit? Because they bring in “feminine touch” to the job? I think now it is a criminal offense in some parts of the world to reinforce such sexist stereotype. Because they have different capacities, e.g. ability to multitask and attention to details? Though this is touted even in some liberal circles, again this is contrary to strict feminist orthodoxy which holds that men and women are exactly the same. Which brings me to the next question - if they are exactly the same, why society or company has to invest extra money and energy to recruit people with the exact same talent and capability, but who happen to wear skirt instead of pants?
Career Women in Japan Find a Blocked Path
By MARTIN FACKLER
Published: August 6, 2007
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Reverse "pay gap" Part I
Much has been already said about the article in NY Times in readers’ comments section… I failed to make comments since they stopped accepting comments at 5PM on the next day…
Anyway here is my take on the article as well as on comments by readers.
Where is the outrage on this?? Of course there will be no such thing as long as it favors women; instead they will ponder how this women’s advantage could be poured into other areas of society so that women could establish general superiority over men.
It’s a faulty research, as are all researches done on this topic. When feminists want to stress their victim status, they will use data on AVERAGE wages of all men and women, and disregard any factors that are very relevant to determining one’s wags, such as experience, number of hours worked, etc. When they want to boost their self-confidence, they will use the data on MEDIAN wages of all men and women, again regardless of educational background, etc. (Age will be by definition considered, I guess).
Why?
Because if you use AVERAGE wages, the figure will factor in the wages of ALL men, including those men who are corporate CEOs, high-flying lawyers, who are “outliers” in statistic terms since their extremely high salaries will skew the average salary figures. Since most CEOs and top layers are men, it will inevitably raise the average in men’s favor, and then you have it; data that “proves” pervasive societal discrimination against women.
On the other hand, if you use MEDIAN wage, you can exclude all these statistical outliers from the calculation, and the salary of a man who happens to be in the exact median (if there are 10,001 men, the man with the 5,001st highest/lowest salary) will be used as a figure. Because of a large number of less-educated men in urban areas who do mostly physical labor and for a less pay, the data will look suddenly in women’s favor, thus boosting the self-image of feminists.
Reading the article, many femi-Nazi readers loudly proclaimed that “at last the merit-based, fair pay is achieved..”…What? Why is it that if things turn in women’s favor it is fair and pay is strictly merit-based and when the data was in men’s favor, it was undeniable evidence of sexism in patriarchal society?
It is the exact opposite. Okay, just think a little bit more carefully; young women today are given all kinds of gender-based, exclusive protection and preference, from hiring to promotion to all other career advancement goodies, and corporations bending over backwards to change their corporate culture and evaluation criteria for hiring/promotion to fit feminists’ theories and women’s needs, rather than those required to compete in free, dynamic market – while young men are facing the exact opposite situation in every aspect; their resumes tossed out because of their male first names, their promotion denied because of informal gender quota imposed by management, etc.
If young women’s median pay is higher under this condition, is it a merit based or result of social engineering by feminists? You tell me.
Anyway here is my take on the article as well as on comments by readers.
Where is the outrage on this?? Of course there will be no such thing as long as it favors women; instead they will ponder how this women’s advantage could be poured into other areas of society so that women could establish general superiority over men.
It’s a faulty research, as are all researches done on this topic. When feminists want to stress their victim status, they will use data on AVERAGE wages of all men and women, and disregard any factors that are very relevant to determining one’s wags, such as experience, number of hours worked, etc. When they want to boost their self-confidence, they will use the data on MEDIAN wages of all men and women, again regardless of educational background, etc. (Age will be by definition considered, I guess).
Why?
Because if you use AVERAGE wages, the figure will factor in the wages of ALL men, including those men who are corporate CEOs, high-flying lawyers, who are “outliers” in statistic terms since their extremely high salaries will skew the average salary figures. Since most CEOs and top layers are men, it will inevitably raise the average in men’s favor, and then you have it; data that “proves” pervasive societal discrimination against women.
On the other hand, if you use MEDIAN wage, you can exclude all these statistical outliers from the calculation, and the salary of a man who happens to be in the exact median (if there are 10,001 men, the man with the 5,001st highest/lowest salary) will be used as a figure. Because of a large number of less-educated men in urban areas who do mostly physical labor and for a less pay, the data will look suddenly in women’s favor, thus boosting the self-image of feminists.
Reading the article, many femi-Nazi readers loudly proclaimed that “at last the merit-based, fair pay is achieved..”…What? Why is it that if things turn in women’s favor it is fair and pay is strictly merit-based and when the data was in men’s favor, it was undeniable evidence of sexism in patriarchal society?
It is the exact opposite. Okay, just think a little bit more carefully; young women today are given all kinds of gender-based, exclusive protection and preference, from hiring to promotion to all other career advancement goodies, and corporations bending over backwards to change their corporate culture and evaluation criteria for hiring/promotion to fit feminists’ theories and women’s needs, rather than those required to compete in free, dynamic market – while young men are facing the exact opposite situation in every aspect; their resumes tossed out because of their male first names, their promotion denied because of informal gender quota imposed by management, etc.
If young women’s median pay is higher under this condition, is it a merit based or result of social engineering by feminists? You tell me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)