Movie review - "Children of men"

Movie review "Children of men"

I went to see this movie with expectations that this movie will give us a glimpse of how future in which women no longer conceive babies and the fertility rate dramatically drops will be like, a kind of society that man industrialized western countries are heading into. Well, the movie's storyline was based on such a plot, but it was, as far as I am concerned, a horrible movie. The movie was too gory and dark and depressing. Too much gun fighting and so on. The movie also did not explain why all the women in the world, I mean every single one of them on earth, suddenly stopped giving birth on 2009 (which is only 3 years from now!). There was no explanation as to why all of a sudden this one black woman (immigrant?) suddenly conceived after more than 18 years of total global baby draught.

I wished that the movie depicted in more detail how less and less women came to conceive babies, and wider social implications of it. How the rise of women in power and of rigid feminist ideology will reduce fertility rate and very wide and deep consequences of low fertility rate for the society. But the movie didn't venture into any of that, and instead it only showed that in 2009, suddenly no more babies were born ・throughout the world! ・and the only visible consequences of this radical change is large number of illegal immigrants rounded up in cages everywhere -just didn't make sense to me.

Rise of women in power and low fertility rate have much, much wider and deeper consequences than just illegal immigrants rounded up in cage. It means that welfare system will be bankrupt, schools will be closed, teachers and everyone in education industries will be out of work, nursery and toy company and toy shops ・rather than counting all professions that will be unnecessary, let's just say that in less than a few generations, the human race will be extinct. (congrats for extreme environmentalist who want to reduce human population to save environment)

Women victim of their own success

This is a typical gender-ratio article that routinely appears in the New York Times...it's nothing new and it's not really worth mentioning it because it is so routine, but I still managed to pick up some interesting points in the article・

In early part of the article a gender-balance expert (this is a guy!) poses a theoretical question, "Are moderate suburban Democratic women the future of the party?" and in the same breath exhorts both Democrats and Republicans to go after women since in his mind the answer is already given. For writers of this kind of article, editors of the paper and the carefully selected, hand-picked interviewees or experts quoted, this kind of article is not published to find true, correct answer to the a question, but to advance particular agenda. The only (very minor) difference between this kind of article and paid-advertisement by NOW or AAUW is that the former try to put at least a pretence of neutrality - although very few people rally believe it.

Amazingly the writer of the article is not simply content with triumphing in the increasing women's number in state legislature ・the writer manages to play of victim card again!! ・according to the writer, the mainstreaming of female politicians, or shift away from traditional feminist base is "a loss in the fight against imbalances against women that still persist in American society." I'm always amazed by feminists' astounding ability to find "victim" elements even in the most triumphant moment for them. I think it is because playing victim card is almost a second nature to them ・after all they've been relying on victim card tactics for the last four decades to advance their agandas ・it would be very difficult to shift away from their tactics and mind-set that have been the backbone of their movement for decades.



As St. Paul Goes ...
In State Legislatures, Democrats Are Pushing Toward Parity Between the Sexes
Bill Alkofer for The New York Times
By KIRK JOHNSON
Published: February 15, 2007

Thoughts on men's movement

I found an interesting article on my favourite website www.mensnewsdaily.com.

Below is my thoughts on this topic....

There is no major (or even a minor?) men’s movement because it simply doesn’t appeal to men. Major social movements that attract our attention, grab headlines and come to our attention are almost always leftist in its nature – be it feminists, environmental, or animal rights movement. It usually involves a large number of people congregating and demonstrating on streets, printing and handing outs leaflets, yelling and chanting, etc., etc. These actions hardly invoke images of masculinity or macho men – rather it is more often seen as feminine, girly acts. Of course not all the activities of mass social movements are sissy, but just imagine, holding hands or “candlelight” night vigil, etc., etc, and you’ll get the idea. If a men’s movement is going to change the feminized society and feminist-controlled legal and other social system, it is not going to be wise to adopt the same leftist-feminist style, sissy tactics.

In addition, males are not deeply emphatic being as females are; thus playing too much victim card is not going to appeal to them. Men do not want to see themselves as weak victim, and will be reluctant to identify themselves with male victims of family courts, domestic violence or false accusation of rape, sexual harassment, etc. Plus it will risk taunting by feminists and liberal media for being “sissy’ or “girly”(do anyone see irony in this?). Men are traditionally seen as, and men like to see themselves as, even in this highly feminized world, tough and independent being. Not a mass-marching, victim card-playing, candle-light vigil leftist type.

I will conntinue later...

Women rocks NASA

We knew sooner or later this kind of article is going to be out. Whenever and wherever major news involve women, the so-called women's advocates are going to be out and front slanting the news to promote their agenda.

It's interesting that it was a woman who made the most astounding incident in the history of NASA. I would suspect that there was artificial lowering of bar for women to join NASA and be astronauts in order to satisfy gender bureaucrats who are counting gender ratio in every federal institutions. Although I'm 100% confident that this would never even be considered when NASA conduct review of screening process for astronauts. Maybe gender feminists will even have audacity to say something like, "There wasn't a critical mass of female astronauts in NASA, that's why Laurel Clark wasn't feeling comfortable, blah, blah, blah!! We need more women, women as astonauts and in top positions, blah, blah!! Need to suspend all hiring and promotion of men until we say it痴 OK, blah, blah!!". Never underestimate gender feminists' audacity or ability to spin the news and promote their agenda even in the most difficult times.

It is quite frightening that people of this mental state was flying in space just less than a year ago! What if "she" found out that other "female" astronaut in the spaceship was having affair with her significant others and decided to kill her on space? What if "she" found out that her nemesis is in other spacecraft and decided to attack? Future could be quite interesting.

I almost forgot to mention that the blatant difference in the way society treat men and women are again in work here. If male astronaut attacked other male, he wouldn't be put on "PAID LEAVE" like Laurel Clark but would be summarily fired, he wouldn't be paroled immediately but would be put behind bars, and no sympathetic article trying to fault on any place other than the culprit herself, but wholesale generalization that men are not mentally stable enough to be astronauts but only stay-at-home dads, probably to be penned by Maureen Dawd...

Environmental polution - women especially hit hard

The story reminded me of an old joke, "The world to end tomorrow, women especially hit hard!". Well, being a bit sarcastic, maybe this is technically true, because they are more women than men on earth (however slightly) and the definitions of "especially" and "hard" really depends on who speaks it.

But even though the articles promotes further victimhood of women, one is left to wonder, on what grounds could the article proclaim that pollution is "particularly" bad for women? Reading a little bit more carefully, you'll find out that this "big federally funded study" like many other public of private study of these days, doesn't even bother to look into pollution's effect on men! I wonder how many people have even noticed this gender-biased focus of the study in the first place!?

Fickle women and Andrea Dworkism

This pseudo-legal debate on whether woman can claim rape after initial consent is entirely done from women's perspective. An adult, grown-up women can have a full, legal right to change heart anytime, for whatever reason after giving initial consent and during sex, while men have to be always on a maximum alert during the act, which can often get wild, on the slightest sign of women changing her heart or he will risk ruining his life and prison rape. Aren't women going to take any responsibility for giving consent in the first place? Aren't we infantilizing women too much? Didn't know men wear condom? Well, couldn't you check before it began? Didn't know a man has HIV? What kind of women will learn that a man has HIV after starting sex?

What feminists are fighting for is an even greater power for everywomen to send everymen to prison at their whims. Come to think of it, this is a truly unique power that an ordinary citizen could have - to send another citizen to prisons at their whim...in ancient times, only tyrants used to have this kind of power but we've learned that this century is a "women's century". But this may be extreme but logical extension of to the two-class system that we have in the society, women (first class citizens) and men (second class citizens).

It's a bit funny that people (gender feminists and pro-feminist males) are seriously discussing how soon is soon enough to stop sex for men to avoid prison sentence, because even in States where a law (shall we call change-of-heart-law?) does not exist (Maryland), the court is already putting men behind bars for exactly that.

Actually this entire debate is kind of moot since no court in this country is going to back men in "he said, she said case" so even with or without a law, women can claim rape two weeks after perfectly consensual and romantic affair- no court in this country is going to doubt such a claim. Add to this brouhaha a proposal by gender feminists to criminalize men who have sex with adult women who sip a half can of beer before sex, soon it will be official to that no sex is safe in this country. By this I mean not "disease" safe, but "rape prosecution" safe sex.

Thanks to feminists' advocacy, the once solid line between haneous act of rape and consensual sex is further blurred. Am I the only one who smells a whiff of Andrea Dworkinism in the whole debate? While most gender feminists may deny it, my guess is that it is not going to stop until the legal definition of rape reaches feminists' icon Andrea Dworkin's definition of it which says "all form of sex is rape".

Emergency! We do not have enough women DJs! Help! Help!

So this week's victim for feminists' endless attack on gender diversity is ....(drum rolling).....radio industry!! Congratulations for folks who work in that industry, you will be subjected to feminists' indoctrination campaign and gender sensitivity training until such time that feminists see no more reason to continue them (which means it will never end). Even better, Ms. Laverne has better idea for you; if you are not going to reach 50-50 gender ratio in DJs (Ms. Laverne picked this job for her gender-parity target・maybe she wants director and executive producers to be also 50-50, But definitely not for janitors I'm sure!) in the next 24 hours, she suggests "sex change" and "obligatory sex swap" Hmmm・that's one method that I rarely hear from even the most committed gender-warrior, but surely it will be included in the list of recommendations from now on. What better way to ensure 50-50 gender parity in all walks of life (but not including dirty or dangerous works to be determined by a committee of feminists); if there aren't enough good female DJs to fill in, just perform sex changes on some male DJs until the number of male DJs equals the number of female DJ (plural?)and forcibly transgendered former male DJs.

"Women condemned to domesticity"

Another novel that came out that inherit the "women are condemned to home while men enjoy outside" line of thinking. This kind of novel is very convenient for feminists and therefore in their view needs to be promoted, in the book section of the New York Times and other liberal fora. This kind of novel serves to deter young women from getting into an "incorrect" thinking that they will be stay-at-home-mom in the future, and the fictional accounts of poor women condemned to domesticity in the novel give feminists and working women reassurances and mental comfort that the path they've chosen was not wrong.