I found an interesting article on a feminist guerilla group…yes, of course, if guys can do it, gals can do it too, …only better! Maybe we should also mention feminist groups that raided Miss USA pageant and forced the event to be cancelled way back in the 1960’s or 70’s? Or maybe they should be called a feminist mob?, as the terrorist label for them would be a bit too much. Anyway, they too showed that physical violence is well within domains of newly liberated, empowered women.
Note how this second article treats Rote Zora in sympathetic light. I have to mention that this article was originally posted on website for anarchists (no, really!). Forget the anarchists’ website for a while, and maybe part of the reason why the group is cast in such a positive light and their physical violence aspect is downplayed is because the group was composed of women…? Wait, does it means that feminist terrorists have to even fight against sexism in anarchists’ writings?
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
Gender pay gap
Here goes again a periodic (maybe annual) ritual for this gender-feminist organization called AAUW to publish this self-serving report about gender wage-gap, and politically-correct media is more than happy again to become a mouthpiece for AAUW every time this cookie-cutter report is released.
There are a few ways to look at the issue.
1. Society is fair in paying less for people who feel no qualm about comparing apples and oranges and paint them as scientific study.
2. Society is fair in paying less for people who have little analytical capacity as to believe this kind of propaganda-filled, objective-analysis-free report is true.
Well, by now we should already know that this is a propaganda piece routinely put up by feminist organizations and being paraded as truth by liberal media. That is a FACT. We now have to move beyond that. Move beyond simply pointing out that this is a propaganda, etc, etc, and think about what we can do about this feminist-PC media collaboration.....
There are a few ways to look at the issue.
1. Society is fair in paying less for people who feel no qualm about comparing apples and oranges and paint them as scientific study.
2. Society is fair in paying less for people who have little analytical capacity as to believe this kind of propaganda-filled, objective-analysis-free report is true.
Well, by now we should already know that this is a propaganda piece routinely put up by feminist organizations and being paraded as truth by liberal media. That is a FACT. We now have to move beyond that. Move beyond simply pointing out that this is a propaganda, etc, etc, and think about what we can do about this feminist-PC media collaboration.....
Katie Couric is almost out
The end of the "first solo-female anchor of major network's nightly news" seems to be just around a corner....
But some women prefer to still stick their heads in the sand...
Connie Chung says, "Katie should be given as much time as it takes. . . . I'm flabbergasted that anyone would sound some sort of death knell now."
Yes, Connie, right, let Katie Couric keep her job and five years from now we'll be hearing a good news; in addition to attracting more women between age of 18-49 as she does now, Kate has attracted 99.9% of self-identfied gender feminists. Oh, another news, CBS nightly news rate has further dropped to mere 50,000. That's approximately equal to number of women belonging to NOW, AAUW, Feminist Majority, etc....
I could understand the reluctance of people at CBS talking about the issue, espeially if you are men in CBS and being heard complaining about Katie, feminists will have no hesitation in branding them as "enemy of women" or "Neandethaal males who want to keep women in kitchen"...
Despite these overwhelming negative views about Katie's stint at nightly news, my guess is that unfortunately CBS will be stuck with Katie for some time still. You could expect the powerful intervention from women's interest group to keep her on the job just because she is a "woman", and feminist censorors and thought-police would soon be in a full swing to hunt down any negative views on Katie...
But some women prefer to still stick their heads in the sand...
Connie Chung says, "Katie should be given as much time as it takes. . . . I'm flabbergasted that anyone would sound some sort of death knell now."
Yes, Connie, right, let Katie Couric keep her job and five years from now we'll be hearing a good news; in addition to attracting more women between age of 18-49 as she does now, Kate has attracted 99.9% of self-identfied gender feminists. Oh, another news, CBS nightly news rate has further dropped to mere 50,000. That's approximately equal to number of women belonging to NOW, AAUW, Feminist Majority, etc....
I could understand the reluctance of people at CBS talking about the issue, espeially if you are men in CBS and being heard complaining about Katie, feminists will have no hesitation in branding them as "enemy of women" or "Neandethaal males who want to keep women in kitchen"...
Despite these overwhelming negative views about Katie's stint at nightly news, my guess is that unfortunately CBS will be stuck with Katie for some time still. You could expect the powerful intervention from women's interest group to keep her on the job just because she is a "woman", and feminist censorors and thought-police would soon be in a full swing to hunt down any negative views on Katie...
Sunday, April 15, 2007
She is such a geek
National Public Radio from Leonart Lopate show 18 Januray 2007.
“She’s such a geek”
Nothing tells you more clearly that gender feminists have lost their own sense of worth and based women’s worth on how well they could imitate men – than feminists’ rather misguided drive to seek recognition for girl geeks. According to their value-system, anything men do is good and therefore girls have to do it, and not just do it but do it with the exact same intensity and vigor as men do, and exact same proportion of girls should be doing that any given activity as the proportion of men.
It’s ironic that feminists movement that began with one of its founding intention to define women and femininity in a way that is free from the prevailing male-dominated perspective, and who have institutionalized throughout society politically-correct easy vilification of men, ended up imitating whatever men do, without any of its own judgment.
The fact of the matter is that, although many guy geeks tend to be smarter, have higher IQ, better in science and math, and may end up with more high-paying job, (not all of them necessarily though), even male geeks are not, and never have been, subject of admiration or looked up to by other boys. They are rather subject of ridicule or harassment by other guys, particularly jock type.
This is such a common-sensical things to most guys and also to many girls, unless she is male-hating feminists type who spend most of their free time in library reading works of the late Andrea Dworkin or attending V-day (of course not Valentine’s Day but Violence against women day) poetry smash. Well, actually there could one type of geek that only girls can be; a feminist geek, a geek who find ecstasy in putting up posters of Andrea Dworkin or Mary Daly in her room and who collect all literally works by such great feminist writers.
“She’s such a geek”
Nothing tells you more clearly that gender feminists have lost their own sense of worth and based women’s worth on how well they could imitate men – than feminists’ rather misguided drive to seek recognition for girl geeks. According to their value-system, anything men do is good and therefore girls have to do it, and not just do it but do it with the exact same intensity and vigor as men do, and exact same proportion of girls should be doing that any given activity as the proportion of men.
It’s ironic that feminists movement that began with one of its founding intention to define women and femininity in a way that is free from the prevailing male-dominated perspective, and who have institutionalized throughout society politically-correct easy vilification of men, ended up imitating whatever men do, without any of its own judgment.
The fact of the matter is that, although many guy geeks tend to be smarter, have higher IQ, better in science and math, and may end up with more high-paying job, (not all of them necessarily though), even male geeks are not, and never have been, subject of admiration or looked up to by other boys. They are rather subject of ridicule or harassment by other guys, particularly jock type.
This is such a common-sensical things to most guys and also to many girls, unless she is male-hating feminists type who spend most of their free time in library reading works of the late Andrea Dworkin or attending V-day (of course not Valentine’s Day but Violence against women day) poetry smash. Well, actually there could one type of geek that only girls can be; a feminist geek, a geek who find ecstasy in putting up posters of Andrea Dworkin or Mary Daly in her room and who collect all literally works by such great feminist writers.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Women's war (since they are very special, but same and idential yet different and superior to men)
This kind of article confuses me….. What do feminists want? On the one hand, they obviously want special treatment, focus, and privilege for female soldiers. On the other hand, if you treat them too differently from male soldiers, focusing on softer, gentler, feminine side of female soldiers, wouldn’t it actually weaken the case for the full integration of women in military, assigning women (officially and publicly, not in a current, tricky and sneaky way) into combat role and ultimately G.I.Janes?
It looks like women soldiers have found one convenient way to get away from of combat – just claim that you were sexually harassed or attacked. This is the easiest way out from tour of duty and of course, this privilege is for by definition female soldiers only. Not only this claim will provide them easy way out from combat, but also bolster gender-feminists case for creation of more gender-sensitivity programe and eventually overhauling of testosterone-filled alpha male culture in the military.
Furthermore, if you combine women’s one-sided story of current abuse or attack with even more one-sided and obscure “The specter of childhood abuse” it becomes nearly impossible to reject any women’s claim.
In a desperate attempt to establish case for rape where no statute exists to cover, feminists come up with a new version of rape – called “command rape”. If feminists could keep up with this pace of inventing new category of rape or sexual crime by men, sooner or later any sexual (heterosexual of course) acts will be duly covered.
This article is filled with other standard gender-feminists agendas. It tacitly calls for more gender-balanced military when it says “where the sex ratios tended to be more even. Several women credited their commanders for establishing and enforcing a more egalitarian climate, the women tended to feel more at ease among men.
It does not forget to reinforce PC image that vets are batterers when it describe vets in VA hospital as “some of whom were trying to work through sex crimes they committed during military service. Others came home from war and beat their wives”
Even an outright liar and fabricator of victimhood story Ms. Randall was given moral comfort when it says “It was difficult to know what had traumatized Randall: whether she had in fact been in combat or whether she was reacting to some more generalized recollection of powerlessness. If female soldiers who excel in playing gender-victim card can get a pass as seen simply as reacting to “some more generalized recollection of powerlessness”, no one can hold these female deserters accountable.
It looks like women soldiers have found one convenient way to get away from of combat – just claim that you were sexually harassed or attacked. This is the easiest way out from tour of duty and of course, this privilege is for by definition female soldiers only. Not only this claim will provide them easy way out from combat, but also bolster gender-feminists case for creation of more gender-sensitivity programe and eventually overhauling of testosterone-filled alpha male culture in the military.
Furthermore, if you combine women’s one-sided story of current abuse or attack with even more one-sided and obscure “The specter of childhood abuse” it becomes nearly impossible to reject any women’s claim.
In a desperate attempt to establish case for rape where no statute exists to cover, feminists come up with a new version of rape – called “command rape”. If feminists could keep up with this pace of inventing new category of rape or sexual crime by men, sooner or later any sexual (heterosexual of course) acts will be duly covered.
This article is filled with other standard gender-feminists agendas. It tacitly calls for more gender-balanced military when it says “where the sex ratios tended to be more even. Several women credited their commanders for establishing and enforcing a more egalitarian climate, the women tended to feel more at ease among men.
It does not forget to reinforce PC image that vets are batterers when it describe vets in VA hospital as “some of whom were trying to work through sex crimes they committed during military service. Others came home from war and beat their wives”
Even an outright liar and fabricator of victimhood story Ms. Randall was given moral comfort when it says “It was difficult to know what had traumatized Randall: whether she had in fact been in combat or whether she was reacting to some more generalized recollection of powerlessness. If female soldiers who excel in playing gender-victim card can get a pass as seen simply as reacting to “some more generalized recollection of powerlessness”, no one can hold these female deserters accountable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)