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.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Militant feminist film directors
Smell of testosterone-laden militant feminists all over this article…This has all the ingredients of card-carrying militant feminists rage….first the number game (women make up…percent of whatever), then breaking stereotypes (women making love-comedy movies), and feminists paranoia (“It's a fight sometimes to be taken seriously as a director."), search for symbol of phallus (Oscar), and do-you-really-want-that-to-happen? sort of thing(“I wish we could, and I also wish we could make our movies without people saying, `And she's a woman director.”-then why don’t you stop writing this kind of article?).
The biggest reason is that the products of movie directors are out there for everyone to see. Unlike senior positions in large media companies where you can install skirt-wearing type to mollify feminists relentless bashing for a while, movies that directors make, both male and female, are by definition out there for everyone, including critics and regular moviegoers, to see and judge. And unlike senior female execs who do not stand close scrutiny of public and who can dodge the responsibility when companies are not performing (-that’s men’s fault, right?), while taking all credits for good news (women power!!), if women director make movies, and if it is a bad one, it is extremely difficult to dodge the responsibility for making such a crappy movie.
Perhaps the only hope for feminists to see their gender-neutral film industry is to keep churning out this kind of man-hating articles and impose gender quota for a number of directors who could exist, who could take movies in each category (action, love comedy, or traditionally male-oriented or female-oriented) , the number of Oscar or “Oscarette” which could be awarded to directors of each gender. And maybe you also need “awareness-raising” or mind-control programe for moviegoers who still subliminally rejects women directors.
The biggest reason is that the products of movie directors are out there for everyone to see. Unlike senior positions in large media companies where you can install skirt-wearing type to mollify feminists relentless bashing for a while, movies that directors make, both male and female, are by definition out there for everyone, including critics and regular moviegoers, to see and judge. And unlike senior female execs who do not stand close scrutiny of public and who can dodge the responsibility when companies are not performing (-that’s men’s fault, right?), while taking all credits for good news (women power!!), if women director make movies, and if it is a bad one, it is extremely difficult to dodge the responsibility for making such a crappy movie.
Perhaps the only hope for feminists to see their gender-neutral film industry is to keep churning out this kind of man-hating articles and impose gender quota for a number of directors who could exist, who could take movies in each category (action, love comedy, or traditionally male-oriented or female-oriented) , the number of Oscar or “Oscarette” which could be awarded to directors of each gender. And maybe you also need “awareness-raising” or mind-control programe for moviegoers who still subliminally rejects women directors.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Women's progress
This shows the psyche of gender feminists today…
They are so proud that they cannot take care of themselves….and some women can call it a “progress”…Apparently feminsts cannot distinguish between "progress" and "regress"
They are so proud that they cannot take care of themselves….and some women can call it a “progress”…Apparently feminsts cannot distinguish between "progress" and "regress"
Women more stresed by insomnia
Help! Women disproportionately affected by insomnia, …..as by any other illness, symptom, phenomena that affects humankind….
If you bring this non-sense to the extreme end, you will inevitably come to this classic feminists joke: “News! The world to end tomorrow! Women disproportionately affected!”
If you bring this non-sense to the extreme end, you will inevitably come to this classic feminists joke: “News! The world to end tomorrow! Women disproportionately affected!”
Every man is abuser
So is it men’s responsibility to ensure that the women he is paying to have some… is not a poor women trafficked from some remote Romanian countryside, but independent, strong women who chose the professions on their own will? It doesn’t make much sense legally but for seasoned gender feminists like Harriet Harman that is the least of her concern. As long as she can score points as posing as an advocate of trafficked women, her primary objective is achieved. Oh, but no just that, she so easily succeeded in portraying all men, including your fathers, brothers and neighbors as abusers of trafficked women! With no consequences and repercussion whatsoever. Just brand all men as abusers and you walk free.
Just brand all men as abusers, tarnish the image of as many men as possible, obviously, since men are "class enemy" in Harmans' point of view.
Just brand all men as abusers, tarnish the image of as many men as possible, obviously, since men are "class enemy" in Harmans' point of view.
Gender quota in the Vatican City
Event the Vatican City proved that it is not immune from the collective enforcement of “gender quota” in all walks of life but ESPECIALLY in leadership positions in political, economical and social arena.
What are they thinking? Do they really think that it would help address the top priority problem ion their view, namely the “rampant secularization”? Or will it simply serve to accelerate it, by bringing in the policy that is an epitome of secularism, pet policy of radical left wing liberals, namely the gender quota?
It’s bizarre to see a senior Vatican official seemingly reading straight from the radical feminists’ talking point; “give women more space and more importance”. It looks like the radical feminists have already successfully infiltrated into the Vatican City’s ranks.
What are they thinking? Do they really think that it would help address the top priority problem ion their view, namely the “rampant secularization”? Or will it simply serve to accelerate it, by bringing in the policy that is an epitome of secularism, pet policy of radical left wing liberals, namely the gender quota?
It’s bizarre to see a senior Vatican official seemingly reading straight from the radical feminists’ talking point; “give women more space and more importance”. It looks like the radical feminists have already successfully infiltrated into the Vatican City’s ranks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)