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.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
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-à-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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)