Nissan's CEO Carlos Ghosn is a kind of superstar in an auto industry, as he had turned around a failing motor company into one of the most profiting ones, but hee too, as a Wester-educated CEO of this generation, is not immune from being contaminated by political correctness.
In a magazine interview he gave some years ago, he set a goal of having 5% of senior managers women.
Good. But it begs a lot of questions for this legendary guy whose life was portrayed in a popular comic book.
First, if having women as senior managers is so important, why this wasn't the first thing Mr. Ghosn did when he took over the job at Nissan? Instead, he waited until the company's performance turned around and got firmly on track for further growth. What does it mean? To me, it only means that "affirmative-actioning" women into senior positions is a luxury that only a few large companies could afford. You can make a political gesturing like this only when company is in good order.
Second, he seems to exhort other auto companies to do the same,but it strikes as odd, as if getting more women into senior positions is the success for suto company, you would rathr NOT other companies to do the same, since in this way, you can be rest assured that only Nissan will benefit from the supposed benefit derived from the increased female managers, while other companies do not. Why do you want to reveal key for success in trade, and ask that competitors follow suit?
Actually what is going on here is that Mr. Ghosn know that affirmative-actioning more female managers, and setting numerical target and gender quaota, will put his company in disadvantage, as 5% of the managers will be sub-standard ones, who are articifially promoted for their jobs. If its rivals pack their senior manager posts with 100% compitent people who won their posts on merit, guess which one has more compitent manager team as a whole? Nissan, with 95% managers chosen on merit and 5% filled in as quota, or Toyota, with 100% managers chosen on merit and 0% quota people?
In this sense, it might not be "fair", if other companies fo not set up the same 5% gender quota and fill it with sub-standard people. One analogy would be gender mixed sports that are a staple of intramural sports events. In these mixed sports, typically a ballgame like basketball or a volleyball, the number of men and women who can play in one team is strictly set. So, let's say, in volleyball, if the rule says one team should consist of 3 men and 3 women, then that raito has to be observed. You cannot field a team of 4 men and 2 women, because it will give an unfair advantage to such a team that have a higher ratio of men. In sports, obviously women's weaker physical fitness level is a liability, and therefore, to be fair, all teams must have equall number of women, not less. Similarly, in a corporate world, if one company wants to show chivalrish side and adopt a gender quota, in order not to be put in a disadvantegous position in a cut-throat competition in the market, that company will naturaly wish that other companies adopt similar measures.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Natural evolution of women
Those two articles that were published in the Times, are quite far apart in the subject matters they discuss and also chronologically (one of them was published two years ago, the other one just last month), but nonetheless I see some similarity, or a common thread, apart from the fact that both articles discuss women’s issues.
Would a (supposedly) natural evolution of women from submissive, multi-tasking mothers in the hunting ages into independent, strong political, economic and social leaders of the modern world, as happily and self-absorbedly described by power-hungry feminists at the one of the biggest feminists parties (a.k.a. Women's Forum for the Economy and Society) something akin to a theory discussed in the mid-1970’s by sports scientists?
Back in the 70’s people wondered, scientists examined, and feminists revelled at the idea that someday women may overtake men in (extreme) long-distance running (42km marathon or longer) because of the higher fat ratio in their bodies. Now, 30 years later, nobody in right mind seriously believes that. That 70’s extremely simplistic, linear thinking which held that simply because women have more fat than men, women can outrun men in the long distance, has yielded way to more rigorous analysis and studies, which found that that WILL NOT HAPPEN. (Unless we genetically engineer women into men, that is, and I guess there may be many feminists who might like that idea for the sake of no-excuse-allowed gender equality)
Much in the same way, the idea that simply women are better at empathy, communication and multitasking, and since modern world requires more and more of them, women will become natural leaders of the modern world, may be too linear and simplistic. (I am getting used to it, but sometimes still baffled by feminists who say that women and men are absolutely same in every way, and in the next breath say that women are genetically better at communication, empathy, multitasking and son on…) Wouldn’t modern world require more and more of scientific and mechanical knowledge, or more organizational and leadership skill, or more focused, in-depth knowledge on increasingly compartmentalized fields of expertise? Or will empathy such an important factor in getting ahead in the 21 st century career race? Or an ability to chat about boys and fashion and deserts for several hours straight a kind of communication style required in modern world? Is multitasking of feeding baby, washing dishes and cleaning floor same things as overseeing employees, preparing for important presentations, checking company’s balance sheet all at the same time?
Would a (supposedly) natural evolution of women from submissive, multi-tasking mothers in the hunting ages into independent, strong political, economic and social leaders of the modern world, as happily and self-absorbedly described by power-hungry feminists at the one of the biggest feminists parties (a.k.a. Women's Forum for the Economy and Society) something akin to a theory discussed in the mid-1970’s by sports scientists?
Back in the 70’s people wondered, scientists examined, and feminists revelled at the idea that someday women may overtake men in (extreme) long-distance running (42km marathon or longer) because of the higher fat ratio in their bodies. Now, 30 years later, nobody in right mind seriously believes that. That 70’s extremely simplistic, linear thinking which held that simply because women have more fat than men, women can outrun men in the long distance, has yielded way to more rigorous analysis and studies, which found that that WILL NOT HAPPEN. (Unless we genetically engineer women into men, that is, and I guess there may be many feminists who might like that idea for the sake of no-excuse-allowed gender equality)
Much in the same way, the idea that simply women are better at empathy, communication and multitasking, and since modern world requires more and more of them, women will become natural leaders of the modern world, may be too linear and simplistic. (I am getting used to it, but sometimes still baffled by feminists who say that women and men are absolutely same in every way, and in the next breath say that women are genetically better at communication, empathy, multitasking and son on…) Wouldn’t modern world require more and more of scientific and mechanical knowledge, or more organizational and leadership skill, or more focused, in-depth knowledge on increasingly compartmentalized fields of expertise? Or will empathy such an important factor in getting ahead in the 21 st century career race? Or an ability to chat about boys and fashion and deserts for several hours straight a kind of communication style required in modern world? Is multitasking of feeding baby, washing dishes and cleaning floor same things as overseeing employees, preparing for important presentations, checking company’s balance sheet all at the same time?
Sexism in Israel, or so declared by feminists
It's apparent that since the prospect for Livni's taking over premiership is not as good as it originally appeared on paper, another woman writer tries to pre-empt any opposition or negative view of the woman as some sort of a "sexist" behavior. The data she cites, such as only 8 percent of Middle Eastern parliaments are women doesn't have anything to do with whether Israel is still a bastion of Neanderthaal macho men, since the figure include all Middle Eastern countries, including such feminists' paradise as Saudi Arabia and so on. And the fact that Meir is not so popular in Israel also have nothing to do with sexist attitude, it's her policy, as even the writer quotes, that make Israeli people not particularly fond of her. But to this author, any negative view of politicians, if they happened to be female, are automatically evidence of "sexism", end of discussion. Only criticism of male politicians are allowed. And since when calling other politician by a full name Tzipora become a sexist act? And what exactly Livni's advisor is whining about? Do they want to ban all meetings between two males in the country. As if they want to say, "from now on all meetings between more than two males are banned in this country as it is considered a subversive act against feminists utopia.". Don’t be surprised that when Livni failed to form a coalition government, the blame will be on sexism (even Israel had Meir and women heading parliament and supreme court), not on her dovish policies that are unacceptable to many Israelis.
New "wage gap"
People seem to be coming up with more and more new, creative and inventive ways to stigmatize men and corporations, and put the dead-old gender wage gap issue on the news.
It’s interesting to see in this article how Neandelthaal men actually out-earn egalitarian tree-hugging type male in the workplace. Forget all the circular and self-serving reasonings for this wage gap between traditional and egalitarian males that these scientists tried to come up with to cozy up to power-feminist type; may be one of the reason for this is that egalitarian male put brake on themselves - they might be thinking, “if I perform at my full potential, I would be so far ahead of women in the next performance review and that is so against my egalitarian view; I will perform on a par or below my female colleagues so that women will be promoted ahead of me, get higher wage, and I can show with my own example that women can be as good as men, or men can be as bad or even worse than women”.
Or the other reason would simply be that these egalitarian men are simply not as good as traditional men. Even if you control for IQ or education, you cannot control for their ability or performance; it may not simply be that these testosterone-ridden traditional males were aggressive during salary negotiations only, they may have been aggressive in their work also, aggressive in completing the task, achieving goals, etc., and these may have led to higher performance review, hence faster promotion and higher salaries. On women’s side, whether they have traditional or progressive views on gender roles would have little to do with their testosterone level (which is low across the board), and therefore resulted in little difference in wage-gap=performance gap between them.
Why do you have to assume that men (or women) with similar IQ or similar education, background will have identical performance?
It’s interesting to see in this article how Neandelthaal men actually out-earn egalitarian tree-hugging type male in the workplace. Forget all the circular and self-serving reasonings for this wage gap between traditional and egalitarian males that these scientists tried to come up with to cozy up to power-feminist type; may be one of the reason for this is that egalitarian male put brake on themselves - they might be thinking, “if I perform at my full potential, I would be so far ahead of women in the next performance review and that is so against my egalitarian view; I will perform on a par or below my female colleagues so that women will be promoted ahead of me, get higher wage, and I can show with my own example that women can be as good as men, or men can be as bad or even worse than women”.
Or the other reason would simply be that these egalitarian men are simply not as good as traditional men. Even if you control for IQ or education, you cannot control for their ability or performance; it may not simply be that these testosterone-ridden traditional males were aggressive during salary negotiations only, they may have been aggressive in their work also, aggressive in completing the task, achieving goals, etc., and these may have led to higher performance review, hence faster promotion and higher salaries. On women’s side, whether they have traditional or progressive views on gender roles would have little to do with their testosterone level (which is low across the board), and therefore resulted in little difference in wage-gap=performance gap between them.
Why do you have to assume that men (or women) with similar IQ or similar education, background will have identical performance?
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Women bosses cause mor stress - and society needs to change!?
I’m sure there must have been a tremendous pressure (and temptation) to manipulate this experiments outcome to fit the current PC agenda, such as
-women feel much better and empowered and motivated and encouraged under female boss;
-women feel threatened and harassed under male boss (and actually were in many cases);
-men started to sexually harass female boss;
-men started to conspire with male boss on how best to preserve male privilidge, etc.
I give kudos for the researchers for at least not giving into those societal pressure or temptations.
But still it seems that they couldn’t resist the inner liberal-progressive urge to somehow attribute the results to discrimination again.
So according to them, women feel more stress under female boss than male boss, because-
Stereotype hold women to be more caring and women workers are surprised and stressed to find out that their female bosses are not like their stereotype-image of caring women and instead conforming to male archetype, or that female bosses themselves are under stress working in male-dominated business world and that stress trick down to female subordinates.
Good work. Very good imagination - they can be a card-carrying feminists from today. Only one explanation provided. No call to increase more male bosses who seem to cause less stress for both female and male workers, but only some pondering on how to change society so that these hated stress-causing female bosses could be more acceptable to both male and female workers. I’m sure if the results have been reverese, i.e. male bosses are found out to be more stress-causing for workers, feminists would be ecstatic (to the point of almost reaching orgasm!) and triumphant that this is the final and indisputable evidence why there should be less male bosses and more female bosses.
-women feel much better and empowered and motivated and encouraged under female boss;
-women feel threatened and harassed under male boss (and actually were in many cases);
-men started to sexually harass female boss;
-men started to conspire with male boss on how best to preserve male privilidge, etc.
I give kudos for the researchers for at least not giving into those societal pressure or temptations.
But still it seems that they couldn’t resist the inner liberal-progressive urge to somehow attribute the results to discrimination again.
So according to them, women feel more stress under female boss than male boss, because-
Stereotype hold women to be more caring and women workers are surprised and stressed to find out that their female bosses are not like their stereotype-image of caring women and instead conforming to male archetype, or that female bosses themselves are under stress working in male-dominated business world and that stress trick down to female subordinates.
Good work. Very good imagination - they can be a card-carrying feminists from today. Only one explanation provided. No call to increase more male bosses who seem to cause less stress for both female and male workers, but only some pondering on how to change society so that these hated stress-causing female bosses could be more acceptable to both male and female workers. I’m sure if the results have been reverese, i.e. male bosses are found out to be more stress-causing for workers, feminists would be ecstatic (to the point of almost reaching orgasm!) and triumphant that this is the final and indisputable evidence why there should be less male bosses and more female bosses.
CEO's pay-gap
I don't how much the so-called "equality" or pay-equity at CEO's level would matter to most of the people. It is in any way an astronimical figures for most of the people which does not have much real meaning, whether women earn 10 million or men earn 20 million. It is so detached from the life of ordinary people and trying to portray this issue as such a huge gender discrimination issue is so ridiculous and makes a mockery of the entire discrimination issue. For these CEOs it is a differnce between one being able to buy 5 vacation houses around the world or only 2 vacations houses, and whether one can own 10 Rolce Royse or only 2 Ferraris - whao, life is so unfair!!!
The only issue here seems to be the old feminist's vindictiveness against men in general. When you care more about super-rich female CEO (most of whom are affirmative-actioned in the first place) earning several millions less (several millions!!) than male counterparts, than, say, thousands of homeless, jobless people on the streets (most of whom are men), you know that only hatred against men motivated this female author.
You can see that same-old same-old feminists lines being repeated here; the much-recycled Summers’ comment (he was talking about science, no!?), the so-called pay gap (21 cent less per dollar, which begs the questions of why companies do not stop hiring such expensive men to cut costs) very shaky and unscientific comparison of salaries without any regard to the size of company, profits, or title, citing one study done by – of course – women to back up a shaky claim, reference to “stereotypes” and exhorting readers (women only) to talk about successful women among themselves so that they can feel better about themselves - no talk about the ditched female CEOs except in the context of blaming male-dominated corporate society, because women CEO deserves only success, failure or not meeting targets or getting profits – is presumably a carefully plotted and disguised form of discrimination against women. She even tries to introduce a new criteria for gender discrimination – low expectation for women. If women fall under pressure for too much expectation- would that also be a “discrimination”?
It is easy to understand that the higher the position goes, the bigger the pay differences could become. It does not make much difference to companies’ overall earning or profits whether an entry level clerk or sales assistants, one of hundreds or even of thousands, do a terrific job or a mediocre job. But it would do make a difference if one CEO or one senior VP makes a big mistake, or make a very wise prescient decision. The pay will reflect that.
It will also be more difficult to assess whether the pay is fair or appropriate or not at more senior level than lower, entry level positions. Lower entry level positions’ jobs are usually more standardized, routine and could be done by any other equally qualified persons. It is much less so at the senior level where persons’ vision, leadership, strategic decisions influence the entire fate of the company.
A risk means a “risk” only when it entails probability for both success and failure. Feminists seems to want a societal guarantee for success for any senior female executives in their quest for higher career and risk-taking jobs, and flabbergasted when that “success” did not come in handy, and start a witch-hunt for those who are responsible for not delivering “success” to these female executives, such as Ms. Cruz or Ms Callan. In many cases, culprits are sexist corporate culture, media or, male colleagues - usual scapegoats who could never escape the eternal sin of being born a male. In other words, in the views of people like Ms. Dobrzynski, women getting CEO positions are “fair” but women not succeeding in their positions are “unfair”. Perhaps a good place to start is to ditch this kind of childish wishful thinking and confront the stern reality of business world where success, results are rewarded and whining are not.
The only issue here seems to be the old feminist's vindictiveness against men in general. When you care more about super-rich female CEO (most of whom are affirmative-actioned in the first place) earning several millions less (several millions!!) than male counterparts, than, say, thousands of homeless, jobless people on the streets (most of whom are men), you know that only hatred against men motivated this female author.
You can see that same-old same-old feminists lines being repeated here; the much-recycled Summers’ comment (he was talking about science, no!?), the so-called pay gap (21 cent less per dollar, which begs the questions of why companies do not stop hiring such expensive men to cut costs) very shaky and unscientific comparison of salaries without any regard to the size of company, profits, or title, citing one study done by – of course – women to back up a shaky claim, reference to “stereotypes” and exhorting readers (women only) to talk about successful women among themselves so that they can feel better about themselves - no talk about the ditched female CEOs except in the context of blaming male-dominated corporate society, because women CEO deserves only success, failure or not meeting targets or getting profits – is presumably a carefully plotted and disguised form of discrimination against women. She even tries to introduce a new criteria for gender discrimination – low expectation for women. If women fall under pressure for too much expectation- would that also be a “discrimination”?
It is easy to understand that the higher the position goes, the bigger the pay differences could become. It does not make much difference to companies’ overall earning or profits whether an entry level clerk or sales assistants, one of hundreds or even of thousands, do a terrific job or a mediocre job. But it would do make a difference if one CEO or one senior VP makes a big mistake, or make a very wise prescient decision. The pay will reflect that.
It will also be more difficult to assess whether the pay is fair or appropriate or not at more senior level than lower, entry level positions. Lower entry level positions’ jobs are usually more standardized, routine and could be done by any other equally qualified persons. It is much less so at the senior level where persons’ vision, leadership, strategic decisions influence the entire fate of the company.
A risk means a “risk” only when it entails probability for both success and failure. Feminists seems to want a societal guarantee for success for any senior female executives in their quest for higher career and risk-taking jobs, and flabbergasted when that “success” did not come in handy, and start a witch-hunt for those who are responsible for not delivering “success” to these female executives, such as Ms. Cruz or Ms Callan. In many cases, culprits are sexist corporate culture, media or, male colleagues - usual scapegoats who could never escape the eternal sin of being born a male. In other words, in the views of people like Ms. Dobrzynski, women getting CEO positions are “fair” but women not succeeding in their positions are “unfair”. Perhaps a good place to start is to ditch this kind of childish wishful thinking and confront the stern reality of business world where success, results are rewarded and whining are not.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Bulgaraia's women's ice hockey
Do these ladies know how to skate? Maybe not! Maybe they could barely stand up with skate shoes! That's the only way a team could possibly lose 82-0. That's more than 1 goal per minute, for the entire 60 minutes of play! I think even without any opponent at all standing in between your team and the goal, and one team playing by themselves, it may not be so easy to score that quickly and frequently. Imagine, place a puck in the center, play, shoot, goal!!, skate to the goal to pick up the puck, place in the center, play, shoot......!! keep doing this for 82 times!! it's a form of torture already!
Women's ice hockey should not be in the Olympics. With only 37 registered (female) players in the country and the country could still send a "national team" to the Olympic qualifiers. It's a joke!!
This simply shows the shallowness of women's sports, not juct ice hockey but sports in general, but because of some political pressure from FEMINISTS, we are supposed to treat these gals as if they are serious "athletes" and representing a nation. This is a huge insult to other serious male athletes who have played sports for years, endured hard training, and go through extremely competitive games to reach Olympics.
I guess that most of these Bulgarian gals must have just started ice hockey recently, because there were some incentive plan or pressure or laws to increase women's sports/teamsplayers in the country or because the gals thought it was an easy way to be on a "national team" and compete for the Olympics. If you are born a male in Bulgaria and play football, there is probably one in million chances that you would make it to the national team, but if you are a female and chose sport wisely, your chance of being in a "national team" and enjoy all the entitlements, fame, glory that come with it, is not just great, but it is automatically assured. Only 37 registered female players in the country.
Women's ice hockey should not be in the Olympics. With only 37 registered (female) players in the country and the country could still send a "national team" to the Olympic qualifiers. It's a joke!!
This simply shows the shallowness of women's sports, not juct ice hockey but sports in general, but because of some political pressure from FEMINISTS, we are supposed to treat these gals as if they are serious "athletes" and representing a nation. This is a huge insult to other serious male athletes who have played sports for years, endured hard training, and go through extremely competitive games to reach Olympics.
I guess that most of these Bulgarian gals must have just started ice hockey recently, because there were some incentive plan or pressure or laws to increase women's sports/teamsplayers in the country or because the gals thought it was an easy way to be on a "national team" and compete for the Olympics. If you are born a male in Bulgaria and play football, there is probably one in million chances that you would make it to the national team, but if you are a female and chose sport wisely, your chance of being in a "national team" and enjoy all the entitlements, fame, glory that come with it, is not just great, but it is automatically assured. Only 37 registered female players in the country.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Some thoughts on sports
The Beijing summer Olympic Games are over, and I will jot down some thoughts on sports and men and women's physical diffferences.
1. Bolt is great. The guy is great. Not just because he won three gold medals in track and fields, all in world records, but because he is now certified the fastest homo sapiense ever. Men's 100 meters sprint is special. It is different. Although the gold won by Bolt is same "one" gold medal as was won by, say, women's rifle, or whatever, but here I have to be blunt and discriminating. Men's 100 meters sprint is ranks one of the highest in the importance in all Olympic sports. Women's 100 meters sprint is just as great, you say feminists? NO!!! Because women's 100 meters ONLY decide who is the fastest WOMAN. The last qualifier "WOMAN" is extremely important here because otherwise boys who won in American state track and field championship may want to compete in the race just to get a gold medal worth ??? dollars and appear on international TV. For example, a boy who won the Oklahoma State high school track meet in May 2008 had 10.62' record. (why Oklahoma, just random pick!!)That 'll easily give him gold in the Beijing's women's 100 meters and the world record as well, if you discount the only one outlier record which is such a suspect for doping (maybe women faces less scrutiny than male athlete) No, that boy won't be allowed to compete, the race is resreved for 'lady" only, where records like 10.78" can get you a gold. that will barely give bronze in the above-mentioned oklahoma State track meet, boy division. Probably that 10.62 boy could get some scholarhsip for university, if lucky, but that's it.
1. Bolt is great. The guy is great. Not just because he won three gold medals in track and fields, all in world records, but because he is now certified the fastest homo sapiense ever. Men's 100 meters sprint is special. It is different. Although the gold won by Bolt is same "one" gold medal as was won by, say, women's rifle, or whatever, but here I have to be blunt and discriminating. Men's 100 meters sprint is ranks one of the highest in the importance in all Olympic sports. Women's 100 meters sprint is just as great, you say feminists? NO!!! Because women's 100 meters ONLY decide who is the fastest WOMAN. The last qualifier "WOMAN" is extremely important here because otherwise boys who won in American state track and field championship may want to compete in the race just to get a gold medal worth ??? dollars and appear on international TV. For example, a boy who won the Oklahoma State high school track meet in May 2008 had 10.62' record. (why Oklahoma, just random pick!!)That 'll easily give him gold in the Beijing's women's 100 meters and the world record as well, if you discount the only one outlier record which is such a suspect for doping (maybe women faces less scrutiny than male athlete) No, that boy won't be allowed to compete, the race is resreved for 'lady" only, where records like 10.78" can get you a gold. that will barely give bronze in the above-mentioned oklahoma State track meet, boy division. Probably that 10.62 boy could get some scholarhsip for university, if lucky, but that's it.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Fussy feminists...
Feminists are just so good at inventing a new kind of "ceiling" one after another; originally there was a glass ceiling, and then "this" ceiling, then "that" ceiling and now a "mirror" ceiling...
And it is so hard to please feminists!! I mean there are so many variations of feminists that there are always one or two tiny factions of them left not 100% satisfied and who would start hauling "sexism" charges randomly.
I think at least recent (over) exposure of Palin in media must have satisfied feminsts who are; 1) hell-bent on counting the number of times women appear in the news, or more preceisly, a number of times women in leadership roles are portrayed positively by the media, and 2) whose only hobby in life is beancounting, countng the number of men and women in senior political positions. But Gosh there are more complicated, or spophisticated, die-hard feminists like Judith who are not happy until they see "their" kind of woman (meaning ultra-liberal) assuming the Office of the U.S. President (not number two and deputy to a man) while all the media (from liberal to conservative to major national media to local media to everything else) paint the woman in completely positive tone without the slightest hint of sexism (almost impossible feat given the astronomically high threshold for judging sexism).
Now look at Palin. Yes she is a WOMAN. She passed the first and the most important litmus test, but don't forget that there are hundreds of other litmus tests that the woman must pass... and let's see how she fares... She is conservative! a Republican! married! with kids! owns a gun! and cheered by men, especialy conservative, Republican, gun-toting men! for the reason JUDITH DISAPPROVES!!!
Palin failed all tests other than the first one and no wonder Judith is going bananas...
If Judith or feminists don’t like Palin to be on a Republican ticket, then I’m all for replacing her with a man, any man, but feminists out there don’t whine about Republican not giving woman a fair chance, blah, blah blah,
And it is so hard to please feminists!! I mean there are so many variations of feminists that there are always one or two tiny factions of them left not 100% satisfied and who would start hauling "sexism" charges randomly.
I think at least recent (over) exposure of Palin in media must have satisfied feminsts who are; 1) hell-bent on counting the number of times women appear in the news, or more preceisly, a number of times women in leadership roles are portrayed positively by the media, and 2) whose only hobby in life is beancounting, countng the number of men and women in senior political positions. But Gosh there are more complicated, or spophisticated, die-hard feminists like Judith who are not happy until they see "their" kind of woman (meaning ultra-liberal) assuming the Office of the U.S. President (not number two and deputy to a man) while all the media (from liberal to conservative to major national media to local media to everything else) paint the woman in completely positive tone without the slightest hint of sexism (almost impossible feat given the astronomically high threshold for judging sexism).
Now look at Palin. Yes she is a WOMAN. She passed the first and the most important litmus test, but don't forget that there are hundreds of other litmus tests that the woman must pass... and let's see how she fares... She is conservative! a Republican! married! with kids! owns a gun! and cheered by men, especialy conservative, Republican, gun-toting men! for the reason JUDITH DISAPPROVES!!!
Palin failed all tests other than the first one and no wonder Judith is going bananas...
If Judith or feminists don’t like Palin to be on a Republican ticket, then I’m all for replacing her with a man, any man, but feminists out there don’t whine about Republican not giving woman a fair chance, blah, blah blah,
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
One --- away from feminists' ultimate dream
Now it is interesting to see that it is the Republicans who are playing the identity politics - by hiring a person who does not much appeal other than the fact that the McCain's running mate is SHE -A WOMAN!!!. I thought this kind of cheap political gimmick belonged only to the Democrats, but apparently I was wrong.
Does he ever thought how old he is? 72!!?? He might be a tough guy who loved brawls and survived torture by the North Vietnamese, but it is a kind of age when anything could happen without moment's notice. There is also a rumor that he might not seek the second term if elecetd because of his age. And he stil chooses this running mate at the last moment! Does he want to leave the United States with the least experienced vice-president(ial candidate) after 4 years or even less (could be one month, who knows, illness can strike senileperson anytime) of his presidency? How IRRESPONSIBLE is that!! All he could think abut was getting some votes from disgruntled old white women type who are irate over Hilary's defeat, so that those extra votes would put him over Obama at the general election. How near-sighted and irreponsible.
But it mut be real political bonanza for the old feminist-type. They wouldn't have imagined that McCain, the "man of integrity", would pander to political correctness. But it doesn't matter. If McCain get elected, they at least got a "consolation prize", and they are still only a "hearbeat away", or if I were to put it, one hearstroke away, one caridac arrest away, or one whatever-conditions that could strike senile men in their 70's away from the feminists' ultimate dream.
Does he ever thought how old he is? 72!!?? He might be a tough guy who loved brawls and survived torture by the North Vietnamese, but it is a kind of age when anything could happen without moment's notice. There is also a rumor that he might not seek the second term if elecetd because of his age. And he stil chooses this running mate at the last moment! Does he want to leave the United States with the least experienced vice-president(ial candidate) after 4 years or even less (could be one month, who knows, illness can strike senileperson anytime) of his presidency? How IRRESPONSIBLE is that!! All he could think abut was getting some votes from disgruntled old white women type who are irate over Hilary's defeat, so that those extra votes would put him over Obama at the general election. How near-sighted and irreponsible.
But it mut be real political bonanza for the old feminist-type. They wouldn't have imagined that McCain, the "man of integrity", would pander to political correctness. But it doesn't matter. If McCain get elected, they at least got a "consolation prize", and they are still only a "hearbeat away", or if I were to put it, one hearstroke away, one caridac arrest away, or one whatever-conditions that could strike senile men in their 70's away from the feminists' ultimate dream.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Feminist evangelist on counter-offence against science
Only a feminist, who has such a strong conviction that she occupies a moral high ground, and so self-assured of one's correctness (or political-correctness) on certain moral issues, can point to a growing number of people in solid science and biology backgrounds who are uncovering biological differences between men's and women's brains, and call them "evangelists". In a snobbish, high-brow world where feminists typically resides and where they howl loudest, the label "evangelists" or any other names associated with religion (Christian, that is) carries a sense of backwardness, people who try to promote creationist view which is scientifically bankrupt.
This feminist must have somehow thought that by labeling people whom she dislikes with the name "evangelist", she could discredit these people for trying to inbue unscientific, biblical fiction. Nice work. Except that most people could easily see that, it is this desperate feminist, who is trying to sell a now largely discredited ideology of men-and-women-are-exatly-the-same-and-all-the-differences-are-socially-constructed'" which came straight out of feminists textbook. WHO IS EVANGELIST HERE?
If people want to talk about variance, that's fine-let's look at the other, more unfortunate end of the "variance", by that I mean the lower end of the long spectrum of variance. Most people know (though hard-line feminists won't admit it or frantically try to change the subject) that most of the highschool dropouts, beggars on streets, prison population are male. Why people like Amanda want to spend so much energy and time and space on Slate trying to push women, who have ample opportunities to do everything else in the world, into science, or jettison second-rate female scientists into top-rudder, ahead of all male scientists who presumably (according to people who inhabit the Amanda-ville) reached their position only as a result of male privilege, than to reach out to those really poor (mostly) men who have to sleep on the streets or beg for changes?
In my view, it is one of the ultimate displays of man-hating to purposefully ignore those plights of men in the other extreme end of "variance" and instead try to stuff precious space of Slate with feminist propaganda.
Ms. Amanda shows by her own example that women are not good at scientific reasoning and are very emotional creature. If you have scientific mind, you should be very much interested in DIFFERENCES, however small, and explore the reasons why. Instead what she is doing is to deny - or half-deny, and compensate with unrelated stuff (women can be better with training, etc.).
Ms. Amanda also shows by her own example that women have problem with logical reasoning. She keep downplaying a few examples she chose to choose, (and even those she cannot completely refute), then cites even fewer number of arguments she think would buttress her argument. However those few examples seem to be outlier, not being replicated, and be easily refuted. We really need a special math and logic program for women.
This feminist must have somehow thought that by labeling people whom she dislikes with the name "evangelist", she could discredit these people for trying to inbue unscientific, biblical fiction. Nice work. Except that most people could easily see that, it is this desperate feminist, who is trying to sell a now largely discredited ideology of men-and-women-are-exatly-the-same-and-all-the-differences-are-socially-constructed'" which came straight out of feminists textbook. WHO IS EVANGELIST HERE?
If people want to talk about variance, that's fine-let's look at the other, more unfortunate end of the "variance", by that I mean the lower end of the long spectrum of variance. Most people know (though hard-line feminists won't admit it or frantically try to change the subject) that most of the highschool dropouts, beggars on streets, prison population are male. Why people like Amanda want to spend so much energy and time and space on Slate trying to push women, who have ample opportunities to do everything else in the world, into science, or jettison second-rate female scientists into top-rudder, ahead of all male scientists who presumably (according to people who inhabit the Amanda-ville) reached their position only as a result of male privilege, than to reach out to those really poor (mostly) men who have to sleep on the streets or beg for changes?
In my view, it is one of the ultimate displays of man-hating to purposefully ignore those plights of men in the other extreme end of "variance" and instead try to stuff precious space of Slate with feminist propaganda.
Ms. Amanda shows by her own example that women are not good at scientific reasoning and are very emotional creature. If you have scientific mind, you should be very much interested in DIFFERENCES, however small, and explore the reasons why. Instead what she is doing is to deny - or half-deny, and compensate with unrelated stuff (women can be better with training, etc.).
Ms. Amanda also shows by her own example that women have problem with logical reasoning. She keep downplaying a few examples she chose to choose, (and even those she cannot completely refute), then cites even fewer number of arguments she think would buttress her argument. However those few examples seem to be outlier, not being replicated, and be easily refuted. We really need a special math and logic program for women.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Phoenix Country Club, the "new" Augusta national club
So Hillary has lost and nobody is dancing to the tunes of “Augusta national club is the hotbed of patriarchal conspirarcy” anymore, feminists at the NYT needed some new target to prey on and continue their feminists’ media campaign for creating the ‘women under siege” illusion. And there it is, Phoenix Country Club. Never mind that many public buildings and facilities seem to set up to favor women over men and therefore discriminates against men (New York recently passed a law stating that all new buildings need to install at least 2 public bathrooms for women for every one bathroom for male), one savvy female reporter find out that one room out of a many rooms that a private club in Phoenix, Arizona has, is for men-only. From that moment, her indomitable quest to portray it as the of center of power relations in all of Arizona, failure of becoming a member or of partaking in the ritual grilling in that particular room would be such a career-ending blow for all aspiring Arizonians (do they call that?), male and female alike. (but the governor and at least one US senator, who just happens to be the Republican presumptive nominee and possibly be the next US President, are not even members of the club) She does not forget to insinuate how that policy hinders women’s progress in the states of Arizona (wait, did the female reporter just mentioned that the states has female governor, secretary of state, chief justice, etc…..?) When the world and society are changing so rapidly, it is at least a bit comforting to know that at least there is one thing that remains the same, one media outlet that churn same propaganda piece in the same line like a broken record.
Nice Spot to Eat After Golf, but Women Are Barred
Nice Spot to Eat After Golf, but Women Are Barred
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Best article on feminists' whining on Hllary's defeat
Wow. This is one of the best articles written by anyone in the media about the never-ending feminists whining. I am somehow relieved to learn that people could still voice their criticims of women and feminism -I thought it was criminalized years ago-oh that was in Sweden, feminists' paradise? Or was it in Spain which introduced law forcing men to do housework and the only political news from the country is that pregnant young woman becoming the defence minister, just for the diversity's sake? The next prime minister has to do even more acrobatic appointment, like appointing three-legged half-human, half-sheep as foreign minister to further elevate the country's record on "diversity"...Sorry, back to the point, Hitchenson rules!!!
NOW's reaction to the death of a reporter
This from NOW's press release: "Our condolescences goes out for Tim Russert's family, but we never forget that he was the one who effectively put an end to Hillary Clinton's history-making run for the Presidency, with his pronouncement on TV that Hillary's chance is essntialy zero, on the night of her "big" win in Indiana and a "close" showing in North Carolina. Now the number one priority for NBC is to fill his position with a woman, any woman, so that "she" can be a role model for millions and millions of women and young girls. It is a high time to break the monoploy of an anchor position of an influential TV program by white males.
Consolation prize for feminists
Katie, just like Hillary, is obviously trying to capitalize on the so-called sexism charges to her salvage her standing and her show which is stuck at the bottom. It seems now that drumming up the charges of sexsim is her only hope. Hopefully there is enough dummy people to believe it.
Feminists in media are just plain furious at Hillary’s loss, and since their worldview direct them to blame every misfortune and wished did not come true on men, Hillary’s loss could not be attributed to her bad campaigning or anything else, but only to the sexism in media and society.
Now, as the second consolation prize of prospect for veep spot for Hillary is also fading away, feminists are trying to drum up the charges of sexism and start national dialogue on sexism, as their third consolation prize. Now we know that it is not only Hillary, but the entire feminists in media, who are zombies.
Feminists in media are just plain furious at Hillary’s loss, and since their worldview direct them to blame every misfortune and wished did not come true on men, Hillary’s loss could not be attributed to her bad campaigning or anything else, but only to the sexism in media and society.
Now, as the second consolation prize of prospect for veep spot for Hillary is also fading away, feminists are trying to drum up the charges of sexism and start national dialogue on sexism, as their third consolation prize. Now we know that it is not only Hillary, but the entire feminists in media, who are zombies.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Here goes Hirshman again
Yet another cookie-cutter article from Linda Hirshman. This is an article in which old white feminist come to rescue another old white feminist. It;'s quite symbolic and the most salient feature of the Hillary campaign. Of course to most feminist, any negative description or portrayal of women is a product of patriarchy.
Given this display of old-fahioned, man-hating feminism on full-frontal display everywhere, among Hillary's surrogates (mostly old white women), among her staffs(ditto), among her supporters(ditto), the question now is why blue-class white men are voting for her. That is the biggest mystery in this race. They should realize what die-hard feminists like Hillary, who so far did not ostensibly display that side of her during this campaign - as it ironically turned out that it was "white male" votes that count (much to the chigrin of feminists like Hirshman)-, really think of males. When is the last time she showed concern for men? When did she adressed issues specific to men? Equal pay? Health care reform? "The highest glass ceiling" non-sense? I don't think so. All are based on old, tired feminist dogma that put men as a culprit of all evils in the world. Neanderthall males fearful of modern, ambitious, capable women disriminates against them in wages in an effort to keep them as child-bearing machine. that's how Hirshman and Hillary think of men.
In her feminist utopia, men have no place to live or breathe except as servants of emanicipated femalekind or punching bags.
Given this display of old-fahioned, man-hating feminism on full-frontal display everywhere, among Hillary's surrogates (mostly old white women), among her staffs(ditto), among her supporters(ditto), the question now is why blue-class white men are voting for her. That is the biggest mystery in this race. They should realize what die-hard feminists like Hillary, who so far did not ostensibly display that side of her during this campaign - as it ironically turned out that it was "white male" votes that count (much to the chigrin of feminists like Hirshman)-, really think of males. When is the last time she showed concern for men? When did she adressed issues specific to men? Equal pay? Health care reform? "The highest glass ceiling" non-sense? I don't think so. All are based on old, tired feminist dogma that put men as a culprit of all evils in the world. Neanderthall males fearful of modern, ambitious, capable women disriminates against them in wages in an effort to keep them as child-bearing machine. that's how Hirshman and Hillary think of men.
In her feminist utopia, men have no place to live or breathe except as servants of emanicipated femalekind or punching bags.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Obama boys' "sexism"
On the eve of big Pennsylvania primary, when it is becoming increasingly evident to everyone, including even the most ardent Hillary supporters, that Hillary’s (so-called) history-making run for President is coming to a close, younger generation of women are resorting to tactics now that have been preferred by their older sisters.
Those younger generation of women/feminists' tactics-as told by arche-type of older generation of feminist linda Hirshman is:
-Blame Obama-boys for sexism. It doesn’t matter whether you can point out evidence or not; as usual, women’s “gut” feeling, plus a simple fact that these Obama boys are not voting for a woman, is unmistakable sign of sexism. I thought women are better at describing their feelings, with all their superiority in language and literatures etc., but all these women can do is to say that they have this sort of “gut feeling” that sexism is alive and well, and this is the reason Hillary’s candidacy is now in the tank. And she keep repeating stories of those young women who have never heard their male colleagues or friends, families say anything explicitly "sexist", even by today's very low threshold for judging everything "sexist", all of them knew there's something about those men that tell them that they are closet "sexist" and try to make readers into believing that the sheer number of those "gut feeling", their collective weight, is somehow genuinely the evidence of "sexism". it shows that women are not good t logical thinking or have a sound reasoning; "gut feeling" will become a "fact" if it comes in large numbers; at some point there is no more a need for evidence or proof.
The articles (Hirshman's and the two articles mentioned in her article) also show that women, both old and young, are not accustomed to, or not mature enough, to distinguish between criticism and their imagined attacks by males based on (of course) sexism (what else?). They are simply not used to be on the receiving end of criticism or harsh words. they think that simply by throwing all-utility killer questions, "Is she being criticized because she is a woman?"(version 1), or "If she was a man, would they riticize in the same way?"(version 2), somehow men would be too scared to continue question/criticize women. It is a good, battle-tested tactic; nobody would be able to answer such purely hypothetical question definitively, and simply by not being able to answer definitively, the doubts were somehow substantiated; yes, "it is because she is a woman" that she is being criticized. The questions throw men off balance. The questions, once uttered, magically stops men from further questioning, women will have breathing space and time to recover.
In the lady-first western culture, women get used to having men do everything for them, give credit for them, and on top of that, take all the blames for them. before daydreaming that there will be vagina warriors in the oval office, femnists should first get used to women being question and criticized, becuase that's what's supposed to happen to people in power. The questioning of people in power is sfunction of healthy democracy. Feminists conveninently forget this very basic principel of democracy and think that all positions of power are to be offered to women just becuase they are women, and no question asked, and with no accompanying responsibilities. I think they will need 40 or 50 more Hillary-like politicians getting pummeled and scrutinized,and be mentall prepared for harsh but legitimate criticism.
The sad thing that become apparent from these three articles is that, with all the options and opportunities that were made available to them, women still decide which candidate to vote for on the basis for who their mothers vote for,(and will vote for opposing candidate as a way of saying "I hate yoou mommmeeee!!") and what their “gut feeling” tells them about the dark interior motive behind males voting pattern so that they can vote for the opposing candidate (again). And politicians are supposed to woo these voters. And media loves to portray women having decidedly big say in election, as a large voting bloc, swing voters, as a good, progressive thing.
The problem is not that consciously or unconscious sexism by Obama-boysm, as the author claims. The real problem is the mentality (unconscious) among those young women who simply can’t live with the fact that a woman politician could come with so much dirty political baggage. After all, they were taught all their lives in schools (especially in universities) that women are fair creatures, source of all goodness in the world while all the evil in the world are brought on by men, and that behind the sins of all the women who do bad things, there are men or male dominate society at large who caused women to do such bad things. They cannot stomach the fact that women politicians could be incompetent, or liar, or simply power-mongers. if they (are taught to) belive in the unbonded possibility of women, why are they so reluctant to belive in the women's possibility to be a horrible public figures?
Those younger generation of women/feminists' tactics-as told by arche-type of older generation of feminist linda Hirshman is:
-Blame Obama-boys for sexism. It doesn’t matter whether you can point out evidence or not; as usual, women’s “gut” feeling, plus a simple fact that these Obama boys are not voting for a woman, is unmistakable sign of sexism. I thought women are better at describing their feelings, with all their superiority in language and literatures etc., but all these women can do is to say that they have this sort of “gut feeling” that sexism is alive and well, and this is the reason Hillary’s candidacy is now in the tank. And she keep repeating stories of those young women who have never heard their male colleagues or friends, families say anything explicitly "sexist", even by today's very low threshold for judging everything "sexist", all of them knew there's something about those men that tell them that they are closet "sexist" and try to make readers into believing that the sheer number of those "gut feeling", their collective weight, is somehow genuinely the evidence of "sexism". it shows that women are not good t logical thinking or have a sound reasoning; "gut feeling" will become a "fact" if it comes in large numbers; at some point there is no more a need for evidence or proof.
The articles (Hirshman's and the two articles mentioned in her article) also show that women, both old and young, are not accustomed to, or not mature enough, to distinguish between criticism and their imagined attacks by males based on (of course) sexism (what else?). They are simply not used to be on the receiving end of criticism or harsh words. they think that simply by throwing all-utility killer questions, "Is she being criticized because she is a woman?"(version 1), or "If she was a man, would they riticize in the same way?"(version 2), somehow men would be too scared to continue question/criticize women. It is a good, battle-tested tactic; nobody would be able to answer such purely hypothetical question definitively, and simply by not being able to answer definitively, the doubts were somehow substantiated; yes, "it is because she is a woman" that she is being criticized. The questions throw men off balance. The questions, once uttered, magically stops men from further questioning, women will have breathing space and time to recover.
In the lady-first western culture, women get used to having men do everything for them, give credit for them, and on top of that, take all the blames for them. before daydreaming that there will be vagina warriors in the oval office, femnists should first get used to women being question and criticized, becuase that's what's supposed to happen to people in power. The questioning of people in power is sfunction of healthy democracy. Feminists conveninently forget this very basic principel of democracy and think that all positions of power are to be offered to women just becuase they are women, and no question asked, and with no accompanying responsibilities. I think they will need 40 or 50 more Hillary-like politicians getting pummeled and scrutinized,and be mentall prepared for harsh but legitimate criticism.
The sad thing that become apparent from these three articles is that, with all the options and opportunities that were made available to them, women still decide which candidate to vote for on the basis for who their mothers vote for,(and will vote for opposing candidate as a way of saying "I hate yoou mommmeeee!!") and what their “gut feeling” tells them about the dark interior motive behind males voting pattern so that they can vote for the opposing candidate (again). And politicians are supposed to woo these voters. And media loves to portray women having decidedly big say in election, as a large voting bloc, swing voters, as a good, progressive thing.
The problem is not that consciously or unconscious sexism by Obama-boysm, as the author claims. The real problem is the mentality (unconscious) among those young women who simply can’t live with the fact that a woman politician could come with so much dirty political baggage. After all, they were taught all their lives in schools (especially in universities) that women are fair creatures, source of all goodness in the world while all the evil in the world are brought on by men, and that behind the sins of all the women who do bad things, there are men or male dominate society at large who caused women to do such bad things. They cannot stomach the fact that women politicians could be incompetent, or liar, or simply power-mongers. if they (are taught to) belive in the unbonded possibility of women, why are they so reluctant to belive in the women's possibility to be a horrible public figures?
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Gee, I hate this article, we need more women (in powerful positions, of course)!!
Why women like Ms. Pollitt thinks that just seeing an article she dislikes appearing in the Washington Post is a good enough justification for gender quota in the editorial room, etc.? It will be good for her and her less-talented sister journalist to get ahead of more talented male colleagues, but should life be that easy for women (or for anyone, for that matter)?
Old white women's dying wish
It is quite interesting that quite a large number of very old white women innocently and almost pitifully say that they wish to see a woman President before they die.
We all want to help very old women, right? When we see them having trouble crossing a street, or carrying heavy stuffs, we stop whatever we are doing and help them first, right? And when these very old women, whose days on the earth are limited, have a wish that they want to see happen before they die, we want to do everything in our power to make it happen, right? And these old women want to see Hillary as president – what kind of a bastard would do anything that would remotely make that prospect smaller? We should be spend all our off-hours online-donating, volunteering, calling up voters, caucusing and voting for HER, right?
Maybe very old white men might have kissed their racist past goodbye and might have voted for Obama but many of them have died already. Most of the senior citizens are women. For them, they do not have to worry about race guilt, because they have another victimhood to hide under; women. It doesn’t matter that some of them might have been, or still is, very racist, and even might have been guilty of, especially in the South, accusing innocent black men of raping her (or just staring lusciously at her), and have white brothers beat them up back in the 50s and 60s when nobody questioned white women’s innocence and black men’s guilt.
But if you are very old citizen, and if you worry even a least bit about your grandkids or future generations, you should not be so selfish and impose Hillary on the rest of us. Allow me to be very blunt, (and impolite), but to put it directly, old people may die soon, even before HER inauguration, but all the rest of us, young and not so young and kids under voting age, would have to suffer the consequences of old people’s dyng wish for four / eight years. Is it fair? Is it the legacy that you want to leave for the succeeding generations? If you lived all your life being selfish, can’t you stop being selfish for a moment and think about your grandkids? If you lived all your life always being nice and fair, thinking about others, that is very great; can you do one more, final favour?
We all want to help very old women, right? When we see them having trouble crossing a street, or carrying heavy stuffs, we stop whatever we are doing and help them first, right? And when these very old women, whose days on the earth are limited, have a wish that they want to see happen before they die, we want to do everything in our power to make it happen, right? And these old women want to see Hillary as president – what kind of a bastard would do anything that would remotely make that prospect smaller? We should be spend all our off-hours online-donating, volunteering, calling up voters, caucusing and voting for HER, right?
Maybe very old white men might have kissed their racist past goodbye and might have voted for Obama but many of them have died already. Most of the senior citizens are women. For them, they do not have to worry about race guilt, because they have another victimhood to hide under; women. It doesn’t matter that some of them might have been, or still is, very racist, and even might have been guilty of, especially in the South, accusing innocent black men of raping her (or just staring lusciously at her), and have white brothers beat them up back in the 50s and 60s when nobody questioned white women’s innocence and black men’s guilt.
But if you are very old citizen, and if you worry even a least bit about your grandkids or future generations, you should not be so selfish and impose Hillary on the rest of us. Allow me to be very blunt, (and impolite), but to put it directly, old people may die soon, even before HER inauguration, but all the rest of us, young and not so young and kids under voting age, would have to suffer the consequences of old people’s dyng wish for four / eight years. Is it fair? Is it the legacy that you want to leave for the succeeding generations? If you lived all your life being selfish, can’t you stop being selfish for a moment and think about your grandkids? If you lived all your life always being nice and fair, thinking about others, that is very great; can you do one more, final favour?
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Another feminist orgy in Newsweek
What is all this feminist orgy going on in Newsweek? Obama could never had such a lopsided coverage in favour of him even after 11 consecutive wins, but Hillary does, even with one not-exactly-landslide win in predominantly white, old, blue-color State and barely holding onto a popular vote win (and possibly losing out on a delegate count) in what was once her firewall State. It looks like all the old, white female writers in the Newsweek came out from hiding from the long and disappointing February and chanting feminists roar. February must have felt like forever for these ladies who were frustrated by black men utterly clobbering old white woman in Presidential nomination race (it didn’t help that there was an additional day in the month). Gee, in old days, white women in the South could accuse innocent black men who they don’t like of rape and have their white brothers beat them up. That was only 40 years ago. What a difference time makes, now all they could do was their feminist heroin and her campaign fumbling. ( I wonder how many of those very old white women who innocently say “I want to see a woman President in my lifetime”, actually are guilty of accusation of false rape against black men in the 50’s and 60’s.)
Why is this feminist media orgy, and no party for Obama? Let’s see how many African-Americans are in Newsweek, as writers, staffers, etc. I don’t see many (in fact none of the opinion writers are black). Now let’s see how many women are there? Many. I don’t know how many more junior writers and staffers are women, but I suspect a lot of them. Those old white women in the Newsweek, just like in Ohio or Texas or almost all the States who had primaries and caucuses, are just expressing their preferences. As old feminist guards, they practice what they preach. They are writers and staffers in the Newsweek, one of the preeminent weekly magazines, and it is read by millions of people, Their articles and coverage have influence on what people talk and how people think. They use there position to advance their agenda. If their heroin sister finally got a moment to shine a little, blow it out of proportion. If it is for a good cause, such old and tired media principle as a balanced and objective reporting could wait a while. Plus, March is a women’s month, so what’s wrong with it? Plus, this is not the first time Newsweek’s women hijacked entire issue. It’s funny how Hillary whine about media bias, when in most of the media, Newsweek and others, you will see so many old white women type, well-educated, pant-suit wearing, shoulder-pat feminists.
Why is this feminist media orgy, and no party for Obama? Let’s see how many African-Americans are in Newsweek, as writers, staffers, etc. I don’t see many (in fact none of the opinion writers are black). Now let’s see how many women are there? Many. I don’t know how many more junior writers and staffers are women, but I suspect a lot of them. Those old white women in the Newsweek, just like in Ohio or Texas or almost all the States who had primaries and caucuses, are just expressing their preferences. As old feminist guards, they practice what they preach. They are writers and staffers in the Newsweek, one of the preeminent weekly magazines, and it is read by millions of people, Their articles and coverage have influence on what people talk and how people think. They use there position to advance their agenda. If their heroin sister finally got a moment to shine a little, blow it out of proportion. If it is for a good cause, such old and tired media principle as a balanced and objective reporting could wait a while. Plus, March is a women’s month, so what’s wrong with it? Plus, this is not the first time Newsweek’s women hijacked entire issue. It’s funny how Hillary whine about media bias, when in most of the media, Newsweek and others, you will see so many old white women type, well-educated, pant-suit wearing, shoulder-pat feminists.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
My comments on yesterday's mini Super Tuesday, or Super tuesday II...
Now most mainstream media talk as if the next Pennsylvania primary is going to be a key battle for for both Hillary and Obama. ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Obama only needs to stay comfortably close to Hillary and then it's his de facto strategic win, since he's so far ahead in the delegates count. Don't be duped into Hillary's raising expectation game...PA is Hillary's State, because of its demographics and all major power players in the State, most notably the governor himself, is relentlessly campaigning for her. The State was heavily titled for her (20% and more) and the gap is now closing.
It is like saying Mississipi is a key State for Hillary to keep momentum and she absolutely need to win, if she's to be able to make inroads in Blacks, but nobody's saying that. (well, it's much smaller state but the point is that every state has demographic characteristics that favour one candidiate). But media are already in the mindset that if Hillary could keep PA, by even a small margins like 5 points, that proves Hillary is on her way to coronation! - What a non-sense. You set a bar so low that you are very likely to pass it, but spin it as a major, major victory.
The narratives of 2 weeks ago, right after Wisconsin blowput for Obama, was that Hillary needed to win Texas and Ohio, BOTH and in both VERY BIG. Now did she achieved that? Of course not!!! She only narrowly beat Obama in TX, by 3 %, and delegate pickups are minimal. (Could be noen depending on the outocme of the caucuses) In OH, you could barely call it a "big" win, if "big" win eans double-digit victory. 10 is the smallest double digit. Remember, in both States, Hillary was up 20% just a few weeks ago, and OH and TX were both Hillary States to begin with, for its demographics (OH) and Bill's popularity among Hispanics (TX). Actually, to be honest, I was also surprised to see Obama went down in TX, but that actually proves how much he had made inroads in just a few weeks to became a heavy favourite there. Another point, Obama lost his edges among independents, trailed badly again among women, Hispanics, low income voters, and older voters in TX and OH. This looks familiar, losing its base or coalition"? When hillary got her base eaten in Winsonsin by Obama, she was pummelled in the poll (17 point). But when Obama got his base eatne, he still nearly tied in TX (only 3 %, baby). Tell me who is doing better and winning.
Now most mainstream media talk as if the next Pennsylvania primary is going to be a key battle for for both Hillary and Obama. ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Obama only needs to stay comfortably close to Hillary and then it's his de facto strategic win, since he's so far ahead in the delegates count. Don't be duped into Hillary's raising expectation game...PA is Hillary's State, because of its demographics and all major power players in the State, most notably the governor himself, is relentlessly campaigning for her. The State was heavily titled for her (20% and more) and the gap is now closing.
It is like saying Mississipi is a key State for Hillary to keep momentum and she absolutely need to win, if she's to be able to make inroads in Blacks, but nobody's saying that. (well, it's much smaller state but the point is that every state has demographic characteristics that favour one candidiate). But media are already in the mindset that if Hillary could keep PA, by even a small margins like 5 points, that proves Hillary is on her way to coronation! - What a non-sense. You set a bar so low that you are very likely to pass it, but spin it as a major, major victory.
The narratives of 2 weeks ago, right after Wisconsin blowput for Obama, was that Hillary needed to win Texas and Ohio, BOTH and in both VERY BIG. Now did she achieved that? Of course not!!! She only narrowly beat Obama in TX, by 3 %, and delegate pickups are minimal. (Could be noen depending on the outocme of the caucuses) In OH, you could barely call it a "big" win, if "big" win eans double-digit victory. 10 is the smallest double digit. Remember, in both States, Hillary was up 20% just a few weeks ago, and OH and TX were both Hillary States to begin with, for its demographics (OH) and Bill's popularity among Hispanics (TX). Actually, to be honest, I was also surprised to see Obama went down in TX, but that actually proves how much he had made inroads in just a few weeks to became a heavy favourite there. Another point, Obama lost his edges among independents, trailed badly again among women, Hispanics, low income voters, and older voters in TX and OH. This looks familiar, losing its base or coalition"? When hillary got her base eaten in Winsonsin by Obama, she was pummelled in the poll (17 point). But when Obama got his base eatne, he still nearly tied in TX (only 3 %, baby). Tell me who is doing better and winning.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Neanderthals and gender roles
The most interesting part of this new book "Logic of Life", written by Tim Hartford, a bestselling author of "Undercover Economist", is the theory on the reason why Neanderthals died out, losing competition to Homo sapiens. Neanderthals did not have division of labor, while Homo sapiens did. And the division of labor here specifically means division of labor between MEN and WOMEN. Division of labor, come to think of it, is such a basic social arrangement which improves work efficiency dramatically and has been employed since the earliest time in history.
But in the 21st century, in the name of gender equality, Western societies are trying feverishly to do away with any division of labor between men and women. They argue that division of labor between men and women, a.k.a. traditional gender roles, is what kept women at home and hindered their fuller actualization / realization as a human being. But just ask why would anyone want to force clumsy, smelly, hairy men to take care of newborn babies? Their skin is coarse, unsanitary, and their voices low – not something that babies usually like. And why would anyone want to put women in military special forces, when they can't lift heavy weapons by themselves? Their maybe some valid biological reasons, why across all societies and all ages, women are the ones who take care of babies, and men are the ones who went to fighting. Maybe, just like Neanderthals were, 21st century Western countries are on its way to extinction.
But in the 21st century, in the name of gender equality, Western societies are trying feverishly to do away with any division of labor between men and women. They argue that division of labor between men and women, a.k.a. traditional gender roles, is what kept women at home and hindered their fuller actualization / realization as a human being. But just ask why would anyone want to force clumsy, smelly, hairy men to take care of newborn babies? Their skin is coarse, unsanitary, and their voices low – not something that babies usually like. And why would anyone want to put women in military special forces, when they can't lift heavy weapons by themselves? Their maybe some valid biological reasons, why across all societies and all ages, women are the ones who take care of babies, and men are the ones who went to fighting. Maybe, just like Neanderthals were, 21st century Western countries are on its way to extinction.
Old white women's dying wish
Leading article from NY Times (on the web), a night after Obama’s another comprehensive win in overwhelmingly white and blue-collar state.
One woman’s response to often-repeated line by many old white women that justifies Hillary’s candidacy; ‘I want to see a woman president before I die,”
Her response; “But you know what? That’s a selfish reason to vote for a president just because you want to see a woman before you die,” she added. “What about the kids coming up? I feel we should vote for the young people.”
Good point. Right. Those old white ladies would die soon after Hilary became President, if their wish comes true. All the younger generations (probably anyone who are under 70?) will be stuck with old white ladies dying wishes for 4 years. Is it fair? They will leave the suffering and burden of Hillary presidency to all the rest of us and they will rest peacefully in the grave. Since when Presidential election became a means to grant old women’s dying wish?
One woman’s response to often-repeated line by many old white women that justifies Hillary’s candidacy; ‘I want to see a woman president before I die,”
Her response; “But you know what? That’s a selfish reason to vote for a president just because you want to see a woman before you die,” she added. “What about the kids coming up? I feel we should vote for the young people.”
Good point. Right. Those old white ladies would die soon after Hilary became President, if their wish comes true. All the younger generations (probably anyone who are under 70?) will be stuck with old white ladies dying wishes for 4 years. Is it fair? They will leave the suffering and burden of Hillary presidency to all the rest of us and they will rest peacefully in the grave. Since when Presidential election became a means to grant old women’s dying wish?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Hillary is NOW NY Part 2
People should realize that sending another Clinton into the White House means "empowering" these militant feminists. The army of militant feminsts that Hillary would surely bring in with her would propose and push for far more one-sided, discriminatory man-hating legislation, policies, etc.
Right now these lunatics are just part of civil societies, NGOs, capable of issuing statements once in a while or staging a rally or demonstration few media would pick up. But the advent of the Hillary adminisration will turn these militant activists into "government officials", "buraucrats" and "policy advisors" who will have real power in turning their man-hating agenda into public, government policies that will be implemented and enforced, without mercy, on a national scale.
This is an urgent qake-up call to do anything you can do in your poewer to stop Hillary.
Even under the supposedly conservative, right-wing Bush administartion, we continue to see feminists-inspired legislation being passed, Title IX being continued, etc.. Just imagine what would happen if Hillary occupy the House. Just imagine what the rights and the staus of men would be under such a feminist administration.
Right now these lunatics are just part of civil societies, NGOs, capable of issuing statements once in a while or staging a rally or demonstration few media would pick up. But the advent of the Hillary adminisration will turn these militant activists into "government officials", "buraucrats" and "policy advisors" who will have real power in turning their man-hating agenda into public, government policies that will be implemented and enforced, without mercy, on a national scale.
This is an urgent qake-up call to do anything you can do in your poewer to stop Hillary.
Even under the supposedly conservative, right-wing Bush administartion, we continue to see feminists-inspired legislation being passed, Title IX being continued, etc.. Just imagine what would happen if Hillary occupy the House. Just imagine what the rights and the staus of men would be under such a feminist administration.
Hillary is NOW NY
Whoa. This is just a MAINSTREAM FEMINISM speaking- anyone who do not back a woman candidate is an ENEMY of women. And Hillary's ideological roots and NY NOW women's ideological roots are the same. In other words, Hillary IS NY NOW chapter women and NY NOW chapter women ARE Hillary. They are from the same school of thoughts.
If, god forbid, if we were to have Hillary as the next President, you will see many people like them gaining power in Washington; the shrill, hysteric, man-hating militant feminists. They will be calling the shots and influencing important decisisons in the capital. People who are ideologically not so different from NY NOW President will be filling cabinet posts in the second Clinton administration. Their pals in women's studies course are filling upper echerons of federal bureaucracy and enforce their feminist utopia.
Just imagine having some of the loony heads from NY NOW chapter in key government positions - yet that is exactly what is going to happen when the Clinton wins election! She will bring in tons of people who are associated with NOW and other similar loony militant feminists oprganizations, scholars from women's study course in her administartuion to fill cabinet and other key posts and in many senior posts in the government.
Anyone with a least bit of intelligence could see to it that Hillary is not running for US President to solve Middle East crisis, boost economy, etc, etc ... All those pesky "policy issues" are just adds-on to her most central agenda - establishing a gender-free society, a feminist utopia. She is running to satisfy her onw ego to be the most powerful women in the world.
If, god forbid, if we were to have Hillary as the next President, you will see many people like them gaining power in Washington; the shrill, hysteric, man-hating militant feminists. They will be calling the shots and influencing important decisisons in the capital. People who are ideologically not so different from NY NOW President will be filling cabinet posts in the second Clinton administration. Their pals in women's studies course are filling upper echerons of federal bureaucracy and enforce their feminist utopia.
Just imagine having some of the loony heads from NY NOW chapter in key government positions - yet that is exactly what is going to happen when the Clinton wins election! She will bring in tons of people who are associated with NOW and other similar loony militant feminists oprganizations, scholars from women's study course in her administartuion to fill cabinet and other key posts and in many senior posts in the government.
Anyone with a least bit of intelligence could see to it that Hillary is not running for US President to solve Middle East crisis, boost economy, etc, etc ... All those pesky "policy issues" are just adds-on to her most central agenda - establishing a gender-free society, a feminist utopia. She is running to satisfy her onw ego to be the most powerful women in the world.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
"Subprime Crisis Snags Women"
Of course only women are, or women are “disproportionately affected” by, Subprime loan crisis…Not because the actual data suggest so, but because, to some people, men simply do not matter – if men suffer from Subrprime loan crisis or from whatever other causes, they deserve it, because they are men.
You know, newspapers pages are too precious to be expended on plight of men. they have had good times for thousands of years already. There are plenty of other issues that affect women, or plenty of women’s perspectives that need to be introduced and prioritized over others on any important issues that affect the country, I guess.
You know, newspapers pages are too precious to be expended on plight of men. they have had good times for thousands of years already. There are plenty of other issues that affect women, or plenty of women’s perspectives that need to be introduced and prioritized over others on any important issues that affect the country, I guess.
Wonder Woman gets women's voice
It is such an important milestone in women’s lib movement that both New York Times and the Newsweek magazine reported. Is it progress or regress, exactly? There is nothing else significant to report in this week’s feminists’ scorecard?
Anyway, my huge congratulations for all womankind out there for finally breaking the “glass ceiling”, or whatever “ceiling” they want to call in this case, of boys’ comic club…I
n this latest frontline of feminists’ constant struggle to tear down patriarchy, feminists celebrate that the comic “Wonder Woman”, after 66 years into existence, will finally have some feminine touch..
Anyway, my huge congratulations for all womankind out there for finally breaking the “glass ceiling”, or whatever “ceiling” they want to call in this case, of boys’ comic club…I
n this latest frontline of feminists’ constant struggle to tear down patriarchy, feminists celebrate that the comic “Wonder Woman”, after 66 years into existence, will finally have some feminine touch..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)