Feminists and climate change

So a big meeting on climate change is in full swing in Copenhagen, Denmark. Since this blog is primarily about poisonous effects of feminism, I won’t go into details about the issue. But as you can imagine, as in every large, high-profile international conferences, feminist will not pass up an opportunity to promote themselves and their issues, and if possible steal the show and hijack the conference. As I mentioned before, feminisists are a creature that needs to be in the center of attention all the time. So if the world’s eyes are on Copenhagen, that’s where they are going to be. That’s why they’ve sent a large number of (self-appointed) “delegates” to Copenhagen.

Why women and climate change, you ask? After all, if world is to perish from too much greenhouse gas, aren’t both men and women going to suffer equally?

(This reminds me of the joke - Breaking news: the world to end tomorrow. Women disproportionately affected!)

NO, according to feminists. Climate change is not an equal opportunity menace that affects both men and women at the same rate, but is indeed a very gendered issue that requires approach and actions approved by feminist authority.

Why is it a gendered issue? Because…(according to feminists)

-Climate change affects world’s poor regions and poorest people most severely, and 70% of the world’s poorest are women.

-Women and girls are often responsible for collecting firewood and cooking in developing countries, who will be more affected by climate change.

-Women are responsible for growing the bulk of the food staples in developing countries

-Women, as farmers, need better climate and weather information

-Women in rural regions could benefit from agricultural waste to energy projects.

-Women are four times more likely to die in natural disasters, which is happening at greater frequency as a result of global warming.

Wmmm, sounds serious enough, to make you believe that the global warming is actually a women’s issue, rather than an issue that affects all human beings, or small islands in the Pacific, or polar bears in the South Pole. Or is it?

Many of the arguments listed above look like a dramatic scaling down of the problem that was supposed to affect everybody, not just all human beings currently residing on planet earth but future generations, and polar bears and other animals and eco-system as a whole, and ultimately the entire planet earth. But according to feminists' logic, everyone in the developed countries need to fundamentally change their lifestyles, lower carbon emission, develop new source of energy, and undertake millions of other things that were recommended by green activists, so that, so that - some poor little girls in rural Africa don’t need to spend time to collect firewoods but attend school instead (presumably so that girls rather than boys could get higher education and eventually land a better, more powerful and high-paying jobs than boys).

This is obviously absurd. For one thing, girls (or boys) in rural Africa must have been collecting firewoods for centuries, long before Western countries started emitting too much CO2. Their problems is not created by some greedy western countries who pursue only their economic self-interests, but by poverty and underdevelopment. And poverty and underdevelopment could only be by countered by industrialization and economic development which, whether greens like it or not, is going to mean more coal and fossil fuel burning, among other things.

And obviously it doesn’t make sense that, for example, western governments and multinational corporations need to spend billions (or trillions) of dollors to research and develop new clean energy just to save some sorry girls in rural Africa.

Many of the above points were taken from a website by the Government of Finland, whose only “achievement” in the world political stage is to have elected a woman to it’s national leader, thereby nothing up a percentage of world female leaders by a bit and making power-hungry feminists feel better..

So what’s the Finnish government, now led by a wise female leader, recommends? Exactly the kind of things you would expect from power-hungry feminists;

● nominate female and male delegates to climate meetings, with developed countries supporting financially the participation of developing country representatives, both men and women, in these meetings;

● include climate change and gender as an item on the agendas of relevant high-level meetings,

● draw active attention to the gender-related impacts of climate change and to the positive role women could play in influencing climate change in the negotiations on the new climate agreement and incorporate gender considerations in the new agreement;

● allocate funds and encourage the financing institutions and UN and other international organisations to support women and men in influencing climate change and to contribute effectively at local levels, e.g. through sustainable agriculture, forest and water management, and increasing the use of renewable energy;

● invite developed countries to pay active attention to women's role in climate change in their bilateral cooperation with the developing countries and to provide financial support for gender-specific programmes.

Above recommendations (demands) are hardly surprising given that power-feminists’ utmost concern is in grabbing as much power as possible from men. But having more under-qualified women in decision making bodies, just to satisfy some quota-obsessed feminists, is not going to solve climate change problem. Or adding a purely political gender-perspective (a.k.a “gender-mainstreaming”) in what is already extremely politically-charged and controversial issue is going to do nothing to help solve it. If anything, a real solution (if there is really such a thing as man-made climate change) is going to in giving MORE SUPPORT TO MEN. If people are serious about tackling global warming, more support to men who make up majority of the scientists, engineers and who ACTUALLY DO THE HARD WORK OF developing and inventing new technologies is crucial. This men’s role is in stark contrast to that of women in this climate change debate, which mostly consisted of BLAMING men and DEMANDING more from men, and more gender quota.

Saturday Night Live on Tiger Woods

Another sequel to a never-ending Tiger Woods DV/cheating saga..

The article says Saturday Night Live (SNL) was criticized for its skit satiring apparent DV against Tiger Woods by his wife Erin.

But exactly what the SNL is being criticized for ?

a) For making light of the issue of domestic violence (of women against men)

b) For airing it when Rihanna was a guest (the one who initiated a domestic violence but now lionized as a symbol of domestic violence victim, or

c) Suggesting that a woman can be an abuser in domestic violence case.

I think it’s the combination of all three. DV to a feminist man-hating industry is a sacrosanct issue that nobody should make an even the a slightest fun of (especially men should not), and that one of the core tenets of feminist DV theory is that it is only perpetrated by men against women, and therefore suggesting that a wife could beat up a husband is simply not acceptable. And showing this skit in front of Rihanna would remind her of bitter consequences of initiating violence against Chris Brown, I guess that’s a too bitter memory for someone who is indulging in DV victim status granted to her by society and DV industry.

By the way, it’s interesting to see one of the reaction;

"Had the tables been turned and a man was suspected of beating up his wife, there definitely wouldn't be a lighthearted sketch like this. But since it's female-on-male domestic violence, our current culture deems it kind of, sort of okay to make fun of and the scandal had to be addressed before it lost heat."

This is same kind of logic and expression Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) use to draw attention of DV against men. But in this case, I’m not sure if the writer really meant it, because it’s so hard to think that a regular mainstream reporter is even a bit concerned about DV against men. I guess what he really meant was that DV (by men against women in his mind) should not be treated lightly and in the process he inadvertently ended up drawing attention to the issue of DV by women against men.

Battered Tiger a victory for feminism

Slightly old article, but it’s worth mentioning. This one should go down in the history of media as an article that most explicitly supported violence against men by women. She legitimizes use of violence, including the use of potentially lethal weapons such as an iron golf club, as a means by the wronged wives to get even on cheating husbands. In her view, the year 2009 was historic, since now women can wield a golf club to go after cheating husband. (I remember that according to feminists’ logic, wives cheating on husband is husbands fault since the husbands failed to take care of wives or were not attractive and attentive enough that wives needed to look elsewhere for satisfaction, etc, but of course that logic flew out of the window when wives are cheated – NOW it’s a serious matter). This truly shows that the benefit of empowering women; before they were too disempowered to think of beating up cheating husbands, but not anymore! Now a woman can swing a heavy golf iron, run fast enough to chase after a big SUV, and smash down windows! A frail woman from a foreign country intimidating a world-class professional athlete! Feminism has come a long way.

Feminist DV law backfires

It’s a pretty bad time for feminists, they are on the ropes now with the story of Tiger Woods all over the news. What to do? Ignore? Or spin?

Let’s see some master work on spin.

There are so many lies and spins in this short article that I don’t want to even bother discussing it. Except to say that there are many good comments in the “Fray” section for this article.

“Primary aggressor” theory is basically a feminist invention and its main purpose was to make men the guilty party in any domestic dispute and enable police to arrest men, without actually referring to “men” or “women”, as the law’s language needs to be gender-neutral. Including criteria such as physical size in determining a primary aggressor is a clever and pretty sure way to ensure that fingers are almost always at men, and if in rare case a woman happens to be bigger than man, then other criteria apply. It’s ironic (and very, very amusing to be honest) that this automatic DV arrest policy is becoming problematic for women. I hope women will now realize what men have been subjugated for many, many years. They shouldn't be suffering like this (nor men should), but blame your feminists sisters.

And my guess is that finally this problematic policy would soon be reviewed now that women is on the receiving end. There is a famous saying, “The best way to eliminate child support is to make women pay it”. So I guess in this case, we can say “The best way to change unfair DV law is to make women suffer from it”.

Though I'm sure feminists will waist no time in inventing even cleverer, seemingly gender-neutral ways to make men guilty ones in all domestic disputes.

Feminists' attention deficit disorder

Remember Super-bowl-DV study that was proved to be an ideology-driven propaganda? This new article gives you a reminder that feminists won't give up after just one failed attempt. They will keep coming back with new lies and hoaxes that each time look a bit truthy-ier than the last. And so here comes the newest, fanciest football-DV “study”. This one even nicely try to link women's high earnings with lower occurence of DV (against women of course), as if to create a false impression that if women's earning power is raised (by another feminist inspired law on gender paycheck “audit” or some other wealth re-distribution scheme), DV(against women) could be prevented. Nice try. Keep wishing.

This happens ("this" means this study, not the so-called uptick in DV) because feminists are jealous of all the attention that football games get at after Thanksgiving dinner - and women are not in it! Again, "men" (football stars) are the center of all the attention, and "men" (fans) are having pretty good time watching the games. Where are women in this equation? People need to pay attention to women, because this century belongs to women!! (me doing a little feminist talk) Focusing on the so-called uptick in DV (against women) after football game is a nice entry-point for feminists to inject "women" in this very popular American pastime and stigmatize football fans as well as football game itself which is allegedly causing men to behave macho against their partners.

White House as kindergarden

Can we now say that it is official that liberals and feminists want to impose gender and any other demography-based quota on any of the recreational activities at the White House?

Gender-quota zealots will not cease counting beans and checking gender balance even for one moment. In their logic, if Obama wants to play some hoop, equal number of men and women should be in the court. If Obama plays golf, there should be equal number of men and women playing with the President.

I can see what’s next – equal number of points should be scored by men and women in such a basketball game - who knows, the Prez may bond stronger with better, higher scoring players!))

At the Whitehouse everything must be done together by men and women, at roughly same proportion, be it its official duties (equal number of men and women should be in cabinet meeting!) or unofficial, recreational basketball game (men and women should be playing together!) The White house now resembles kindergarden in the sense that everything has to be done together by little boys/men and little girls/women. While at kindergarden, it may be sennsible for little boys and girls to do everything together (though even at that age the differences betwen male and female are distinct), if grown-up adults, some in their fifties and sixties, were to do everything together, hand in hand, it is...ummm how should I say... revolting?


And feminists are not happy with achieving what is supposed to be one of their ultimate goals – statistical gender parity – in the number of White House staff. Now that the numbers are roughly equal, they looked for the next excuse to continue their crusade against men - and suddenly there are more important measure of equality,i.e. the exposure to media and visibility. Now they contend that there needs to be equal amount of exposure to media and equal level of importance to the jobs that women do in the White House.


““Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers”



WHAT!!?? Many women, including almost 100% of the feminists, were determined to derail Obama’s historic quest for the nomination for the Democratic Party only a year ago, and were doing anything they can do achieve that. Obviously many women don’t seem to have good memory, as far as you can read from De Dee Myers’ comment. (women should deal with amnesia before they ask for more important jobs!). By the way, guess what kind of book Ms. Misinformation Dee Dee Myers wrote.





It’s time for Obama to stop trying to appease feminists. They will never be happy. Perhaps they were born with special genes that make them complaining all the time. If appeasing angry unhappy women is going to be the number priority for the Obama administration, there is going to be not much chance for success.

More article on this topic here.

70% of world's poorest are women - REALLY??!!

There is a starting figure that has been circulating in major media outlets – a startling 70% of the world’s poorest-those who earn 1 dollar or less- are women. Which one is startling, that 70% of world’s poorest are women, or that such counter-intuitive and obviously flawed figure circulates major media without any doubts?

The figure, originally advocated by Ms. (do anyone think this would come from Mr.?) Fareda Banda, a law professor at London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in her report prepared for UN Human Right Commissioner (Ms.-again) Louise Arbour in 2008. Since then, it has become an accepted figure, and repeated by senior UN officials and most major media outlets as a fact.

70% of the world’s poorest are women. Hmmm, it really shows the depth of discrimination women face worldwide, isn’t it? OR IS IT? ISN’T THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE NUMBER?

Okay, there is 1.5 billion people in the world who earns less than a dollar a day, who qualifies as the world’ s poorest in the report’s definition. If 70% of them are women, and 30% of them are men, that’ll be 1.05 billion women and 450 million men qualified as the world’s poorest. That’s 600 million more women than men. That’s more than two women for every man who earns less than a dollar a day.

Now most of the world’s poor (not just the poorest living under 1$ but poor who are slightly better off than that) live in developing nations, where people have large families, with many children, unlike western states where families have more or less disbanded and individuals are living on their own as individuals. That means that in developing countries, poverty is family-based, that it affects entire family, that if a husband is poor, then his wife is poor, and so are his boys and girls. It is hard to imagine and highly improbable that just a husband or one member of family living an affluent life while the rest of his family living in dire poverty.

Now, how can you get 600 million more women living in dire poverty than men? 600 million is not a small number? - it is twice the population of the United States!! Just thik about these for a few seconds and immediately it becomes clear that there is something wrong about this number.

feminist colonialism

Currently there is frantic drive to support women in developing countries. Just like environmentalism and green movement, it is everywhere.

This strong feminist push in my view comes from some reasons.

First, there is western feminists’ fantasizing of building a feminist utopia in a developing world, a world which has not yet experienced an modernization or even industrial evolution and thus has not been tainted by patriarchal gender system that accompanies the modernization and industrial revolution, according to feminist theory. Western feminists who find it quite difficult to break into and eventually dominate the already developed social and economic institutions in the developed world would find it much easier to do so in developing States, where such institutions are weak or non-existent. For example, if your goal is to increase the number of female politicians by whatever means necessary (after all, it’s supposed to be good), it’s much easier to march into a post-conflict country, and amidst all the chaos and confusions, furtively impose a gender quota on national parliament, than to support women candidates in elections and campaign district by district in western developed states. This is why countries like Rwanda have THE highest ratio of women in parliament - higher that US or even Sweden (Rwanda is surely a feminist heaven – I suggest feminists whiners to move to Rwanda if they feel their daily lives are so miserable just because they don’t see many women politicians in US).

There is also a hint of racism or colonial mentality in western feminists’ promotion of feminism in the third world. Just like feminists’ great-great grandfather (or great-great grandmother’s husbands, if we were to take women-centric worldview) did in the 18 th and the 19 th centuries, today’s western feminists tend to think westerners (this time women!) would be in a better position to think what’s best for the people (especially the kinder, gentler half of it) in the Third World and benevolently (or so they think) provide assistance to realize their plan. According to feminists, those poor women in developing countries were so uninformed to realize that women’s real place is in workplace, and family is not a bedrock of society but a place of oppression for women.

Of course, all these efforts to build feminist utopia in the third world is going to do no good.

For one thing, micro-financing to women is not going to lift the country out of poverty, contrary to what well-meaning western intellectuals want you to believe. Bunch of women selling gums, soaps and other household items with the money borrowed from microfinance scheme organized by western feminists is NOT going to pave a way for country’s rapid economic development. While feminists’ strong wishes that women become, for the first time in human’s history, a driving force for strong economic development is understandable (after all, they are feminists!), wishes alone do not make people richer.

No country in the history of the world has had strong economic development by relying on women’s power. It has always been, and by always I mean without a single exception, men’s ingenuity and hard work that drove economic development. This is probably why Bangladesh, now a world center of microfinance, is still stuck near the bottom of economic development and GDP per capita in the world, whereas China, a country not especially known for being nice to women, is poised to become the second largest economy in the world next year, in a matter of just a few decades after adopting a de-facto capitalist economy.

WNBA

Everyone knows that WNBA is a politically correct charity that no one in NBA could dare to suggest ending because of its cultural nature. As long as NBA exists, WNBA will continue to exist and continue to suck millions of money from it, fans will continue to be bombarded with gender-equity message when they want to simply enjoy sports and are least ready for it.

If we accept the fact that women's professional basketball is a charity and a part of grand gender equity scheme, and stop pretending that this is a serious competitive sports to be managed by for-profit organizations, then we could think of some alternatives. It could be a government-run programme or run by non-profit organizations. (because there is never going to be profit!)

Currently NBA is shouldering all the burdens of this grand charity, which is not fair for NBA, and to add insult to injury, is forced to treat WNBA stars like something equivalent top NBA stars, and promote them whenever and wherever they could.

Every WNBA ad TV stations need to show during NBA games are like free public announcements (how can they refuse to run such ads?- after all, it supports a good cause).

Women prison officers do not need physical strength

Interesting article…

The Connecticut PAT, which simulates actual situation that guards could face in their line of duty, and therefore seems most fair at least to me, is, according to some PC forces, just another device men uses to keep women down.

By the same token, we should not reject students who apply to Harvard on the basis of bad grades at high schools or bad SAT tests. Grades and test scores are no more relevant to being good students in an elite university than physical fitness were to prison guards!

By the way, whenever I see female prison guards or police officers or military personnel, I wonder;

Are they really going to protect us?

There are some female security guards in the company I work for, so sighting female officers is not uncommon. Some of them are very young and seems frail (and hot too!) But everytime I see them, I wonder, if something happens, do we (I mean men not in uniform) need to protect these women instead? For example, if female officer was confronting intruders or criminals, and looks like on the verge of being overpowered, should I as a man show some chavinistic side of me and step in to help this hapless woman? I know if the officer was man, I don't have to ask this question to myself.

Also, if a criminal attacked female police officer, would it come with a heavier sentence, since in addition to attacking officer, he is committing "violence against women", a crime which could carry another hefty sentences? Or the fact that the attacked officer was a woman enough to elicit sympathy for her and anger towards the attacker to punish him with heavier sentence?

Very predictable article from Slate

I like an article that is very predictable, an article whose conslusion you can tell even beofer reading the first paragraph. Who would expect that an article that appears (and therefore editorially approved) in Slate could come to a different conclusion? Would anyone believe Slate editor would approve an article that says, um, actually men are better than women (as judges or whatever professions)? Would professors in politically-correct university dare to publish an article that doesn't say women are better than men? Why should anyone risk tenured life for not dancing along approved PC lines?

Anyway the article does a good job trying to pretend that this article is based on some scholary study when in fact it is just another recycled feminist nonsense.

The main argument that these authors use to say that women are just as good as men (or even better) is that first, women judges are more independent, and second, women judges who come from smaller pool are just as good as men who come from larger pool and therefore women is better.

On first point, I don't know when one decided that deviating from political party's line is a proof of better judge. If that's the case, Judge Sotomoyer the female supremo will go down in the history as one of the worst judge as you can easily predict when it comes to issues such as affirmative action, gender, etc. she is going to vote 100% in line with Democratic Party line (and so far the record shows that she has)

On second point, it simply shows that women are terrible at math and statistics. I don't know why they love to prove correct over and over again with their own actions and stupidity the Lawrence Sumer's theory that women are genetically inferior when it comes to math and numbers.

The real danger here is that this kind of psuedo-scientific study is going to be taken at its face value and media will gladly use it as a part of growing body of "evidence" that shows superiority of women in court, etc. As long as there are hard-core feminists in academia who are on the fringe and who have nothing to do but to manufacture this kind of lies and the liberal media that take these studies uncritically (as long as they conform to PC views), this will never go away.

New gender equality

Yes, this is GENDER EQUALITY!

For women;

For men;

This is what happens if you choose under-qualified person for some top government post based on genitalia. A new woman minister for railroad in India introduced eight “women only trains”.

For India, a country known for its zest for gender quota (as seen in parliament), its devotion to the notion “separate but equal”, and harsh penalties for wife-beaters and deadbeat dads (but not for husband-beaters or deadbeat moms), perhaps this comes as not so surprising.

I'm sure ladies only trains are newer, cleaner, nicer trains where all women can sit comfortably, free of annoying peddlers who sell anything from tea, foods to children’s toys (I experienced firsthand in India), while the rest of the male population will be hoarded into old, dirty, dangerous trains, many men sitting on rooftops and clinging to windows by their fingertips to ride on extremely packed trains, risking their lives everyday just to get to work or to home.

Security will be much tighter for these trains, and government officials would do anything to make sure that if there is going to be another train-wreck disaster (which happens often in India), it would happen to those dirty, filthy “men” trains that get wrecked and not the “Ladies Specials”. (Imagine how feminists would blame men if such disaster strikes Ladies Specials.

This is a new definition of gender equality in some countries, which is wholeheartedly endorsed by New York Times (as they thought this issue is important enough to be out on front page of the paper) and the benefits that "women shattering glass ceiling" bring.

Even with this kind of for women and feminists, still some women are not fully satisfied.

“Then the train stopped, and Ms. Sharma stood up. Asked what more the government could do for women, she laughed.

“Oh my God, it is a long list,” she said. “But I’m sorry, this is my station.””

But there still seems to be some hope for India, as some men have gumptions to express anger at this blatant government-sanctioned gender discrimination.

“Many men are not thrilled. Several female passengers said eve teasing was worse here in northern India than elsewhere in the country. As the Ladies Special idled on Track 7 at the station in Palwal, a few men glared from the platform. …”

“The local boys will come and use the bathroom on the train,” said Meena Kumari, one of the female ticket collectors in flowing blue saris who patrol the train along with female security officers. “They do it out of contempt. They do not want the train to run.”

Perhaps these few men are the only hope left for India.


Another example of women transportation officials wrecking public transportation system is here.

But this apparently affirmative actioned lady is adamant that howling away male customers who wait long hours at bus station away just because the bus is reserved for women is not a discrimination, but a “positive discirimination that responds to the demands of women.” She continues “And it’s also for men because it protects their daughters, sisters and mothers.””

More on global financial crisis....

A few more articles that written by feminist opportunists who use this global financial crisis as a tool to attack men…. Some interesting lines from this article published a while ago (February) about Davos world economic forum in a Guardian, a publication that is even more Marxist than NYT.

“The idea that that can be achieved while excluding half the population is breathtaking in its arrogance”

This sentence makes sense only if the white men who gathered in Davos were there to represent the Caucasian males of the world, to discuss Causcasian males’ interest and their interest only.

OFF COURSE NOT. They gathered there not to represent particular demographic group, ethnicity or gender, but to represent firstly the companies they each lead and secondly the large global businesses as a whole, to seek ways for better cooperation and way out of recession. Even if were to take this author’s logic, there were some women in Davos, however minority, so it doesn’t mean that half of the population were entirely excluded from the meeting.

But with the same logic this author uses, you can also say that all the teenagers/Africans/Blacks/disabled/homosexuals/transgendered/dogs/chimps/rats, etc, etc. weren’t represented in Davos. Feminist should stop seeing any large private meetings (Davos is not an inter-governmental body) with influential participants as some sort of a world governing body in which all demographic groups and types should be statistically proportionately represented, and in which they mistakenly believe that they have right to representation by virtue of their genitalia.

“Women such as Oxfam director Barbara Stocking, who has been lobbying the WEF for several years to bring in more women, believes its definition of leadership is too narrow and should be broadened to include, say, female community leaders from Africa.”

Right, opening up the meeting to groups that produce absolutely nothing and rely their sustenance entirely on foreign assistance (whose money originally came from white males gathered in Davos) may be a good idea. Like having beggars and financiers on a same table and discuss world economic issues as if they are equals. I guess it fits feminists’ and leftists’ vision of equality.

“Women are the single biggest - and least acknowledged - force for economic growth on the planet. This is not a claim made by rampant feminists, but by the Economist,…”

It is still a claim made by a rampant feminists, just like Ruth Sunderland, the author of this article. Rampant feminists somehow getting a job in the Economist through affirmative action does not make them serious economists or journalists, they still are rampant journalists, just like Ruth Sunderland.


Next up, just one quote from this article about my perennial favourite Ms. Harriet Her"person" of UK.

"Somebody did say that if it had been 'Lehman Sisters'”

If it had been Lehman Sisters, it sure wouldn’t have caused such big problem since it wouldn’t have grown into such a large firm whose meltdown would have such a big effect on the financial market. It would have been crushed or stayed as a small women-only firm with no real talents to lead the company to stay competitive and grow, with many employees taking turn to take maternity leaves and leave work at 5 to pick up babies or go shopping.

Another self-serving agit-prop from Newsweek...

Is this a serious journalism or just another agit-prop articles that appear in Newsweek and other once-serious media at an increasing rate, that are disguised as a serious journalism and serious economic forecast? Or is it just another attempt by feminists to spin the recession and use it as a tool to launch a broadside attack against men in general (think: "Death of macho" in Foreign policy magazine)?


Much of the article is filled with agit-prop for women's power and feminist issues and very little on serious insights into post-recession economy.Who said that women holding the power of the purse is good for economy? For example, women in Japan, like in any other country I suppose, make more than 80% of the economic decisions. Even many of women in Japan are housewives, that doesn't prevent them from making economic decisions on behalf of their husbands, and Newsweek's optimistic view on females' priorities notwithstanding, Japan's economics has been in the tank for the last... how many years?

Even the author also knows this;

"In fact, women already make the majority of the world's purchasing decisions. BCG estimates that they control some $12 trillion of the world's $18.4 trillion in annual consumer spending.."

This is not a new phenomenon, and has been so for years, including before and during recession, therefore it is hard to understand why promoting this trend could be touted as way a out of recession. If anything, this could have been the CAUSE of the recession, if you only look at the timeline.

The author likes to paint women as some kind of saints who only care about others and children, but in fact what do most (Western) women spend their most money on? It's clothes, shoes, accessories, cosmetics, and so on!. Sure the prices of these are much higher that tobacco and alcohol, which are listed as typical of men's spending, but still you never heard of country rising out from poverty just by making clothes and shoes.

The truth is that men always made money FOR their family, that is their wives and children, and wives made most of the economic decisions for family on behalf of men from long time ago. Men worked hard and let women use their hard earned money, and spend very little on their own (like tobacco and alcohol!) Women always used men's money, both for family items as well as personal items such as clothes and jewelries. The difference is that there are now ever more thankless women who think that now that they graduated from top universities (with dad's hard-earned money), and got a good job (through affirmative action), and free to spend, they think they own and rule the world. That there are more women who thinks (thanks in no small part for this kind of misinformation) that the society and economy has to be restructured to suit their spending and wish priorities. In fact, the trend of increasing young female professionals could be worse for economy, as they are more likely to spend money on cloth and shoes, and less on healthcare and education - since they are less likely to get marry and have kids in the first place!

Problem with women taking charge

Is a woman taking a helm at the nightly news broadcast a sign of diminishing importance and quality of the nightly news broadcast, or does it simply accelerate it? Probably both.

In other words, to put it more generally, is women taking a helm at any organization or event, a sign that that organization or event is diminishing in its importance and its quality, or does it merely start such decline, or accelerate?

I believe that one unmistakable sign that a particular organization is losing its competitive edge and importance on a way to become being inconsequential is when you see women taking charge there.

Because women taking charge could mean in general one of two things:

- That organization has become too politically-correct that it started to value historical, newsworthy value of appointing women than getting top-notch talent.

- That the organization has become too unattractive for truly able males and only women and second-rate males would want to jump in.

Either way, there is little prospect for that organization in the future.

Once women take the top post, it would set in motion a vicious cycle. Once people (and people I mean both men and women) see a woman at the top of that organization, they start to take it lightly. In most cases it is difficult to see the direct evidence of this (since it could be easily labeled as sexist), but it happens nonetheless. People vote with their feet, i.e. in this case, stop watching the programme, buying stuffs from them, etc.

This happens as humans are biologically not programmed to see women as leaders- during long evolutionary process that humans have had to go through from the age of primitive to modern times, men have almost always been leaders and with a good reason. It is thus imprinted in humans’ DNA to see men as leaders – leaders of tribes, clans, groups, in the old times to leaders of countries and corporations in modern time.

As such, seeing women as leaders is counterintuitive, goes against something coded in human’s DNA, and no amount of political indoctrination based on feminist mythology – that men and women are exactly the same, (or women are even better) – could change that. Sure, you can have men (and women) go through gender sensitivity training and at the end of training have (or force) them to say “women and men are the same”, or “women make better leaders”, but they know that that is not the case. (but of course saying that openly is something like saying Kim Il-Sung is a dickhead in North Korea). Even if some naïve men believe that feminists dogma, they should be feeling some unease, since deep down at sub-conscious level their DNA is telling them that there is something wrong.

The NY Times is of course aware of this declining importance of nightly news

“Women anchors may turn out to be what women doctors once were in the Soviet Union, a majority without status or financial advantage.

Nowadays, viewers tend to treat network evening news shows less as a source of information than as a weather vane.”

At the same time, she does not miss opportunity to do some chest thumping

"And Mr. Williams, who ascended to the position of NBC anchor on the shoulders of an old boys’ club, now has to reposition himself as a member of a persecuted minority, the white male anchorman."

Water is gender issue!?

Contempt for all things male and worshipping of all things female never stops in UN... To make all internatinal issues palatable and appealing to radical feminists audiences, who make up the the biggest and strong constituents of UN, all issues are "gendered", that is, analyzied through radical feminsts' "gendered' lenses.

Water is no exception.

Here, you can see text from the exhibition at the UN, that regards men like camels or something that can survive on a little amount of water, or otherwise suffer from just low work productivity caused by illness. That's right, lack of clean water to men only means that they get sick and therefore cannot work (and provide for women and children I suppose).

Not a big problem.

Women and girls, on the other hand, suffer tremendously, in a much much more serious manner, since they: have to spend hours getting water, and have to keep children's hands and bodies clean, and maintain family's hygine. Yes, that is absolutely much more important than MEN GETTING SICK!!

You don't even need to read what are UN's advice to solve this problem would be, it's the same knee-jerk advice that it gives to all gender issues - giving more political, economic and social power to women, set aside a quota for women in parliament, include women in decisions making proess, and women and girls' need for water must given priority over that of men and boys, etc., etc.

No Doubts: Women Are Better Managers -REALLY!!!???

It’s interesting even the majority of people who read liberal New York Times (and therefore presumably are very liberal) admonish Clark’s sexist view.

At least from this short interview we can identify a number of traits and characteristics that make Carol Smith (or women in general) a bad manager.

-Still holding onto a lesson from the 6th grade as the most important leadership lesson of her life. Remember, Carol, that running a large corporation is entirely different from the 6th grade assignment. And she seems have never encountered another leadership experience since that “important” project a few decades ago.

-inability to back up claims with sources and data.
“Hands down women are better (managers). There’s no contest.”
Because, according to her “Men love to hear themselves talk….” And men joins meeting late because they want to finish football talks or jokes first….??? I’m not sure if there were a couple of paragraphs missing from this article due to editing error or she really didn’t have any other supporting evidence.

-women take things personally
Carol Clark herself admits it.

-makes hiring decision based on gut instinct.
Her word “Don’t hire somebody you don’t like.” says it all.

Cokie Roberts

I think at some point people need to take this woman not as a serious journalist – she is just one of militant feminists who do mediocre job at their chosen profession but rose to fame and fortune for just being women only because the industry needed some female faces. We already know her radical feminist views from her book “Founding mothers” a pathetic effort to confuse unsuspecting people that those “founding” women were somehow just as important players in the foundation of the United States as the Founding Fathers.

“when the Mark Sanford thing broke, I went tearing into my husband's office and said, "Okay, that's it. Women just are better. Men are just lesser beings."”

I thought this was an extra-marital but completely consensual relationship between two adults (Mark Sanford and an Argentinean woman), but according to Cokie Roberts, it proves that “men are just lesser being”. WHY? Why women aren’t lesser being? – after all, a woman was involved in that affair too, just that she wasn’t as visible as her lover.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2009/08/05/cokie-roberts-leads-carol-smith-in-the-misandry-sweepstakes/

Girl sports pack economic punch (as backed up by one anecdote)

Just when “anecdotal stories” good enough to be treated as a solid evidence behind some presumed social trends to grace the pages of prestigious New York Times?

When it supports some noble cause, of course.

And the noble cause in this case is a promotion of girls’ sports, a favourite topic of many NTY staff writers. Understandably it’s much more pleasant and uplifting than dealing with more hard core topics like drugs or inner-city violence that mostly affects boys. Maybe this female staff writer has a younger sister. Or nieces. Or the girls sport team she belonged to when she was in high school needed some boost.

She doesn’t even bother to look for another “anecdotal evidence”, in other cities or other sports to support her claim, but is content with citing just one story from Chatanooga, TN. Girls soft ball in one obscure town in the South. And even local officials don’t have numbers to back up but has to rely on their memories or hunch.

Lest’ see it from another way. We can also draw conclusions from this (anecdotal) story that girls are generally less independent, as they need mothers, fathers, and sisters around to travel to other towns to play sports. Boys could manage all these by themselves.

In addition, girls are less serious and stoic about sports they are playing, which explains why girls sports are boring and don’t succeed as players in more senior category - remember for boys “It was eat, sleep and drink baseball.”, but for girls, its’ shopping, sightseeing and leisure activities when not in the fields. While the boys who didn’t drop some dollars on visiting town may some day be million-dollar professional baseball player, thanks to his eat-sleep-drink-baseball attitude, girls will only hope to be some mild-mannered office workers lamenting discrimination in sports – as men earn more money in sports, of course!

By the way, obviously I wasn’t the only one who noted this story…

The real affirmative action babies

“The Real Affirmative Action Babies - Why white women are the real winners in affirmative action.”

Absolutely. I wonder why not many others have said or pointed this obvious fact before…

But for more rigorous analysis of this issue, it is not sufficient to simply point out that white women on the whole gain most in the last 30 years since the affirmative action came into being. It needs to show that white women were demographic group that was most often promoted, hired for post or selected to enter school, etc, despite their inferior qualifications, pushing aside more qualified white males along the way.

“So why is it that people of color still lag so far behind their white female counterparts? Could it be that white men—who still overwhelming control hiring and promotion in the workplace—chose the lesser of two evils, if you will, in advancing white women over black men and women of color?”

In a way, yes, but remember that white women are far more likely than coloured women to be white men’s wives, daughters, nieces, wives’ friends, daughters’ friends, etc. The point here is that white women have much more and stronger connection, mostly through family connection, to white men. Not many white men have women of colour as their wives (increasingly visible exception is Asian women though), and if their wives are not non-white, their kids are not non-white either (except adopted Asian girls).

Good riddance - REALLY?

Given their record, should men really be running the world?”

Ummm. At the risk of other arm meeting blender, I have to say YES, or emphatic yes, given that;

-Men are responsible for all modern inventions (think computers, lights, telephones, cars)
-Men are responsible for all the social and economic development.
-Men are responsible for all the great liberal (if you are liberal) and conservative ideas (if you are conservative), such as freedom, liberty, etc.

Maybe the better way to approach this issue is what would today’s world look like if risk-aversing, over-emphasizing women are in charge of the world since circa 2,000B.C.

We would still think that the world is flat- no, not that Freedman’s World is Flat but the earth (given women’s poor special recognition capacity), we mostly live on subsistent farming (women are good at nurturing-including plants), no electric lights, telephones, cars (Mr. Edison, Bell, Ford had to help housework and rear child as dictated by matriarchs-scientific experiment and inventions are uniquely male concepts and in fact a male privilege that were made possible by sacrifice of female labour).

We don’t fight and go to wars, in fact there is no such thing as weapons – remember women don’t fight with other people (????), nor do they hunt animals, as they have too much empathy to kill animals – and therefore no army or military. By the way, no military means there would be NO inventions that originated in military and later turned to wide public use, such as internet, etc.

And yes, there would be no huge oil spilling in the Ocean (as Michael Moore lampooned men in his book aptly titled “Stupid white men) –because women will not (or are not able to) build a large ship (women are not good engineers), nor operate a ship (not a good operator-again it requires special recognition ability), nor travel across ocean (no risk-taking please, that’s’ for Neandelthaal men), nor make use of oil, build internal combustion engine, build a oil drilling, and so on.

So far it sounds good, no? especially for those who like to hug trees. But wait, in a world ruled by women, there would be no consumer shopping, only barter trade - there will be no Walmart (that megalomaniac retail giant hellbent on conquering, in a typical alpha male fashion, small family-owned business) . Oh, sorry feminist-type are too high-browed to shop at Walmart - but I'm sure feminists will be disappointed that there won't be Bloomingdale or Zara either - because there will be no department building to house those retailers, no trucks, highway and paved roads to transport goods, no factory to manufacture, no computer and CAD softwarre to design goods. etc.

Well some of you may say there are a plenty of women who work in such fields as construction, manfacture, transportation, auto industry, etc., etc., and are capable of doing it, and even some assume senior positions in the field. First of all, yes there are plenty of them, but they only studied in these disciplines - that were developed by men and taught by men. This is entirely different story than finding, inventing and developing from these from the scratch. (and tell me who did all of them) And second, yes, there are some women who has senior position in these fields. Has anyone ever heard of “affirmative action? Anyone?

So , in a world ruled by women since 2,000BC, you are basically living in a world that looked exactly like 2,00 0years ago. no lights, no internet, no supermarket, or department store, etc.

The death of macho....?

NOT SO FAST!!! All you communists and feminists who gloat over the “he-session” and the plight of thousands (or millions) of white-collar and blue collar men losing jobs and being hectored by now bread-earner wives, and dream about the coming so-called women-ruled world! You celebration is a bit premature.

Of all the articles that made fun of former-bank-exec alpha males and exhorted out-of-work men to do more housework (what does it have to do with recession?) and declared without much supporting evidence that more women in power is the only way out of this recession, that continued to appear in the liberal press in recent months, this lengthy article on the Foreign Policy magazine may be the most virulent, vitriolic, male-hating article that you can find.

One thing I found it that, although this is common to all the poke-fun-at-alpha-male articles, how come if men are losing jobs, or on the receiving end of misery, there is no outcry to help these men, and target the help and assistance specifically to them, but instead what they all do is to make fun, and call for the end of alpha-male culture? Imagine, if 80% of all the job losses are on women, do we make fun of their excessively emphatic nature of these women. NO. The are either still poor, vulnerable victims of this recession (oh, I though this was ‘he-session”?) or the demographic group next in line to take control of the world as Reihan Salam seem already so firmly convinced of.

In the face of all the facts, some extreme feminists and the United Nations (itself taken over by extreme feminists) even assert that “The economic and financial crisis puts a disproportionate burden on women…”

….Unbelievable…with this kind of logic and one-sidedness, maybe you can say that white Aryan German suffered disproportionately under Nazi rule for whatever reason you can make up….(for example, being made to look a corroborator of Nazi or did not take action against Nazi, etc…)

Brad Barber and Terrance Odean memorably demonstrated in 2001, of all the factors that might correlate with overconfident investment in financial markets—age, marital status, and the like—the most obvious culprit was having a Y chromosome.

Risky or over confident investment is called risky and overconfident when it failed, but would have other names when it succeeds. (like wise, prescient, visionary, etc.) Of course not all risky behaviour succeeds -by definition they won’t, and they are more likely to fail than to succeed, but it is precisely those risky or overconfident investment, or business entrepreneurship that build the foundation of today’s developed society and business –imagine if all the world is dominated by risk-averting, empathy/estrogen-plenty women in the late-19 th and early 20h century for example -then we’d still be writing our mails with pen under candlelight, and bartering goods at roadside (unpaved) makeshift small market. (note: this may be green’s ideal world)


Soon after, tiny, debt-ridden Lithuania took a similar course, electing its first woman president: an experienced economist with a black belt in karate named Dalia Grybauskaite. On the day she won, Vilnius’s leading newspaper bannered this headline: “Lithuania has decided: The country is to be saved by a woman.”

An economist experienced in “penis competition” of male-dominated investment banking? A black-belt in karate? What does this additional, seemingly irrelevant information supposed to convey? That she is also a macho? Then shouldn’t she be “banished” also? Well, we can let women handle countries like Iceland and Latvia whose economic catastrophe will have minimal impact on global economy. Their economy is in such shambles (hit the rock bottom already and couldn’t be worse) that you can probably install chimps as their heads of state and still see their economies recover after a while. Although I’m sure that if their economy recover even a tiny bit (of course it will), feminists will attribute all the success to women’s unique style of governing and innate superiority in politics and economy.

Then, however, there’s the other choice: resistance. Men may decide to fight the death of macho, sacrificing their own prospects in an effort to disrupt and delay a powerful historical trend.

WHAT? Which historical trend? Where is it?

Much of the second half of the article is not so much about an analysis of current economic crisis, or how males allegedly contributed to it, but simply a blueprint for bringing about their fantasized version of women-controlled world.

In the end, the author notches up ante, this is not only about current economic crisis, and introduce a new paradigm for the coming conflict.

According to her, the Clash of civilization was wrong - author was male-, no, “The axis of global conflict in this century will not be warring ideologies, or competing geopolitics, or clashing civilizations. It won’t be race or ethnicity. It will be gender.

It may sound funny, but on this last point, I agree with her. Gender will be the axis of global conflict. Western gender feminists, who based their Marxist’s class conflict, in which there is an inherent conflict between two classes until one conquer the other, will continue to vilify, blame, poke fun at, and attack males, and current political, social, economic and cultural institutions as based on patriarchy. Their battle will unfold at homefront, where feminists would push (and even legislate as you can see in Spain) that men do more housework, and use domestic violence and divorce laws to drive men out of work, home, and children and cast them out of society by locking men up and impoverish them with ridiculously high child support; and at politics and business with a push for gender quota for female politicians and CEOs.

And this battle is going to continue for good. Feminists are not going to call it a day and say their struglle is over when, say a woman become the President or when women make up a half of all politicians. Don't believe when feminists say, "If there is equality between men and women now, I wouldn't have to be doing thsese things" or "If women achive equality with men, feminism will become obsolete and will cease to exist." NO. Feminism is not that benign. Just as the proletariat dictatorship has to be maintained and its grip be even tightened over the mass after the fall of boureoisee to guard the revolution from imagined or real sabotage by anti-revolutionary forces, feminists' struggle also takes on characteristics of the Marxist's permanent revolution. Just see how feminists in New Zealand, Sweden and Norway are doing; in New Zealand, alarmed feminists warned women in the country not be content with “seemingly satisfactory” situation where President, Prime Minster and other major high offices of the country are all occupied by women, but to continue fight against patriarchy; in Sweden, feminists tried to institute “man tax”, an unique scheme (to say the least) under which people are taxed just because they are men; and Norway, another feminists haven, where large companies were given ultimatum to give at least 40% of board membership to women or face extinction.

Another victim of feminism....

So what’s now left of the then 66-year old woman’s (in 2006) quest to satisfy her personal fulfillment – by having her own baby- are hapless 3 year-old twins, whose mother (who was older than many of the grandmothers of same three-year olds) has died, and who have to grow up without both parents from now on. They are another victim of feminism, which posited women's independence and women's choice, which include their choice to have babies in their 50's or even in 60's, as a paramount value to be pursued.

Women’s rights now includes the right of women to have babies “at the right time for them” as the now deceased mother told when she was alive, or whenever it fit their life plan, say, after getting MA and Ph. D degrees and having accomplished some professional achievements, attained high-paying position with lots of responsibilities. Little attention is paid to how children of those old mothers will feel, when their mothers die when they are still little. Or when they find out that their mothers are as old as their friends' grandmother! Feminists have long pushed for this women’s right to have babies when it is the right time for them, but are they going to take care of these two small kids? I guess it’s a silly question since most of them don’t even know how to change diapers!

……Hmmmm, now that I got that corner office and 6-figure income, and outearned most of my male colleagues, and dining in chic restaurants and partying at clubs at night are getting a little boring…. I need something to enrich my life…something that gives me personal pleasure and sense of satisfaction and fulfillment…...hmmm… oh yes, BABY, baby is what I need. Conceiving and raising a baby will fill the one remaining gap in my otherwise perfect life….

Women in science

It’s always difficult to understand why more women going into the science field is better for the future of science.

For a start, we can more or less agree that today we have pretty advanced state of science, at least compared to hundreds (or thousands) years ago, or even compared to an animal kingdom. And ALL these scientific and technological advances have been made by MEN, without a single EXCEPTION. In other words, women haven’t contributed to a single bit to today’s complex science. And now some people want to make us believe that increasing women in the ranks of scientists is the single most urgent issue for the future of science. Remind you, women has 0% track record in the science field, but we want to do whatever we could do to increase their number, and reduce the number of men in the field who are responsible for all the advances made in this field in the first place. Is there something wrong here? How we could arrive at such twisted conclusion?

“More female science professor/teacher are needed if women are to get better grades in science.” What a self-serving non-sense.

The fact that female teacher/professor have a tendency to be show more ‘empathy” (as we all know women genetically have plenty of it) towards the student who belong to the same sex, is actually an argument against affirmative action programme for female science teacher/professor. It is abundantly clear that female professors are not capable of evaluating students' grades impartially, it's just that hormones intereferring with objective judgement.

And oh, yes, female students (or female cadets) are too timid and shy to show their true talent in science if their professor were men, ar at least not feminist men. And we want these young female cadets to be the future leader of US armed forces. Joke never ends.

And please, please, for the love of God, don’t tell me that the one of the criteria (or the ONLY criteria) for the outgoing female Xerox CEO in choosing her successor wasn’t a gender. It is the most blatant case of appointing people to senior position based solely on gender. I've never seen a more explicit case of affirmative action at the top level of Fortune 500 companies, and for that reason, I agree with the author that this one os for the record book

Girl valedictorian Part III

People can never worry about girls too much, it seems. People worry that young girls don't eat enough (anorexia), eat too much (obesity), care about weight and appearances too much, do not play sports enough, watch TV too much, spend too much money on clothes, and show too much interest in English literature and social sciences, don not show enough interest in math and science.

Even valedictorians, but only the girl valedictorians, seems to suffer from too-low-ambition sydrome, and in need of immediate help.

Oh, the girls, the frail, always in need of help...

Girl valedictorian Part II

Talk of twisted priorities....

People spend countless hours and pages and inks wondering how a small number of girl valedictorians, who were virtually assured of success in future one way ro another, could increase earning potential by another thouands of dollars, just so that they catch up with men.

I think it is more beneficial and practial for feminists to view the problem of boys failing schools more seriously. Those boys are far more likely to become criminals, and engage in criminal activities such as theft, burglary and oh yes, sexual assault. If feminists want (or want other women and girls-I know the welfare of men and boys are not in their radar screen in the slightest) to live in a safer society, and reduce sexual assault, etc., then it is also in their best interest to tackle the problem more seriously, not just looking at the problem with a gleeful smile.

This is much more practical measures if feminists really wish to reduce crimes against women. It is much more practical than attacking culture, mass media, TV and movie as inciting men and boys to be violent against women, or even social and (alleged) patriarchal struture as root cause of violence against women. But in reality of course I know they won't, because they need certain number of violent men and victim women if they were to keep portraying society as oppressing, victimizing women.

Urgent help needed in elevating career ambitions of girl valedictorians

Why we care about valedictorians? First of all, there are so many more girl valedictorians than boy valedictorians. Second of all, they are smart enough (-if they have enough brain to be the number one in the class) to see what jobs/career/major suits them best, without people like Ms. Steinberg telling them what suits best for them (or what suits best for Ms. Steinberg and other fellow feminists' grand strategy for social engineering - to statistically equalize wages between men and women), that they should be majoring not in English literature nor social sciences but in engineering and computer sciences. .

What about boys who were dropping out from high schools at a far higher rate than girls? Shouldn't this be a much more important issue than wondering the ambition level of girl valedictorians, who have bright fututre anyway, no matter what career they choose? What NY Times is spending so much space and readers' time for is whether girls with bright future could beat out equally bright boys in future earning power - I guess there are many more things in the world deserving more immediate attention. This clearly shows that prioroties and concerns of NY Times is so twisted and could only care about beating out males.

For feminists, boys falling in school system isn't a problem that needs to be addressed, it is a triumphant sign for girls, it is simply a proof that girls are smarter, that males are dumber, that more girls should be in higher positions and outearning males as a whole.

Belfort Bax

I have come across this long article written in 1910’s, when women suffragists were campaigning hard for women’s right to vote, in the era of the so-called first wave of feminism, which many people, including people who normally take an anti-feminist stand, view somehow favorably as a more benevolent kind of feminism, a classical, original, or “good” feminism before it devolve into a virulent anti-man movement in the 60’s and the 70’s with the advent of the second and the third wave of feminism.

Well, it seems it is not so simple – as in old days of original, true feminism was good, only modern incarnation of it is bad.

By glancing through this classic article written by Belfort Bax, a noted Socialist but also known for his ardent anti-feminism views at the time, you would immediately see that even early feminism is fundamentally the same as the modern gender feminism. Both are based on the principles of equality (or sometimes superiority) of women under law as well as preservation of women’s special privileges that ironically have roots in old times when women were regarded and treated as second class citizens.

Entire article could be accessed here;
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism

This is truly a classis anti-feminist article. I have rarely seen an article this long, written by a prominent figure, devoted exclusively on the subject of problems of feminism. Though in the article the author express his disdain for giving voting rights for women (even I cannot agree with him on this point), the article shows that double standards, special privileges for women, unequal law (criminal, matrimonial, etc.) and its enforcement, execution for men and women, male sympathizers (“femi-nabler” to use a word suggested in one of the comments to this blog) in government, judiciary, press, in other words, all the ingredients of modern-day anti-male gender feminists movement are all there as early as in the 1910’s.

Now does this give us a hope? Nope. To know that those problems associated with gender feminists are actually not unique to them, that they have history of nearly a century and deeply rooted in the original feminist movement, led me to think that anti-male characters of feminist movement will not simply go away, just because some courageous people (mostly women) voice their skepticism against them.

Some quotes from the article;

“Personal violence on the part of the husband is severely punished; on the part of wife she will be let off with impunity.”

Hmmm. Looks like the same charade has been going on for a century now.

“…should be legally compelled to pay a certain sum to his wife, ostensibly as wages for her housekeeping services, no matter whether she performs the services well, or ill, or not at all.."

Did Hillary and other feminists get their idea that government (who else?) should pay for the work for housewives here?

“..demand that in the case of the murder by a woman of her illegitimate child, the putative father should be placed in the dock as an accessory! In other words, a man should be punished for a crime of which he is wholly innocent,”Purely absurd, but this is feminism.“This sex hatred, so often vindictive in its character, of men for men, which has for its results that: "man-made" laws invariably favor the opposite sex, and that "man-administered justice" follows the same course, is a psychological problem which is well worth the earnest attention of students of sociology and thinkers generally.”

“I must confess to being unequal to the task of accurately fathoming the psychological condition of the average man who hates man in general and loves woman in general to the extent of going contrary to..”

I completely agree. I think that some (men) needs to take a comprehensive look into the minds of feminist male, to see what motivates them into this “sex-hatred’ phenomena. (my personal view is that those feminist male are motivated by the expectation that they, as ardent male feminists from early on, will be rewarded handsomely in the coming (or so they think) “feminist-run utopia”)

“A man murdered by a woman is always the horrid brute, while the woman murdered by the man is just as surely the angelic victim.”

Sounds familiar….

"The mere physical fact of sex was never for a moment regarded as of itself sufficient to entitle the woman to any special homage, consideration, or immunity, over and above the man.."

In the Medieval period, the word “chivalry” did not mean what it generally means today.

"Sir Walter Besant, entitled "The Revolt of Man," depicting the oppression of man under a Feminist regime, an oppression which ended in a revolt and the re-establishment of male supremacy."

This must be also a “must-read”

“…that woman is, as Herbert Spencer and others have pointed out, simply "undeveloped man"--in other words, that Woman represents a lower stage of evolution than Man.”

“Take the instance of Madame Curie. When radium was first discovered in the laboratory of the late Professor Curie we were told that the latter had made the discovery, it being at the same time mentioned that he possessed in his wife a valuable aid in his laboratory work. We were afterwards told that the discovery of radium was the joint work of both, the implication being that the honors were equally divided. Now, Feminist influence has succeeded in getting Madame Curie spoken of as herself the discoverer of radium!”

Do female judges use sex appeal to influence male judges?

There are a quite a lot of points to make on this article;

Obama owes his victory to whom? Women? Weren’t women (especially, white old ones) firmly behind Hillary to realize their dream of “a woman President in their lifetime” at the expense of the first black President? Wasn’t it actually white men, who weren’t caught in either race or gender identity politics that shaped the democratic nominee process who tipped the whole election in favour of Obama? Shouldn’t Obama owe his victory to white men and therefore give another seat to one of them in case someone retires from the Supreme Court bench?

And whose “article of faith” is it that the next vacancy (and the next one too – yes, keep wishing) will be filled by a woman? Isn’t it just Ms. Dahlia Lithwick and other small group of fellow feminist comrades who want to promote as an article of faith that not only the next vacancy in the Supreme Court but any high-profile public (and private) positions be filled by women? This advocacy article conveniently comes with a list of possible female candidates to fill the vacancy if it indeed comes up. Again, keep wishing.

Now let’s turn on to the arguments made in the article.

"The male judges were 10 percent more likely to rule against alleged sex-discrimination victims. And male judges were "significantly more likely" to rule in their favor if a woman judge served on their panel"

First of all, who decided that it is better for judges to rule in favour of alleged sex discrimination victim? Isn’t it precisely judges’ job to decide whether there are merits in the cases brought about by the suitors (and by the way who are sex discrimination “victim”?) Doesn’t author know that “significant” percentage of sex discrimination cases do not have case or filed for profit or personal (such as retaliation) reasons. And if female judges rule in favour for alleged sex discrimination victims just because they are women and their ovary or breasts whatever female things interfere with their legal reasoning and analysis of the cases, then there should be fewer female judges, not more. Remember, whenever there are women (so-called “victims”) and her feminists attorneys profiting from baseless sex discrimination cases, there are plenty of male supervisors/co-workers/management suffering unjust legal and financial consequences. And ultimately it is consumers and public at large who have to bear the cost.

"It may suggest female moral reasoning—if such a thing exists—might be contagious."

Or is it because male judges were afraid that not rendering judgments along with the feminist party line (that all women are discriminated against and women never lie) would make their own positions vulnerable? That female judges sitting on the same bench would report to some “gender committee” about her male colleagues “resistance” to rule in favour of “victims”? Or are these female judges using their “sex appeal” or some “feminine attributes” to coax fellow male judges into thinking that they should rule in favour of women?

"It's why liberal lion William Brennan could write so expansively about equality and fairness and justice while still refusing to hire female law clerks."

Doesn’t he have a right “not to hire”, as opposed to “refuse to hire” underqualified female law clerks or does Ms. Lithwick think gender quota should apply in every judges’ offices?

Equal opportunity abortion?

Normally staunchly pro-abortion leftist people would turn into temporary pro-lifers only on one occasion - when the abortion is targeted towards female babies, as it has been allegedly practiced in China. On the other side of the coin of this temporary suspension of one of the leftist most celebrated caueses is, do these leftist people support abortion here in US because aborted babies include boys? In other words, is it because abortions in US is equall opportunity - male and female babaies are aborted at the same proportion? I don't have a strong stand on abortion issue, but this is interesting to think.

One has to think two possibilities when there are far fewer women than men in any given societies. One possibility is that women will be treated as objects, commodities, they will become target of sexual exploitation, etc. This is the (only) possibility that has been talked about in western liberal media. This is their preferred narrative since it perfectly fits their agenda and worldview - that women are oppressed, are treated as objects, and are discriminated against, and therefore actions for social justice and social engineering is needed.

However there is other possibility, a possibility that has never been discussed hitherto in liberal western media, and that is the possibility that women’s status will actually become higher. If there are fewer young women than young men, it is far more likely that those young men will bend over backwards to grab attention of women and please them, in order to get themselves girlfriends or wives, rather than abducting them or paying money to get the bride, as some media tried to portray. It is much easier and less riskier for those young men to put on some nice jackets, flowers in hands and take women to some fancy restaurants if they want girlfriends or wives than to engage in criminal acts or pay huge amount of money.

Others think that too many men, or overabundance of them in society itself will create a problem, as too much energy, testosterone and frustration of young men are pent up in society. This is nothing but an extremely misandryst view, by people who think that maleness or male virtue is essentially evil and harmful to society and women. Nobody talk about extreme gender imbalance in favour of women at senior age in any country, but if male to female ration exceeds just 1.20, then this is an emergency in need of corrective actions.

Male post-partum depression

Interesting story about male (!!) post-partum depression. I guess part of the depression stems from the gap that society (modern, politically correct) expects of new dads and what men are actually equipped and capable of doing from evolutionary perspective. Modern politically-correct society pretends that men and women are exactly the same, yet when it comes to parenting, traditional nurturing mother model is a gold standard and the society judges both new moms and new dads on that basis.

This puts men in distinct disadvantage, of course, as men are men after all, whether they take paternity leaves that are as long as wives’ maternity leaves, bottle feed or change diapers as often as their wives. For thousands and millions of years men’s primary tasks were to protect family from outside threats, provide food, etc., not feeding baby or taking care of crying babies. Men who are brain-washed by feminists think that men OUGHT to behave like moms, and SHOULD be able to perform like moms, yet evolutionary psychology tells us that men are not equipped as well as women in these departments.

At the same time, traditional roles played by fathers, such as teaching and enforcing rules, and strict, solemn father type is becoming obsolete. New dads are simply expected to be the “second” mom, a substitute mom who can take over feeding, diaper-changing and other baby and home-related chores for moms, so that the “real” moms will be freed from baby-related chores and return to work and office where they are expected to take over men.

This gap between what men are actually capable of doing from evolutionary perspective and what society expects the “substitute” mom to do, as well as the feeling being belittled by society of their traditional male role, fatherhood and general societal disregard of males, are contributing to the increasing number of depression among new dads.

UN Secretary-General speaks out (too much)

This piece of quote, from usually laconic and low-key Korean UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is a little bit old, but worth quoting;
“Violence against women is thus an attack on all of us, on the foundation of our civilization.”

Wow. It’s a heinous crime (UNLESS it’s a story made up by a vengeful woman), but is it an attack on the foundation of our civilization? This English-challenged Secretary-General may wish to consult his English-Korean dictionary before making some stupefying comments that is way out of proportion. This guy is usually so low key that nobody usually notices and below the radar screen of most people, when he goes berserk, he really goes berserk.
This kind of hyperboly is almost on par with some nutty feminists who claimed that domestic violence is sexual terrorism.

He also delivered another line in the same statement which must have been directly fed by some western (Anglo-Saxon) feminists;

“Violence against women is an abomination.” I don’t think such big words like “abomination” is within this Korean’s usual vocabulary. Well, to tell the truth, English is not my mother tongue either, so I won’t make too much of a fun of him, but at least I'd suggest that he or his aides who drafted his speech has to be a little bit more careful in the choice of words.

Well I guess that he doesn't really believe all these stuff seriously, but as the chief of the United Nations, which has been so thoroughly co-opted by international feminists (which is like American gender feminists on steroid), he had to represent the "interest" of the organization and had to read out the statement prepared by junior feminist speechwriter approved by a more senior feminist aid to SG.

How to create a "controversy"

Just saw a movie “Slumdog millionaire”. It’s a fun movie, fast-paced, good soundtrack..etc. After getting home, I did some research on the movie (my favourite wikipedia) I found out that the movie is not without a co-director” of the movie who missed out on the Oscar nomination. Actually it is not really a “controversy”, or should not be called so, but in the sense that as long as there is someone out there who is determined to stir up one in order to push their agenda, yes, it may be a “controversy”.

(Ms. Jan Lisa Huttner-Champion of women filmmakers, or one-woman controversy protagonist)

Feminists, as we all know, never miss a chance to claim credit even when it’s not due. So when sympathetic and (a bit patronizing as well in my view) “real” director Danny Boyle decided to give his “casting director” an unusual title of “co-director”, and that casting director happened to be a female (a rare kind in the industry we’re told), and with the film’s huge success, the stage was set for a “controversy”, at least in one feminist’s view.

A feminist who is used to entitlements, handouts and to getting pampered by males seemed to have had a hard time understanding why (male-dominated) Oscar nominated only the (male) director and not the (female) co-director. And gender imbalance is a bad thing- except in prison population or suicide rate, or high school drop out rate or unemployment in recent economic crisis - , so the on-line campaign to flood (and intimidate) Oscar board members with petition letters is one good way to rectify that imbalance.

Feminists' animation

Congratulations to all gender-feminists, now finally your dream come true - children watching animation movie featuring a female who conforms to gender-feminists ideology (minus big boobs and ultra-skinny thing) I understand that's what you've all been fighting for since the 60's when your elder sisters were burning bras and storming beauty contests.

You guys can continue discusing how the movie could have been even better, (or have better influence for girls and boys) by analyzing why the heroine has to have big boobs and be skinny and young and has a pretty face, rather than be a middle-aged, "curvy", cosmetically challenged women, or in other words, a "real" women. if you don't have appetite for this, then go back to home and wash dishes!!

More on Chris-Rihana saga...

In fact the Chris-Rihana saga is truly a god-sent for feminists who are always on the lookout for opportunity to advance their agenda. As lately the national attention is on economic crisis, unemployment and large scale lay-offs (though somehow feminists succeeded in reframing the issue as the need for laid-off men to stop looking for jobs, settle at home and be a he-mom); Duke’s case is long gone and it’s already exposed as a hoax…

And then all of a sudden you got a photo of a beaten woman plastered all over tabloid news. And the alleged batterer is Chris Brown (of all people)!! and the battered woman is Rihana!! It had perfect ingredients… celebrities, photos – feminists couldn’t have hoped for a better opportunity and thus they want all over the media on full salvo denouncing not just Chris in question but all males in general as well as a rap culture for allegedly encouraging misogynistic views and encouraging violence against females. There were two tiny feckles in this otherwise perfect story…the one was the fact that Rihana returned to Chris and the other being young girls not lining up behind old feminists’ patriarchy-made-him-batter-her claim. But these are small problems after all, the important thing for them is that their agenda is back on the frontpage again and their sisters and viewpoints monopolized coverage and opinion pages of mainstream media… Mission accomplished.

Nice job, feminists.

But beware of a story too good to be true, feminists. Remember Duke lacross players? That case also had perfect ingredients; white privileged males, jocks at frat party, low-income black working (here we don’t bother what her “work” was) mom, and sexual assault…

It’s also amazing to see how standards / criteria to decide who are the guilty ones in domestic violence cases have been switched, changed and invented to ensure that women are victims all the time and men are culprits all the time. First feminists conceived “first strike” theory in which the person who initiated assault was supposed to be the guilty one, no matter what the outcome (who ended up injured more) was. A small inconvenient fact was that it turned out women initiate physical assault more often than men. Thus feminists wasted no time in conjuring up the “primary aggressor” theory which holds that the person who are bigger and stronger would be held guilty. This seems to be working well since in most couples, men are bigger and stronger. (I wonder what feminists are going to say if a woman happened to be bigger and stronger than a man in a given case and injured him? – I bet they’d sneer at small, weak man, and triumphantly chest-thump and declare women are new men) This is already an ART in itself, an ART of ensnarling males as always guilty party in domestic disturbance cases while maintaining a semblance of gender-neutral languages in domestic violence laws so as not to violate Constitutional clause which prohibits discrimination based on gender.

On laid-off (high income) males

No so subtle attempt to further stigmatize the stay-at-home-moms.... To feminists like her, current economic crisis is just another opporunity to advance their agenda of gender role reversal and social engineering. All the stuff about pretending to show concern for middle to low income families are just so bogus, and beneath its thin veneer you can see her gleeful smile....

In her continuing vilification of laid-off males, Judith Warner is narrowing down her target to top 5 (or 1%) of (previously) high income males, whose family are more likely to adopt (or stuck) in traditional sex roles in terms of division of family labour and who are less likely to help doing dishes than middle- to low-income males.

What’s her motives here?

Obviously it is a bigger victory for feminists if high-income males change their mind and totally give up their career and be stay-at-home-dads than middle- to low-income dads doing so, because;

-Ratio of males in those high-income industries will decrease, and that of women will increase. Also the income ratio of men and women will shift (albeit slightly) in women’s favour.

-Wives of high-income males tend to be more educated and more likely to have previously held high-income jobs than wives of middle- to low-income males, and when these women go back to workforce, they are more likely to work in high-paying jobs than, say, 11$/hour telemarketers which is one of typical jobs that wives of middle- to low-income males get. Again this will serve to increase ration of women in high paying jobs or senior positions, and shift the income ratio in women’s favour.

So again, it’s all about power and money, the two things gender feminists love most (and the money IS power, according to gender feminists)

By the way, I wonder how the Judith Warner and other feminists would react if the 82% of all laid offs were on women; I’m sure she won’t be too obsessed about pesking women to stop looking for other jobs and instead wash dishes and coffee mugs…