You would think that playing a gender card in election to become a leader of a country is a luxury that only countries not in imminent danger of war or attacks by terrorists can enjoy. When Islamic terrorists armed with rocket right across the border are aiming at citizens, most people would think that it’s not really a good time to choose the leader of the country on the basis of gender just so that you can show off to the rest of the world how politically correct, progressive, and open-minded, tolerant, diverse and inclusive you are, and to please feminists that there are one less countries in the world led by another Neandelthaal males. There is a little bit more important thing at stake here than winning the politically-correctness sweepstake, like safety of you and your family’s lives.
But things are little bit different in Israel.
Livni, who have mostly stayed away from playing a gender card has in desperation resorted to one of the most efficient, battle-test methods to get some more votes as she trailed behind leading candidate Nethaniyahu. And this almost always works as there are always some elements that are going to blame ANYTHING on gender discrimination – questions or doubts about competency or experience of female candidates are automatically labelled as “sexist”, no matter how legitimate such concerns are. No one, especially men, are permitted to question; instead they are only allowed to “follow”.
Trying to silence opposition or even questioning of experience of female politician by hauling sexist label is fine, but it also has unintended consequences. It will make discussion or examination of female politicians experience and competency off-limit to the public. There will be no opportunity to judge female politicians’ merit or competency; you are only to decide for yourself whether the act of electing a female leader - a political gesture signalling a total submission to feminist ideology and political correctness - is worth foregoing more experienced and competent male leader for the country.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Male-bashing in the era of recession
Liberal news media these days simply cannot stop belittling men and hounding them into doing more housework, or to be more like “housewives”. In addition to a piece by New York Times, the Newsweeks also jumped on the use-economic-downturn-as-means-to-realize-feminist-utopia bandwagon. I don’t know exactly what kind of benefits it will bring to national economy as a whole if laid-off men do more housework rather than watch TV (do they?) or look for the next job, but it doesn’t matter to feminists. They would rather have more men permanently stay at home to be stay-at-home-dads than seeing economic recovery. It’s in a way understandable since the economic recession seems to be taking toll much more on men (and especially high-paid men in financial sector, etc.) than on women, so feminists would lose nothing by seeing this recessions going even deeper. Just wait to see more men, especially in high-paid position, get pink slips, and see the proportion of women in workforce rise higher (and to break the historic 50% mark). They know they are inching towards a feminist utopia. Now that’s a “silver lining” or what?
Feminists don’t need to worry much about recession anyway because as they can thrive on government entitlements and giveaways. So when most people are worried about how to pay the next mortgage or rent, instead feminists’ minds are preoccupied with how to make more men to do more housework, how to change people’s perception of men from breadwinner to stay at home caretaker!
Continuing economic downturn is a cause of great concern for all of us except feminists, but it is even worse to see the degree to which this country is poisened with man-hating brand of feminism - which can only see current economic downturn as "opportunity" to further their social engineering agenda.
Feminists don’t need to worry much about recession anyway because as they can thrive on government entitlements and giveaways. So when most people are worried about how to pay the next mortgage or rent, instead feminists’ minds are preoccupied with how to make more men to do more housework, how to change people’s perception of men from breadwinner to stay at home caretaker!
Continuing economic downturn is a cause of great concern for all of us except feminists, but it is even worse to see the degree to which this country is poisened with man-hating brand of feminism - which can only see current economic downturn as "opportunity" to further their social engineering agenda.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Rwanda - feminists' experiment
A couple of interesting points on this NYT Kristof's blog....
It is interesting that he is noting this majority (or superiority), although a slight one, with a hint of glee. Well, I guess sometimes “equality is not enough” and you may be tempted to compensate for inequality in the past or inequality in other areas.
“That much of what has happened is a result of genocide can’t be denied…”
As sad as it may sound, you simply cannot de-link this artificially high proportion of women representatives, which in many parts owes to the imposition of gender quota, which was sneaked in by western white feminists, to this historic catastrophe.
“Rwanda’s situation is vastly different from the U.S. and an authoritarian hand is in large part responsible for female representation.”
This cannot be stressed enough. The “authoritarian hand” which is actually mostly a “feminine hand” that combines authoritarian forces of women representatives in the country (as they now constitute a majority) and mostly white international feminists groups, and major donors (most of whom are co-opted or pressured by international feminists groups), who take advantage of a chaotic situation in a country that’s ravaged by years of genocide and conflicts, and try to sneak in their model of utopian gender-free / gender neutral or even pro-matriarchal society.
It is interesting that he is noting this majority (or superiority), although a slight one, with a hint of glee. Well, I guess sometimes “equality is not enough” and you may be tempted to compensate for inequality in the past or inequality in other areas.
“That much of what has happened is a result of genocide can’t be denied…”
As sad as it may sound, you simply cannot de-link this artificially high proportion of women representatives, which in many parts owes to the imposition of gender quota, which was sneaked in by western white feminists, to this historic catastrophe.
“Rwanda’s situation is vastly different from the U.S. and an authoritarian hand is in large part responsible for female representation.”
This cannot be stressed enough. The “authoritarian hand” which is actually mostly a “feminine hand” that combines authoritarian forces of women representatives in the country (as they now constitute a majority) and mostly white international feminists groups, and major donors (most of whom are co-opted or pressured by international feminists groups), who take advantage of a chaotic situation in a country that’s ravaged by years of genocide and conflicts, and try to sneak in their model of utopian gender-free / gender neutral or even pro-matriarchal society.
Mr. Kristof - Part 6, Women not "represented" nor 'utilized"?
One of the most repeated reasons why there need to be more women in parliament is that unless there are more women in the Parliament, women, who constitute half (or slightly more than half) of the population, are not represented.
REALLY?
Just the most basic understanding of how democracy work (and this level of stuff must be taught in civic class at elementary school) can tell you this is not correct. If, say, a white guy Mr. Smith is elected to US Congress from district 123, does it mean that Mr. Smith represents only his demographic group in district 123, white males, while all the rest of people, women, black, Hispanic, Indian, Asian and etc. were not represented in the US Congress? (I mix in ethnicities here since black and Latino activists, among others, also advance a similar line of argument) If the district 123 has only elected white guys in its entire history, does it mean that those rest of the demographic people have never been represented, EVER? Isn’t he a representative of the entire district, which also includes women, black, Hispanic, Indian and Asian voters?
If we were to follow this flawed logic, then no matter who will be elected, more than half of the population will always be unrepresented. If a white woman was elected, all the guys plus non-white women are not represented, which amounts to more than half of the population. If Indian man is elected, then all the population except Indian males are not represented at the District. If Asian woman as elected, no one but Asian women (who are quite a minority in most parts of the country) are happy. In districts, there are roughly equal number of men and women, and there are many different ethnicities (though the proportion of each will vary from district to district) in each district, mathematically the demographic character of elected person (gender and ethnicity) will never more than half of the population in the district.
Is this what “representative democracy” was supposed to mean?
Mix in the party affiliation and it’d be even more complicated. What if district 234 elected Ms. Jones, a black Democrat? Are all the women in the district represented, including a white Democrat, and a black Republican?
Feminists also like push the argument that a Parliament that doesn’t have 50% women ratio is “not utilizing the talent of half of population” (I guess the “half” means women). This one is even harder to comprehend. Again, if Mr. Smith, a nice white guy, is elected, can you assume that all the talents of white males in district 123 have been utilized? The talents that include that of electricians, farmers, bankers, lawyers, janitors, teachers, etc., and Mr. Smith somehow embodies the aggregate talents of all white males in the district but not at all the women or non-white males? Or Mr. Smith’s talent is confined to what Mr. Smith, only one individual in the district of tens of thousands of people, has personally acquired over the years through education and experience? Or should white male janitors in the district take solace in the fact that a same white guy is elected and therefore his “talent” of fixing broken pipes is going to be utilized in the US Congress?
OK, let’s move from each individual district to a national level, and see the entire Congress. Let’s say women legislator comprise about 20% of Congress. Does it mean that only 20% of American women are represented in the congress? If so, which 20% of women are represented? Would that mean all 100% of women voters in district 234 which elected Ms. Jones are represented (again, including white, Latin, Indian, and Republican women?) but 0% of women in Mr. Smith’s district 123 (even if she volunteered for his campaign and waited in line for 5 hours to vote for him)?
In the representative democracy, the person elected represents the entire district, not just the particular democratic group that the elected person belongs to. The elected person even in theory represents people who did not vote for that person, or voted against that person, or people in different political parties. Period.
REALLY?
Just the most basic understanding of how democracy work (and this level of stuff must be taught in civic class at elementary school) can tell you this is not correct. If, say, a white guy Mr. Smith is elected to US Congress from district 123, does it mean that Mr. Smith represents only his demographic group in district 123, white males, while all the rest of people, women, black, Hispanic, Indian, Asian and etc. were not represented in the US Congress? (I mix in ethnicities here since black and Latino activists, among others, also advance a similar line of argument) If the district 123 has only elected white guys in its entire history, does it mean that those rest of the demographic people have never been represented, EVER? Isn’t he a representative of the entire district, which also includes women, black, Hispanic, Indian and Asian voters?
If we were to follow this flawed logic, then no matter who will be elected, more than half of the population will always be unrepresented. If a white woman was elected, all the guys plus non-white women are not represented, which amounts to more than half of the population. If Indian man is elected, then all the population except Indian males are not represented at the District. If Asian woman as elected, no one but Asian women (who are quite a minority in most parts of the country) are happy. In districts, there are roughly equal number of men and women, and there are many different ethnicities (though the proportion of each will vary from district to district) in each district, mathematically the demographic character of elected person (gender and ethnicity) will never more than half of the population in the district.
Is this what “representative democracy” was supposed to mean?
Mix in the party affiliation and it’d be even more complicated. What if district 234 elected Ms. Jones, a black Democrat? Are all the women in the district represented, including a white Democrat, and a black Republican?
Feminists also like push the argument that a Parliament that doesn’t have 50% women ratio is “not utilizing the talent of half of population” (I guess the “half” means women). This one is even harder to comprehend. Again, if Mr. Smith, a nice white guy, is elected, can you assume that all the talents of white males in district 123 have been utilized? The talents that include that of electricians, farmers, bankers, lawyers, janitors, teachers, etc., and Mr. Smith somehow embodies the aggregate talents of all white males in the district but not at all the women or non-white males? Or Mr. Smith’s talent is confined to what Mr. Smith, only one individual in the district of tens of thousands of people, has personally acquired over the years through education and experience? Or should white male janitors in the district take solace in the fact that a same white guy is elected and therefore his “talent” of fixing broken pipes is going to be utilized in the US Congress?
OK, let’s move from each individual district to a national level, and see the entire Congress. Let’s say women legislator comprise about 20% of Congress. Does it mean that only 20% of American women are represented in the congress? If so, which 20% of women are represented? Would that mean all 100% of women voters in district 234 which elected Ms. Jones are represented (again, including white, Latin, Indian, and Republican women?) but 0% of women in Mr. Smith’s district 123 (even if she volunteered for his campaign and waited in line for 5 hours to vote for him)?
In the representative democracy, the person elected represents the entire district, not just the particular democratic group that the elected person belongs to. The elected person even in theory represents people who did not vote for that person, or voted against that person, or people in different political parties. Period.
Woman's "feat" exposed
Oops, just a little bit of inconsistencies in a story that was meant to showcase women crowning achievement in sports. “First women to swim across the Atlantic”! Only one man has achieved this feat so far (with rest on accompanying oats every night), and already a woman is doing the same! Which means that woman is almost as good as man! Hooray gender equality!
It still remains wonder why many reputable news organizations did not bother to check facts before publishing the original story (which was exposed as a hoax today). I’d be curious to see why they omit to go through such a basic procedure as checking facts and doing some simple math. Is it because many news outlets didn’t dare to check or challenge “women’s achievement”, however it looked dubious? Or is it because they wanted to actively believe in such a story, immerse themselves in an euphoric moment in the history of women’s sport, even though they were somehow sensing that there was something wrong with the math?
It still remains wonder why many reputable news organizations did not bother to check facts before publishing the original story (which was exposed as a hoax today). I’d be curious to see why they omit to go through such a basic procedure as checking facts and doing some simple math. Is it because many news outlets didn’t dare to check or challenge “women’s achievement”, however it looked dubious? Or is it because they wanted to actively believe in such a story, immerse themselves in an euphoric moment in the history of women’s sport, even though they were somehow sensing that there was something wrong with the math?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Mr. Kristof - Part 5 "Token" women indeed
The article also advances ther tired argument of “token” women;
"There are a couple of issues I didn’t have space for. One is a point that Marie Wilson of the White House Project makes in her excellent book, Closing the Leadership Gap: Add Women, Change Everything. She notes that it’s important not just to have a token woman or two, but some critical mass. As she puts it: “A single woman leader or a few women in a larger group are tokens; each token has to prove she’s man enough for the job.”"
But actually they are right. They are TOKENS, definitely. They are nothing other than the expression of company’s commitment to politically-correct notion of gender equality, that a company is willing to sacrifice some degree of competitiveness and productivity by hiring second-rate person who doesn’t merit to be there, that company is paying price, to play along with feminists' game.
What the White House project doesn't understand is that;
1) even a large company cannot afford to have too many "tokens", the cost become simply too much for a company to bear. It is especially so in the times of economic downturn like now. it is correct when feminists complain that current economic downturn hit women's career prospect harder than that of men's, but wrong in blaming discrimination as a reason. It's just a bad time to expect affirmative action for women.
These are indeed difficult times for women and other under-qualified people to get ahead.
2) people who advance this line of argument also imply that women cannot begin to function if they find themselves to be in a demographic minority. Why should company even bother to promote or hire a woman who will just freak out to find out that she is mostly surrounded by males colleagues in a boardroom and is too frighten or "disempowered" to work?
"There are a couple of issues I didn’t have space for. One is a point that Marie Wilson of the White House Project makes in her excellent book, Closing the Leadership Gap: Add Women, Change Everything. She notes that it’s important not just to have a token woman or two, but some critical mass. As she puts it: “A single woman leader or a few women in a larger group are tokens; each token has to prove she’s man enough for the job.”"
But actually they are right. They are TOKENS, definitely. They are nothing other than the expression of company’s commitment to politically-correct notion of gender equality, that a company is willing to sacrifice some degree of competitiveness and productivity by hiring second-rate person who doesn’t merit to be there, that company is paying price, to play along with feminists' game.
What the White House project doesn't understand is that;
1) even a large company cannot afford to have too many "tokens", the cost become simply too much for a company to bear. It is especially so in the times of economic downturn like now. it is correct when feminists complain that current economic downturn hit women's career prospect harder than that of men's, but wrong in blaming discrimination as a reason. It's just a bad time to expect affirmative action for women.
These are indeed difficult times for women and other under-qualified people to get ahead.
2) people who advance this line of argument also imply that women cannot begin to function if they find themselves to be in a demographic minority. Why should company even bother to promote or hire a woman who will just freak out to find out that she is mostly surrounded by males colleagues in a boardroom and is too frighten or "disempowered" to work?
Mr. Kristof - Part 4 Hidden costs of affirmative action
I think there are quite large social and economic costs for trying to artificially increase women in senior posts just to satisfy statistic-obsessed people like Mr. Kristof and feminists. These are:
1. costs for the campaign to put more women in senior posts, such as campaign ads, time and energy that could have been used otherwise for other, more productive purpose.
2. costs for the company that was pressured to hire second-rate people (affirmative-actioned women) in senior posts, which is essentially a productivity decrease by bypassing the most qualified people for the job (sorry Mr. Kristof and other readers but they are most likely men) and hiring under-qualified women.
3. further costs for the company that was put in disadvantageous position against other companies that hire the most qualified person whom it had to pass simply because that person was a male.
4. costs associated with setting up and operating government agencies tasked with monitoring percentage of women in senior jobs.
Now, let's look at the benefits of having second-rate women as senior managers:
1. It will make Mr. Kristof and other feminists happy; nothing could give them more pleasure than sipping coffee and glancing at a pie chart showing more women are getting senior jobs.
2. It will make women who got unusually fast promotion happy - who doesn't like promotion, which means more power, more status and more money!?
Remember, if you know economics even a little bit, all the costs for the above 1-4 will eventually be passed on to general public in the long run. The only winner in this bizarre gender-equity game is Mr. Kristof and some women who would get undeserved promotion, who could not rise to senior posts otherwise.
1. costs for the campaign to put more women in senior posts, such as campaign ads, time and energy that could have been used otherwise for other, more productive purpose.
2. costs for the company that was pressured to hire second-rate people (affirmative-actioned women) in senior posts, which is essentially a productivity decrease by bypassing the most qualified people for the job (sorry Mr. Kristof and other readers but they are most likely men) and hiring under-qualified women.
3. further costs for the company that was put in disadvantageous position against other companies that hire the most qualified person whom it had to pass simply because that person was a male.
4. costs associated with setting up and operating government agencies tasked with monitoring percentage of women in senior jobs.
Now, let's look at the benefits of having second-rate women as senior managers:
1. It will make Mr. Kristof and other feminists happy; nothing could give them more pleasure than sipping coffee and glancing at a pie chart showing more women are getting senior jobs.
2. It will make women who got unusually fast promotion happy - who doesn't like promotion, which means more power, more status and more money!?
Remember, if you know economics even a little bit, all the costs for the above 1-4 will eventually be passed on to general public in the long run. The only winner in this bizarre gender-equity game is Mr. Kristof and some women who would get undeserved promotion, who could not rise to senior posts otherwise.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Mr. Kristof - Part 3
Well, if the Wall Street had been estrogen-filled rather than testosterone-filled, actually I would agree with Mr. Kristof that there would not have been financial crash, since there would not have been rapid economic development in the first place! Remember what put you in an “prestigious” position to have a “crash”. You cannot have a financial sector “crash” in Rwanda (which by the way Mr. Kristof lauds for having highest female representation in politics) if all your possession is pigs and chickens and if there is no functioning financial market in the country. (Mr. Kristof, where are all the benefits that feminists' rule are supposed tobring in this poverty-stricken country?) Remember, testosterone is what made it possible for Mr. Kristof to woe about this crash on internet (who created internet?) in his comfortable office equipped with latest computer (who made his computer?) and other gismo in a high-rise office building (who built buildings?)
You could live in an alternative matriarchy universe in which technology and social, economical development is stuck in the Middle Age (no testosterone, no printing machines, no ocean-sailing ships, no gunpowder) where you don’t have to worry about financial meltdown, mortgage crisis and so on. And better yet, you don’t have to worry about global worming (no testosterone, no internal combustion engine) or nuclear war (no testosterone, no nuclear science).
You could live in an alternative matriarchy universe in which technology and social, economical development is stuck in the Middle Age (no testosterone, no printing machines, no ocean-sailing ships, no gunpowder) where you don’t have to worry about financial meltdown, mortgage crisis and so on. And better yet, you don’t have to worry about global worming (no testosterone, no internal combustion engine) or nuclear war (no testosterone, no nuclear science).
Mr. Kristof - Part 2, my suggestions
I think the best thing Mr. Kristof could for advancing the feminist cause to which he so emphatically pander (although this quite advanced level of pandering is still not enough for some of more hard-core feminists: ), is to resign as a columnist of NYTimes. Rather than simply preaching the beauty and benefits of world ruled by women, in one move, he can;
-reduce the percentage of white, hetero-sexual, educated, middle-age, male.
Better yet, after resigning (or actually before resigning and while on the job) he can do something abhorrent like sexually assault one of the young female interns in NYT. In this way he can;
-Further damage the reputation of white-middle-aged man, which he tried so hard to tarnish over the years
-make it much more difficult for large companies to hire white males in respectable positions, columnists or editors or managers, etc., which perfectly suits his agenda of reducing proportion of white males in those positions.
I suggest that Mr. Kristof insists his position be taken over by;
black(or hispanic or Asian or Indian or any other under-represented minority group), homosexual, uneducated, disabled women (or better yet, transsexual person) so that there would be more “diversity” as diversity sounds like the single most important thing in turning around economy and make world a better place. If possible, it is suggested that this person is not only uneducated (can score high on anti-elitist point), but not brilliant/capable or even retarded or has mental problem (so that we can overcome prejudice against retarded person or people worth mental disability).
-reduce the percentage of white, hetero-sexual, educated, middle-age, male.
Better yet, after resigning (or actually before resigning and while on the job) he can do something abhorrent like sexually assault one of the young female interns in NYT. In this way he can;
-Further damage the reputation of white-middle-aged man, which he tried so hard to tarnish over the years
-make it much more difficult for large companies to hire white males in respectable positions, columnists or editors or managers, etc., which perfectly suits his agenda of reducing proportion of white males in those positions.
I suggest that Mr. Kristof insists his position be taken over by;
black(or hispanic or Asian or Indian or any other under-represented minority group), homosexual, uneducated, disabled women (or better yet, transsexual person) so that there would be more “diversity” as diversity sounds like the single most important thing in turning around economy and make world a better place. If possible, it is suggested that this person is not only uneducated (can score high on anti-elitist point), but not brilliant/capable or even retarded or has mental problem (so that we can overcome prejudice against retarded person or people worth mental disability).
Mr. Kristof - Part 1
Mr. Kristof’s unending pandering to women is nothing new. When not calling attention of international community for man-made catastrophe (there is no “women-made” catastrophe as such, since anything women do is good according to his worldview) in Sudan or somewhere in Africa, “particularly” the plight of women (this “particularly” part is important as it actually means “exclusively”), he is busy these days kow-towing to man-hating feminists.
What are the possible reasons for this Mr. relentless cozying up to feminists? Here is a list of possible reasons;
a. It’s politically in vogue.
b. NYT senior management will see you in favorable light as you champion their favorite progressive cause.
c. It givers you a bump reader’s rating, mostly from progressive and female-heavy NYT readers.
d. He fancy a good place in an eventual world to be ruled by women (according to him), for embracing their cause from early on.
e. He actually it makes economic sense.
Now let’s analyze each of possible reason;
a. probably, could be one of the reasons
b. also probably yes
c. again, also probably yes
d. Does he seriously believe that men would have any place in a new matriarchy run by man-hating feminists? If so, I must say he must been deluded. The only possible exceptions in a new matriarchy are gay or trans-gendered person(male to female), I would think –but former may not be still technical and medically male, so they would be treated as any other “males”; even the latter is a XY choromosne holder at cell level so not sure about them either.
e. Please study economic 101
What’s the good terms for this kind of male-feminists, (defeatist?, femi-Nazi collaborator?) We need a name, a catchy one for this kind of people. And what could be the reason / motivation for these guys to pander to a group of people who think of you as nothing other than possible rxpist? Some possible reasons are listed above but there could be others. And how are the inner psychology of these men? Masochist?
What are the possible reasons for this Mr. relentless cozying up to feminists? Here is a list of possible reasons;
a. It’s politically in vogue.
b. NYT senior management will see you in favorable light as you champion their favorite progressive cause.
c. It givers you a bump reader’s rating, mostly from progressive and female-heavy NYT readers.
d. He fancy a good place in an eventual world to be ruled by women (according to him), for embracing their cause from early on.
e. He actually it makes economic sense.
Now let’s analyze each of possible reason;
a. probably, could be one of the reasons
b. also probably yes
c. again, also probably yes
d. Does he seriously believe that men would have any place in a new matriarchy run by man-hating feminists? If so, I must say he must been deluded. The only possible exceptions in a new matriarchy are gay or trans-gendered person(male to female), I would think –but former may not be still technical and medically male, so they would be treated as any other “males”; even the latter is a XY choromosne holder at cell level so not sure about them either.
e. Please study economic 101
What’s the good terms for this kind of male-feminists, (defeatist?, femi-Nazi collaborator?) We need a name, a catchy one for this kind of people. And what could be the reason / motivation for these guys to pander to a group of people who think of you as nothing other than possible rxpist? Some possible reasons are listed above but there could be others. And how are the inner psychology of these men? Masochist?
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Obama the first "feminist" President
Now let me psychoanalyze Eleanor Smeal and other feminists who pretend as if Obama is one of their feminist warriors...
1. Before 2008 election season starts, there was extremely (and I mean extremely) high expectation that Hillary will be a Democratic nominee and then eventually the US President.
2. Hillary lost a race for a party nomination, which was largely believed to be simply a coronation process, in a spectacular fashion, to a relatively inexperienced, young black “man”.
3. Eleanor Smeal and other feminists had no other place to park their extremely hyped-up expectation and hundreds of feminist agenda and policies that were supposed to be implemented as soon as Hillary was sworn in as the President.
4. Since they themselves stressed that they can "no longer wait" to assume the highest office of the land and since luckily the new president is not a macho, alpha-male type but rather a new-age liberal male, they decided to proclaim that "he" is actually the first feminist President, even though this one doesn't have breasts and has Adam's apple. In a way it is a bit like Hillary's husband being proclaimed as the "first black President" by black folks back in the 1990's. In this way feminists' can (at least partially) save their face for not being able to have the first women president when they had been pretending during most of 2008 that Hillary was such a shoe-in candidate and in fact a de facto President.
Still it must have been very difficult for people at Ms. Magazine to stomach this, as I would imagine that they would have preferred an authentic woman, a human being with XX chromosome, even with a "wrong” ideology or a party affiliation, like that gun-loving one from Alaksa, to be the President rather than a “feminist male” like Obama.
1. Before 2008 election season starts, there was extremely (and I mean extremely) high expectation that Hillary will be a Democratic nominee and then eventually the US President.
2. Hillary lost a race for a party nomination, which was largely believed to be simply a coronation process, in a spectacular fashion, to a relatively inexperienced, young black “man”.
3. Eleanor Smeal and other feminists had no other place to park their extremely hyped-up expectation and hundreds of feminist agenda and policies that were supposed to be implemented as soon as Hillary was sworn in as the President.
4. Since they themselves stressed that they can "no longer wait" to assume the highest office of the land and since luckily the new president is not a macho, alpha-male type but rather a new-age liberal male, they decided to proclaim that "he" is actually the first feminist President, even though this one doesn't have breasts and has Adam's apple. In a way it is a bit like Hillary's husband being proclaimed as the "first black President" by black folks back in the 1990's. In this way feminists' can (at least partially) save their face for not being able to have the first women president when they had been pretending during most of 2008 that Hillary was such a shoe-in candidate and in fact a de facto President.
Still it must have been very difficult for people at Ms. Magazine to stomach this, as I would imagine that they would have preferred an authentic woman, a human being with XX chromosome, even with a "wrong” ideology or a party affiliation, like that gun-loving one from Alaksa, to be the President rather than a “feminist male” like Obama.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Women overtaking men in workforce - NYTimes
For feminist warriors and social engineers, anything that help or propel their agenda is good. Anything. Even one of the worst recession in the country’s history that is costing people millions of jobs. Especially that millions of job used to belong mostly to men.
Just like World War II is being remembered by feminists mostly not as a catastrophe that took millions of lives, or associated with holocaust, or atomic bomb, but a turning point or a historic opportunity in which women took over men's jobs at homefront which were usually dominated by men, such as factory assembly line, etc.
So this on-going large scale recession looked to those feminists as just another opportunity to push their agenda and gender role reversal. Their central focus is men to do more of cooking, cleaning, diaper-changing and free up women's time so that she can concentrate more on work and be more effective, so that she can outdo those few remaining men in workforce - so that more women in senior position, more women in workforce, more pay for women, less men in workforce, especially senior position and lower pay for men.
It's a bit scandalous to think that there are people who welcome and embrace this recession as once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to further their agenda, isn't it?
Does anyone wants to talk about how the current recession is “discriminatory” against men given that men were disproportionately high among those laid off recently? Anyone? Hello?
If it was women, not men, who were hit hardest by the recession, NYT will be running full-page article bemoaning gender discrimination and how society is stacked against women every single day, but since it is men who are getting the pink slips, it’s just the matter of how to utilize this opportunity to promote gender role reversal.
If you look at this recession from another angle, you can perhaps say that economy in which women share proportion of workforce is a slow and sluggish one. It is important to remember here that no country or society in history has achieved high growth and economic development by relying mostly on “women” jobs, such as teaching, nursing, providing health care, etc. If such “women” jobs are to represent higher portion of country’s economy in the coming days, then it is a bad news, since economy is simply not going to grow just by relying on people providing service to other people. It would naturally mean that country as a whole will become poorer, since those jobs aren’t high-paying job anyway, but this is nothing to do with the supposed gender discrimination. You would need people to “create” things, be it products or buildings or infrastructure, in order for economy to grow and society to develop.
The countries who are rapidly expanding and developing are the ones that value and utilize the talents of male workers, such as in hi-tech industry, manufacturing, construction, as you can see most clearly in countries like China and India. If you devalue or belittle male talents, the country’s economy will shrink
Just like World War II is being remembered by feminists mostly not as a catastrophe that took millions of lives, or associated with holocaust, or atomic bomb, but a turning point or a historic opportunity in which women took over men's jobs at homefront which were usually dominated by men, such as factory assembly line, etc.
So this on-going large scale recession looked to those feminists as just another opportunity to push their agenda and gender role reversal. Their central focus is men to do more of cooking, cleaning, diaper-changing and free up women's time so that she can concentrate more on work and be more effective, so that she can outdo those few remaining men in workforce - so that more women in senior position, more women in workforce, more pay for women, less men in workforce, especially senior position and lower pay for men.
It's a bit scandalous to think that there are people who welcome and embrace this recession as once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to further their agenda, isn't it?
Does anyone wants to talk about how the current recession is “discriminatory” against men given that men were disproportionately high among those laid off recently? Anyone? Hello?
If it was women, not men, who were hit hardest by the recession, NYT will be running full-page article bemoaning gender discrimination and how society is stacked against women every single day, but since it is men who are getting the pink slips, it’s just the matter of how to utilize this opportunity to promote gender role reversal.
If you look at this recession from another angle, you can perhaps say that economy in which women share proportion of workforce is a slow and sluggish one. It is important to remember here that no country or society in history has achieved high growth and economic development by relying mostly on “women” jobs, such as teaching, nursing, providing health care, etc. If such “women” jobs are to represent higher portion of country’s economy in the coming days, then it is a bad news, since economy is simply not going to grow just by relying on people providing service to other people. It would naturally mean that country as a whole will become poorer, since those jobs aren’t high-paying job anyway, but this is nothing to do with the supposed gender discrimination. You would need people to “create” things, be it products or buildings or infrastructure, in order for economy to grow and society to develop.
The countries who are rapidly expanding and developing are the ones that value and utilize the talents of male workers, such as in hi-tech industry, manufacturing, construction, as you can see most clearly in countries like China and India. If you devalue or belittle male talents, the country’s economy will shrink
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)