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.