Curb feminists!

ANNOUNCEMENT: new blog!!

2010-12-01T00:06:00.003-05:00

Haven't blog lately....been busy and stuff, but anyway, I decided to stat a new blog - http://menrule.wordpress.com

In the new blog, I will focus more on my own thoughts and ideas about feminists and related issues, and less on my reaction and commentaries on current news, as I did in this blog. I do not inend to entirely end this blog, from time to time, I may blog here with my views and commentaries on events, but will certainly be less often...in the meantime, do check out my new blog!!!

Outrage at dearth of minority third-base coaches in MLB

2010-08-12T23:47:00.003-04:00

No, This is not a parody written by some right wing nutheads to poke fun at politically-correct diversity culture, but it is indeed a real article that was deemed newsworthy by the New Yorkt Times. SIMPLY AMAZING. And there are experts at university, etc., who take these things seriously and in a straight face say that “Sometimes you do have to intervene.”

"Repressed memories" and feminists

2010-05-28T23:59:00.002-04:00

This is a story of a truly courageous woman, and I used this word “courageous” not in a the sense feminists use it often (such as the so-called “courageous” women suing corporations for sexual discrimination, etc. – no, that’s just being opportunistic, hungry after money, and riding the politically-correct bandwagon), but in a true sense of the word. Ms. Loftus should be in the same league with Suan Hoff Summers, and others who courageously fight against politically-correct feminist orthodoxy.

Repressed memories, which were quite a rage in the 1990’s, was one of the feminists’ weapons of choice in their battle against men. Most of the memories supposedly repressed were those of rape/molestation by father/male members of family against very young girls who were either too young or too traumatized (or both) to recount the alleged events. It naturally followed that promoting the concept, and pressuring courts and judges to adopt it as a valid evidence in judicial proceeding, was important for feminists in their quest to put as many innocent men behind bars as possible, to raise awareness of child abuse by men, and to paint all men as actual or potential child abusers. It was no wonder why feminists had such hysteric and hostile reactions against Ms. Loftus when she methodically and steadfastly debunked tricks behind the concept of repressed memories so welcomed by feminists.

“For her courage in confronting this menace, Loftus was ostracized by clinical psychologists, denounced as an enemy of women, and accused of molesting her own children, though she had none. Armed guards accompanied her at lectures. And when she dared to reinvestigate a particularly compelling allegation of sexual abuse—the "Jane Doe" case—her university seized her files and barred her from publishing or discussing her findings. (Read Memory and Truth: The Mystery of Jane Doe.) She persisted in the face of these ordeals because she refused to live in a world of lies.”

It seems the tactics feminists' use to silence their opponents are same in the 1990's. While it is true that Ms. Loftus was subjected to feminists attack, she persisted. Still, I cannot help but think, what if Ms. Loftus was Mr. Loftus? Would “he” be able to survive such politically-correct attacks? Probably not.

Climate change - women disproportionately affected!

2010-04-01T00:47:00.003-04:00

Looks like some people took the old joke “The world to end tomorrow – women affected disproportionately”* seriously.

Feminists seriously believe that climate change will negatively impact women more so than it does for men. With their feminine and soft grasp of science and mathmatics (which explains why there aren't as many female scientists as feminists would like) and an extremely self-centric (or oval-centric as some feminists put it) view of the world, an issue that looks to affect the entire planet, not just human beings but also polar bears, among other countless animals and plants, is now defined as a problem that affects women disproportionately, and taken up only in that perspectives as if that is the only perspective that MATTERS.

And though some sane commentors to the article in the website politely expressed their suspicion as to whether this is really a gender issue, the doctrinaire feminist stuck to their bizarre view.

Discussion on climate change, now at the hands of feminists, have been relegated to another rounds of endless bean-counting - on how many males and females are in imporant positions - by feminists… Well, if the most important issue in climate change debate is about increasing women in high-level positions in organizations/institutions dealing with the issue, then it is not so important after all…ISNT'T IT? Feminists will have you believe, put some people with breasts in these important positions, and alas, the planet will start to cool down from tomorrow…. Himalayan glacier will stop melting, and polar bears are so happy that they won't have to drown in Arctic sea anymore….

*If you want to take a bit serious, statistical look at this, you will find out that it is not correct. If the world is really to end tomorrow, and all the people on earth are to perish, then 56 million more males than females would die (world population in 2009: male 3,442 million, female 3,386 million).

Glass Ceiling for Female Terrorists

2010-04-01T00:43:00.001-04:00

A very interesting article…if you are a “true feminist”, then you need to pursue gender parity in leadership position whether it is in a government, large corporations or…..terrorist organizations. It almost sounds like too crazy to be true that this article was penned by a mainstream (and therefore liberal)author(and some comments to this article suspected conservatives parodying PC cause), but I guess this is very logical consequence of pursuing what is the most important goal for feminists and liberals. Feminists always say that they want to see gender parity in all facets of life (-including criminal and terrorist world, now I know).

Woman politician botching BIG, BIG time...

2010-01-20T21:52:00.004-05:00

See what a female candidate can do… Liberal media is usually saturated with articles about how female politicians are such a wonderful creature, selfless, uncorrupted, efficient and capable. Now let's see one such female politician, who until a few weeks ago, was a presumptive next US Senator, the would-be trail-brazing first female Senator from Massachusetts, another prominent, strong, independent and highly capable female politicians who would embody women's superior ability in politics...Now let's see what she did.....she lost one of the easiest, surest election in the country!!

The result so shocking that Democrat's, NYTimes and other liberal media and groups are searching for an explanation of what had happened.

May explanations/excuses were offered. Many rightly pointed unbeleivable ineptitude of this woman candidiate, but feminists beg to differ. Read this.

Well, are you surprised at all that whenever women didn't get their wish, feminists are going to blame men?

Well, if Massachusetts’ old boy’s network existed, why did she win the Democratic primary anyway? (The author partly acknowledges this, but simply refers to this as “surprising… in the first place”. That’s it?) And usually network of influential and powerful people work only at the party primary level where party bosses and influential supporters could decide the fate of the candidates. Think, for example, in general election, what could the Democrat’s “old boys’ network” do to prevent Martha’s bid for Senate seat? Why would they even do that? Would they do something to derail her campaign just so that the State of Massachusetts doesn’t have to elect it first female Senator?

And what could the Republican’s “old boys’ network” do to prevent Martha? Everything!! Why? Is it because all Republicans are cavemen and think women only as a reproducing machine? No, because they are Republicans (surprise!) and that’s why that they are supposed to do.

Instead of discussing whether such old boys’ network still actually exists or what impact it had on the election, the rest of the article is simply a why-women-are-superior-politician piece often seen in feminist articles. By the way if we believe this Why-women-are-so-super-in-New England theory, it gives justification for dearth of women in larger national level elections - I like that.

Feminists and climate change

2009-12-16T23:12:00.003-05:00

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

2009-12-07T21:54:00.003-05:00

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

2009-12-07T21:49:00.002-05:00

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

2009-12-01T21:32:00.002-05:00

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

2009-12-01T21:27:00.001-05:00

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

2009-10-28T22:32:00.004-04:00

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??!!

2009-10-23T21:37:00.003-04:00

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

2009-10-22T23:35:00.002-04:00

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

2009-10-22T23:32:00.001-04:00

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

2009-10-05T21:26:00.006-04:00

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

2009-10-05T21:15:00.002-04:00

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

2009-09-16T22:01:00.005-04:00

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....

2009-09-15T21:06:00.003-04:00

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...

2009-09-14T22:15:00.003-04:00

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

2009-09-11T23:20:00.003-04:00

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!?

2009-08-07T01:09:00.002-04:00

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!!!???

2009-08-05T22:12:00.000-04:00

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

2009-08-05T22:08:00.002-04:00

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)

2009-08-04T22:28:00.002-04:00

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

2009-08-04T22:24:00.002-04:00

“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?

2009-07-20T23:26:00.002-04:00

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....?

2009-07-20T22:56:00.004-04:00

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....

2009-07-15T22:34:00.002-04:00

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

2009-06-05T23:04:00.005-04:00

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

2009-06-02T23:24:00.000-04:00

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

2009-06-02T22:49:00.005-04:00

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

2009-06-01T21:50:00.005-04:00

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

2009-05-04T23:47:00.003-04:00

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?

2009-04-16T23:43:00.002-04:00

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?

2009-04-16T23:36:00.002-04:00

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

2009-04-10T01:21:00.003-04:00

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)

2009-04-07T23:29:00.002-04:00

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"

2009-04-04T00:36:00.004-04:00

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

2009-03-29T23:16:00.001-04:00

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...

2009-03-20T23:34:00.003-04:00

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

2009-03-20T23:30:00.002-04:00

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…

Re-educate those young girls - Part 2

2009-03-19T23:36:00.003-04:00

The article exemplifies old radical feminists thinking style:

"perhaps the first time their generation has been compelled to think aloud about dating violence."

This is interesting since feminists always scream about the national scourge of young women getting beaten by their boyfriends, yet for many girls, this incident seem to be their first encounter with such dating violence! How could they have missed all the violence that were allegedly going around everywhere according to feminists?

"On a Facebook discussion, one girl wrote, “she probly ran into a door and was too embarrassed so blamed it on chris.”"

Even some girls (non-New York Times reading type), seem to know that in real life, many women conjure up stories of violence by men as an excuse for their fault or mishaps.

"don’t shock Marcyliena Morgan, executive director of Harvard’s hip-hop archive. “But it’s the girls!” she said. “Where have we gone wrong here?”"

Where’s the sisterhood here? All the females are supposed to line up behind other fellow females under any circumstances!! Girls are not supposed to use their own judgment or think independently, just follow suit of older women, who knows better than them that all men are enemy and all the evils in this world have been created by men!

"Acknowledging his attack would make them feel vulnerable: How could they have a crush on someone who could do that? It was less terrifying to blame Rihanna."

Good job trying to psycho-analyze psyche of young girls who uncomprehendingly don’t stand behind feminists. But is it the young girls or actually the old feminists who are really feeling "vulnerable" or "terrified" about this? Who are feeling vulnerable that their feminist old guards' torch has not been properly passed on to younger generation?

“What really matters is that we don’t destroy boys.”

Oh, really? It rather seems that there is a huge social drive not to destroy the lives of girls, or to make life easier for girls at any expense. As if excelling in school over boys on most areas is simply not enough, pushing bright young girls into studying physical science rather than English literature is getting so much more attention and public money than helping underachiveing boys. Boys’ lives, especially those of black, Latinos in inner city are so routinely destroyed that it’s not going to be even a news in this world.

"In the last few years, efforts to educate teenagers about abusive relationships have begun."

Looks like young girls have been let loose, and there has not been enough indoctrination of young girls in feminists ideology, so now we march on!

“Rewrite the ending of ‘Othello,’ ” they were told, “where there’s an intervention before Othello comes in with the pillow.”

Here’s a good old example of radical feminists' effort to re-write history, re-write great literature, and to alter the great cultural heritage of western civilization so that it fits their agenda and worldview. Remember, these so-called great literature is written by a man after all...reflecting ethos of the time that is extremely misogynistic by today's feminists' standard. How can we teach "his"tory when it is all writen by men... We need to teach "her"story..

Re-educate those young girls

2009-03-19T23:19:00.000-04:00

It looks like young girls are living in a more gender-free world where you don't have see every single events through tired old doctrinaire gender-feminist lense.

Understandably it poses a trouble for traditional feminists type. While they pretend that they've fought for a gender-free world where peopel do not have to be judged on the basis of gender, they are doing the exact opposite : re-educate those free-minded young girls into the mold of old radical feminsts type, by re-interpreting the entire Chris-Rohana event for them. I understand this motive, because, if this confrontation was simply reduced to physical altercation between a couple, as more common-sensical young girls of today do, then the whole feminists ideology which posits that males uses violence to perpetuate patriarchy would totally collapse. Such a prospect would really, to use the author's words, make these arch-feminists "feel vulnerable" and "terrifying".

Playing a "gender card" in Israel

2009-02-24T23:24:00.003-05:00

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.

Male-bashing in the era of recession

2009-02-24T23:05:00.004-05:00

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.

Rwanda - feminists' experiment

2009-02-11T22:20:00.002-05:00

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.

Mr. Kristof - Part 6, Women not "represented" nor 'utilized"?

2009-02-11T22:04:00.003-05:00

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.

Woman's "feat" exposed

2009-02-11T22:02:00.001-05:00

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?

Mr. Kristof - Part 5 "Token" women indeed

2009-02-10T23:15:00.001-05:00

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?

Mr. Kristof - Part 4 Hidden costs of affirmative action

2009-02-10T22:50:00.006-05:00

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.

Mr. Kristof - Part 3

2009-02-09T23:20:00.004-05:00

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).

Mr. Kristof - Part 2, my suggestions

2009-02-09T23:18:00.001-05:00

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).

Mr. Kristof - Part 1

2009-02-09T23:10:00.006-05:00

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?

Obama the first "feminist" President

2009-02-07T00:51:00.002-05:00

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.

Women overtaking men in workforce - NYTimes

2009-02-06T23:23:00.004-05:00

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

Sisterhood in workplace

2009-01-21T23:14:00.003-05:00

Sisterhood in workplace, a call for women to stop sniping at each other (with other women) – sounds good, no?

Well, not really.

The author make it sounds like as if guys do not do this kind of stuff, but only women do (and they do only to other women), and therefore themselves becoming the last obstacle to gender equality in workplace. But the fact is that, men do it all the time as well.

Then what's the point of the article? Well, to begin with, office rivalry and sniping are not really the nicest thing to do to your colleagues, boss, subordinates, be they men or women. I agree, but then why an emphasis on working women? The true motive of the author's seemingly benign call could only be understood in the framework of a class struggle, a class struggle not between capitalisn and proletariat, but a class struggle between the two opposite sexes.

Let me elaborate; since it is important to break a glass ceiling and into a male-dominant world of corporate boardroom, it naturally follows that all the women of the world must unite. The enemy is not other, more successful, highly placed women, but men.

Only by viewing all men (in workplace) as a class enemy, the author's call will make sense. Office politics, sniping and backstabbing are commonplace in most if not all of workplace, and it happens between men, between men and women, and between women. However, the author thinks only the last case, women sniping at other women to be problematic.

If you replace a woman with another woman in the board, it doesn’t help bring up the percentage of women in the boardroom. The percentage will only go up if you replace a man with a woman. Therefore, immediate ceasefire among professional women is in order, while pretending that the problem concerns only women and let men continue fighting each other to their own detriment.

UN Children's fund or UN Girls' Fund?

2009-01-14T01:21:00.002-05:00

You would think that the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) had changed its name to United Nations Girls’ Fund (UNIGEF?), if you take a look at the cover of 8 most recent annual reports published by the agency. All the cover photos of annual reports since 2000, are girls (2000, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2007), except in cases when babies (hard to tell the sexes of them) graced the front pages.

Actually this is perfectly in line with the policies and stances of all other UN agencies, who, informed by man-hating strand of virulent feminism, have determined to remake the world in their image (where women’s and girls’ interest are put first = where women and girls rule) and steadfastly rejected to help boys. In fact, ignoring the needy boys benefits feminists in achieving their aims; it will prevent diverting their precious resources away from its holy mission of assisting girls, and will help buoy girl’s competitiveness against boys in relative terms. The only thing they might worry about boy’s plight, if they ever do, might be its negative effect on girls, in the sense that troubling and delinquent boys may tease, bully, or sexually harass (all of which could be defined be feminists as “sexual attack” against girls) girls. Otherwise boys are not on UNICZEF and other UN agencies radar screen.

Working While Female (WWF) vs.Working While Male (WWM)

2009-01-05T23:14:00.002-05:00

Another related post on the same site (my favourite XX blog in Slate)

Feminists have craftily adapted DHB (driving while black) into WWF (working while female).

Well maybe there is such a thing as WWF – such as promoted over other more qualified men (especially Caucasian men) into senior management positions, freedom to pick and choose the male targets of your sexual harassment charges, opportunity to file sex discrimination lawsuits against your company if you are in a mood of buying a new mansion or luxury cars, watches and precious stones, etc. threaten your boss that low performance review for you will bring a big trouble for him, for example, finding his name on one of the defendants of sexual discrimination case, etc.

The moment you start working for a company, all of the above benefits come with you as WWF. You think the above are exaggerated? No, many companies (especially larger ones that could become easy target of feminist lawyers) have de facto gender quota, or numerical target for female representation at senior positions, and evaluate managers performance by how many female workers he have promoted, hired, or evaluated positively. Not to mention many “women-only” career networks, study groups, career orientations, mentorship programs or counseling programs in the industry or inside company that benefits only women. These are certainly beneficial, although to much less dramatic ways than the above, and are mostly or exclusively available for women.

Now let’s imagine the benefits and risks of WWM (working while male)

Promotion being passed over because you are men – companies has numerical target for senior female managers to meet and you are so getting in the way!

24/7 risk of being accused by female workers of sexual harassment/discrimination/assault or whatever convenient charges women can haul against men.

Work in physically dangerous occupation that have much higher risk of getting injured than, say, cleaning hotel rooms, and at the same time vilified by feminists for out-earning blue-color women.

If you happen to be a manager in a large company, you will be living and breathing in a corporate and social environment that defines you and your presence as the relic of patriarchal past, and view your presence as the evidence of the company's lack of commitment to gender equality at the senior positions and hindrance to achieving women’s full empowerment

Sexual harassment is terrorism?

2009-01-05T23:10:00.000-05:00

This should rank quite high in the list of hyperbolic rhetoric by feminists – “sexual harassment is a terrorism”. To be sure, the Slate’s XX bloggers are not the first one to employ the term “terrorism” to describe sexual harassment - there are many precedents – after all, feminists are the ones who are particularly prone to this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric among other leftist activists (I think some in-depth study and comparison on this topic would be interesting- who is the most militant in their verbiage – black activists, environmentalists, gay activists, animal rights activists, etc.?).

I guess feminists equate Sexual Harassment (SH) with terrorism since;

1) the trauma inflicted by SH to the women are so horrific and is on par with horror of real terrorism (the kind you see in Iraq and Afghanistan)

2) or just want to grab media attention to promote their cause by using the “T” word

On 1), I wonder if feminists are actually perpetuating “fragile women myth” by saying that women are so fragile that they are just as frightened by a few unwanted sexual advances are as they are frightened by roadside IED, etc.

Or may be it is that the feminsits who heard the story of another women sexually harassed are so shocked and distressed by the story that they are in the same mental state of victims of real terrorism, - who had IED blown off 30 yard away and see torn heads and limb flying in their faces. In other words, they are in perpetual state of paranoia.

Intersting line from the blog post:

“They'(Sexual harassment)re designed to keep women in the lower-paying jobs on the ladder.”

It’s good that you have another excuses or someone else (i.e. men of course) to blame for your low performance and non-competence which is really holding you back. It is also clearly an expression of deranged feminists’ paranoia. Because I’m not sure if these men who made unwanted sexual advances are doing so with a clear intent of keeping those women on lower paying job. If they wish to do so, they are other ways to do that.

Nissan's gender quota

2008-11-08T00:47:00.005-05:00

Nissan's CEO Carlos Ghosn is a kind of superstar in an auto industry, as he had turned around a failing motor company into one of the most profiting ones, but hee too, as a Wester-educated CEO of this generation, is not immune from being contaminated by political correctness.

In a magazine interview he gave some years ago, he set a goal of having 5% of senior managers women.

Good. But it begs a lot of questions for this legendary guy whose life was portrayed in a popular comic book.

First, if having women as senior managers is so important, why this wasn't the first thing Mr. Ghosn did when he took over the job at Nissan? Instead, he waited until the company's performance turned around and got firmly on track for further growth. What does it mean? To me, it only means that "affirmative-actioning" women into senior positions is a luxury that only a few large companies could afford. You can make a political gesturing like this only when company is in good order.

Second, he seems to exhort other auto companies to do the same,but it strikes as odd, as if getting more women into senior positions is the success for suto company, you would rathr NOT other companies to do the same, since in this way, you can be rest assured that only Nissan will benefit from the supposed benefit derived from the increased female managers, while other companies do not. Why do you want to reveal key for success in trade, and ask that competitors follow suit?

Actually what is going on here is that Mr. Ghosn know that affirmative-actioning more female managers, and setting numerical target and gender quaota, will put his company in disadvantage, as 5% of the managers will be sub-standard ones, who are articifially promoted for their jobs. If its rivals pack their senior manager posts with 100% compitent people who won their posts on merit, guess which one has more compitent manager team as a whole? Nissan, with 95% managers chosen on merit and 5% filled in as quota, or Toyota, with 100% managers chosen on merit and 0% quota people?

In this sense, it might not be "fair", if other companies fo not set up the same 5% gender quota and fill it with sub-standard people. One analogy would be gender mixed sports that are a staple of intramural sports events. In these mixed sports, typically a ballgame like basketball or a volleyball, the number of men and women who can play in one team is strictly set. So, let's say, in volleyball, if the rule says one team should consist of 3 men and 3 women, then that raito has to be observed. You cannot field a team of 4 men and 2 women, because it will give an unfair advantage to such a team that have a higher ratio of men. In sports, obviously women's weaker physical fitness level is a liability, and therefore, to be fair, all teams must have equall number of women, not less. Similarly, in a corporate world, if one company wants to show chivalrish side and adopt a gender quota, in order not to be put in a disadvantegous position in a cut-throat competition in the market, that company will naturaly wish that other companies adopt similar measures.

Natural evolution of women

2008-09-24T22:00:00.001-04:00

Those two articles that were published in the Times, are quite far apart in the subject matters they discuss and also chronologically (one of them was published two years ago, the other one just last month), but nonetheless I see some similarity, or a common thread, apart from the fact that both articles discuss women’s issues.

Would a (supposedly) natural evolution of women from submissive, multi-tasking mothers in the hunting ages into independent, strong political, economic and social leaders of the modern world, as happily and self-absorbedly described by power-hungry feminists at the one of the biggest feminists parties (a.k.a. Women's Forum for the Economy and Society) something akin to a theory discussed in the mid-1970’s by sports scientists?

Back in the 70’s people wondered, scientists examined, and feminists revelled at the idea that someday women may overtake men in (extreme) long-distance running (42km marathon or longer) because of the higher fat ratio in their bodies. Now, 30 years later, nobody in right mind seriously believes that. That 70’s extremely simplistic, linear thinking which held that simply because women have more fat than men, women can outrun men in the long distance, has yielded way to more rigorous analysis and studies, which found that that WILL NOT HAPPEN. (Unless we genetically engineer women into men, that is, and I guess there may be many feminists who might like that idea for the sake of no-excuse-allowed gender equality)

Much in the same way, the idea that simply women are better at empathy, communication and multitasking, and since modern world requires more and more of them, women will become natural leaders of the modern world, may be too linear and simplistic. (I am getting used to it, but sometimes still baffled by feminists who say that women and men are absolutely same in every way, and in the next breath say that women are genetically better at communication, empathy, multitasking and son on…) Wouldn’t modern world require more and more of scientific and mechanical knowledge, or more organizational and leadership skill, or more focused, in-depth knowledge on increasingly compartmentalized fields of expertise? Or will empathy such an important factor in getting ahead in the 21 st century career race? Or an ability to chat about boys and fashion and deserts for several hours straight a kind of communication style required in modern world? Is multitasking of feeding baby, washing dishes and cleaning floor same things as overseeing employees, preparing for important presentations, checking company’s balance sheet all at the same time?

Sexism in Israel, or so declared by feminists

2008-09-24T21:57:00.000-04:00

It's apparent that since the prospect for Livni's taking over premiership is not as good as it originally appeared on paper, another woman writer tries to pre-empt any opposition or negative view of the woman as some sort of a "sexist" behavior. The data she cites, such as only 8 percent of Middle Eastern parliaments are women doesn't have anything to do with whether Israel is still a bastion of Neanderthaal macho men, since the figure include all Middle Eastern countries, including such feminists' paradise as Saudi Arabia and so on. And the fact that Meir is not so popular in Israel also have nothing to do with sexist attitude, it's her policy, as even the writer quotes, that make Israeli people not particularly fond of her. But to this author, any negative view of politicians, if they happened to be female, are automatically evidence of "sexism", end of discussion. Only criticism of male politicians are allowed. And since when calling other politician by a full name Tzipora become a sexist act? And what exactly Livni's advisor is whining about? Do they want to ban all meetings between two males in the country. As if they want to say, "from now on all meetings between more than two males are banned in this country as it is considered a subversive act against feminists utopia.". Don’t be surprised that when Livni failed to form a coalition government, the blame will be on sexism (even Israel had Meir and women heading parliament and supreme court), not on her dovish policies that are unacceptable to many Israelis.

New "wage gap"

2008-09-24T21:53:00.001-04:00

People seem to be coming up with more and more new, creative and inventive ways to stigmatize men and corporations, and put the dead-old gender wage gap issue on the news.
It’s interesting to see in this article how Neandelthaal men actually out-earn egalitarian tree-hugging type male in the workplace. Forget all the circular and self-serving reasonings for this wage gap between traditional and egalitarian males that these scientists tried to come up with to cozy up to power-feminist type; may be one of the reason for this is that egalitarian male put brake on themselves - they might be thinking, “if I perform at my full potential, I would be so far ahead of women in the next performance review and that is so against my egalitarian view; I will perform on a par or below my female colleagues so that women will be promoted ahead of me, get higher wage, and I can show with my own example that women can be as good as men, or men can be as bad or even worse than women”.

Or the other reason would simply be that these egalitarian men are simply not as good as traditional men. Even if you control for IQ or education, you cannot control for their ability or performance; it may not simply be that these testosterone-ridden traditional males were aggressive during salary negotiations only, they may have been aggressive in their work also, aggressive in completing the task, achieving goals, etc., and these may have led to higher performance review, hence faster promotion and higher salaries. On women’s side, whether they have traditional or progressive views on gender roles would have little to do with their testosterone level (which is low across the board), and therefore resulted in little difference in wage-gap=performance gap between them.

Why do you have to assume that men (or women) with similar IQ or similar education, background will have identical performance?

Women bosses cause mor stress - and society needs to change!?

2008-09-11T22:37:00.003-04:00

I’m sure there must have been a tremendous pressure (and temptation) to manipulate this experiments outcome to fit the current PC agenda, such as

-women feel much better and empowered and motivated and encouraged under female boss;

-women feel threatened and harassed under male boss (and actually were in many cases);

-men started to sexually harass female boss;

-men started to conspire with male boss on how best to preserve male privilidge, etc.

I give kudos for the researchers for at least not giving into those societal pressure or temptations.

But still it seems that they couldn’t resist the inner liberal-progressive urge to somehow attribute the results to discrimination again.

So according to them, women feel more stress under female boss than male boss, because-
Stereotype hold women to be more caring and women workers are surprised and stressed to find out that their female bosses are not like their stereotype-image of caring women and instead conforming to male archetype, or that female bosses themselves are under stress working in male-dominated business world and that stress trick down to female subordinates.

Good work. Very good imagination - they can be a card-carrying feminists from today. Only one explanation provided. No call to increase more male bosses who seem to cause less stress for both female and male workers, but only some pondering on how to change society so that these hated stress-causing female bosses could be more acceptable to both male and female workers. I’m sure if the results have been reverese, i.e. male bosses are found out to be more stress-causing for workers, feminists would be ecstatic (to the point of almost reaching orgasm!) and triumphant that this is the final and indisputable evidence why there should be less male bosses and more female bosses.

CEO's pay-gap

2008-09-11T22:31:00.002-04:00

I don't how much the so-called "equality" or pay-equity at CEO's level would matter to most of the people. It is in any way an astronimical figures for most of the people which does not have much real meaning, whether women earn 10 million or men earn 20 million. It is so detached from the life of ordinary people and trying to portray this issue as such a huge gender discrimination issue is so ridiculous and makes a mockery of the entire discrimination issue. For these CEOs it is a differnce between one being able to buy 5 vacation houses around the world or only 2 vacations houses, and whether one can own 10 Rolce Royse or only 2 Ferraris - whao, life is so unfair!!!

The only issue here seems to be the old feminist's vindictiveness against men in general. When you care more about super-rich female CEO (most of whom are affirmative-actioned in the first place) earning several millions less (several millions!!) than male counterparts, than, say, thousands of homeless, jobless people on the streets (most of whom are men), you know that only hatred against men motivated this female author.

You can see that same-old same-old feminists lines being repeated here; the much-recycled Summers’ comment (he was talking about science, no!?), the so-called pay gap (21 cent less per dollar, which begs the questions of why companies do not stop hiring such expensive men to cut costs) very shaky and unscientific comparison of salaries without any regard to the size of company, profits, or title, citing one study done by – of course – women to back up a shaky claim, reference to “stereotypes” and exhorting readers (women only) to talk about successful women among themselves so that they can feel better about themselves - no talk about the ditched female CEOs except in the context of blaming male-dominated corporate society, because women CEO deserves only success, failure or not meeting targets or getting profits – is presumably a carefully plotted and disguised form of discrimination against women. She even tries to introduce a new criteria for gender discrimination – low expectation for women. If women fall under pressure for too much expectation- would that also be a “discrimination”?

It is easy to understand that the higher the position goes, the bigger the pay differences could become. It does not make much difference to companies’ overall earning or profits whether an entry level clerk or sales assistants, one of hundreds or even of thousands, do a terrific job or a mediocre job. But it would do make a difference if one CEO or one senior VP makes a big mistake, or make a very wise prescient decision. The pay will reflect that.

It will also be more difficult to assess whether the pay is fair or appropriate or not at more senior level than lower, entry level positions. Lower entry level positions’ jobs are usually more standardized, routine and could be done by any other equally qualified persons. It is much less so at the senior level where persons’ vision, leadership, strategic decisions influence the entire fate of the company.

A risk means a “risk” only when it entails probability for both success and failure. Feminists seems to want a societal guarantee for success for any senior female executives in their quest for higher career and risk-taking jobs, and flabbergasted when that “success” did not come in handy, and start a witch-hunt for those who are responsible for not delivering “success” to these female executives, such as Ms. Cruz or Ms Callan. In many cases, culprits are sexist corporate culture, media or, male colleagues - usual scapegoats who could never escape the eternal sin of being born a male. In other words, in the views of people like Ms. Dobrzynski, women getting CEO positions are “fair” but women not succeeding in their positions are “unfair”. Perhaps a good place to start is to ditch this kind of childish wishful thinking and confront the stern reality of business world where success, results are rewarded and whining are not.

Bulgaraia's women's ice hockey

2008-09-09T23:59:00.001-04:00

Do these ladies know how to skate? Maybe not! Maybe they could barely stand up with skate shoes! That's the only way a team could possibly lose 82-0. That's more than 1 goal per minute, for the entire 60 minutes of play! I think even without any opponent at all standing in between your team and the goal, and one team playing by themselves, it may not be so easy to score that quickly and frequently. Imagine, place a puck in the center, play, shoot, goal!!, skate to the goal to pick up the puck, place in the center, play, shoot......!! keep doing this for 82 times!! it's a form of torture already!

Women's ice hockey should not be in the Olympics. With only 37 registered (female) players in the country and the country could still send a "national team" to the Olympic qualifiers. It's a joke!!

This simply shows the shallowness of women's sports, not juct ice hockey but sports in general, but because of some political pressure from FEMINISTS, we are supposed to treat these gals as if they are serious "athletes" and representing a nation. This is a huge insult to other serious male athletes who have played sports for years, endured hard training, and go through extremely competitive games to reach Olympics.

I guess that most of these Bulgarian gals must have just started ice hockey recently, because there were some incentive plan or pressure or laws to increase women's sports/teamsplayers in the country or because the gals thought it was an easy way to be on a "national team" and compete for the Olympics. If you are born a male in Bulgaria and play football, there is probably one in million chances that you would make it to the national team, but if you are a female and chose sport wisely, your chance of being in a "national team" and enjoy all the entitlements, fame, glory that come with it, is not just great, but it is automatically assured. Only 37 registered female players in the country.

Some thoughts on sports

2008-09-07T00:19:00.004-04:00

The Beijing summer Olympic Games are over, and I will jot down some thoughts on sports and men and women's physical diffferences.

1. Bolt is great. The guy is great. Not just because he won three gold medals in track and fields, all in world records, but because he is now certified the fastest homo sapiense ever. Men's 100 meters sprint is special. It is different. Although the gold won by Bolt is same "one" gold medal as was won by, say, women's rifle, or whatever, but here I have to be blunt and discriminating. Men's 100 meters sprint is ranks one of the highest in the importance in all Olympic sports. Women's 100 meters sprint is just as great, you say feminists? NO!!! Because women's 100 meters ONLY decide who is the fastest WOMAN. The last qualifier "WOMAN" is extremely important here because otherwise boys who won in American state track and field championship may want to compete in the race just to get a gold medal worth ??? dollars and appear on international TV. For example, a boy who won the Oklahoma State high school track meet in May 2008 had 10.62' record. (why Oklahoma, just random pick!!)That 'll easily give him gold in the Beijing's women's 100 meters and the world record as well, if you discount the only one outlier record which is such a suspect for doping (maybe women faces less scrutiny than male athlete) No, that boy won't be allowed to compete, the race is resreved for 'lady" only, where records like 10.78" can get you a gold. that will barely give bronze in the above-mentioned oklahoma State track meet, boy division. Probably that 10.62 boy could get some scholarhsip for university, if lucky, but that's it.

Fussy feminists...

2008-09-05T00:03:00.002-04:00

Feminists are just so good at inventing a new kind of "ceiling" one after another; originally there was a glass ceiling, and then "this" ceiling, then "that" ceiling and now a "mirror" ceiling...

And it is so hard to please feminists!! I mean there are so many variations of feminists that there are always one or two tiny factions of them left not 100% satisfied and who would start hauling "sexism" charges randomly.

I think at least recent (over) exposure of Palin in media must have satisfied feminsts who are; 1) hell-bent on counting the number of times women appear in the news, or more preceisly, a number of times women in leadership roles are portrayed positively by the media, and 2) whose only hobby in life is beancounting, countng the number of men and women in senior political positions. But Gosh there are more complicated, or spophisticated, die-hard feminists like Judith who are not happy until they see "their" kind of woman (meaning ultra-liberal) assuming the Office of the U.S. President (not number two and deputy to a man) while all the media (from liberal to conservative to major national media to local media to everything else) paint the woman in completely positive tone without the slightest hint of sexism (almost impossible feat given the astronomically high threshold for judging sexism).

Now look at Palin. Yes she is a WOMAN. She passed the first and the most important litmus test, but don't forget that there are hundreds of other litmus tests that the woman must pass... and let's see how she fares... She is conservative! a Republican! married! with kids! owns a gun! and cheered by men, especialy conservative, Republican, gun-toting men! for the reason JUDITH DISAPPROVES!!!

Palin failed all tests other than the first one and no wonder Judith is going bananas...

If Judith or feminists don’t like Palin to be on a Republican ticket, then I’m all for replacing her with a man, any man, but feminists out there don’t whine about Republican not giving woman a fair chance, blah, blah blah,

One --- away from feminists' ultimate dream

2008-09-02T23:12:00.003-04:00

Now it is interesting to see that it is the Republicans who are playing the identity politics - by hiring a person who does not much appeal other than the fact that the McCain's running mate is SHE -A WOMAN!!!. I thought this kind of cheap political gimmick belonged only to the Democrats, but apparently I was wrong.

Does he ever thought how old he is? 72!!?? He might be a tough guy who loved brawls and survived torture by the North Vietnamese, but it is a kind of age when anything could happen without moment's notice. There is also a rumor that he might not seek the second term if elecetd because of his age. And he stil chooses this running mate at the last moment! Does he want to leave the United States with the least experienced vice-president(ial candidate) after 4 years or even less (could be one month, who knows, illness can strike senileperson anytime) of his presidency? How IRRESPONSIBLE is that!! All he could think abut was getting some votes from disgruntled old white women type who are irate over Hilary's defeat, so that those extra votes would put him over Obama at the general election. How near-sighted and irreponsible.

But it mut be real political bonanza for the old feminist-type. They wouldn't have imagined that McCain, the "man of integrity", would pander to political correctness. But it doesn't matter. If McCain get elected, they at least got a "consolation prize", and they are still only a "hearbeat away", or if I were to put it, one hearstroke away, one caridac arrest away, or one whatever-conditions that could strike senile men in their 70's away from the feminists' ultimate dream.

Feminist evangelist on counter-offence against science

2008-07-12T11:15:00.002-04:00

Only a feminist, who has such a strong conviction that she occupies a moral high ground, and so self-assured of one's correctness (or political-correctness) on certain moral issues, can point to a growing number of people in solid science and biology backgrounds who are uncovering biological differences between men's and women's brains, and call them "evangelists". In a snobbish, high-brow world where feminists typically resides and where they howl loudest, the label "evangelists" or any other names associated with religion (Christian, that is) carries a sense of backwardness, people who try to promote creationist view which is scientifically bankrupt.

This feminist must have somehow thought that by labeling people whom she dislikes with the name "evangelist", she could discredit these people for trying to inbue unscientific, biblical fiction. Nice work. Except that most people could easily see that, it is this desperate feminist, who is trying to sell a now largely discredited ideology of men-and-women-are-exatly-the-same-and-all-the-differences-are-socially-constructed'" which came straight out of feminists textbook. WHO IS EVANGELIST HERE?

If people want to talk about variance, that's fine-let's look at the other, more unfortunate end of the "variance", by that I mean the lower end of the long spectrum of variance. Most people know (though hard-line feminists won't admit it or frantically try to change the subject) that most of the highschool dropouts, beggars on streets, prison population are male. Why people like Amanda want to spend so much energy and time and space on Slate trying to push women, who have ample opportunities to do everything else in the world, into science, or jettison second-rate female scientists into top-rudder, ahead of all male scientists who presumably (according to people who inhabit the Amanda-ville) reached their position only as a result of male privilege, than to reach out to those really poor (mostly) men who have to sleep on the streets or beg for changes?

In my view, it is one of the ultimate displays of man-hating to purposefully ignore those plights of men in the other extreme end of "variance" and instead try to stuff precious space of Slate with feminist propaganda.

Ms. Amanda shows by her own example that women are not good at scientific reasoning and are very emotional creature. If you have scientific mind, you should be very much interested in DIFFERENCES, however small, and explore the reasons why. Instead what she is doing is to deny - or half-deny, and compensate with unrelated stuff (women can be better with training, etc.).

Ms. Amanda also shows by her own example that women have problem with logical reasoning. She keep downplaying a few examples she chose to choose, (and even those she cannot completely refute), then cites even fewer number of arguments she think would buttress her argument. However those few examples seem to be outlier, not being replicated, and be easily refuted. We really need a special math and logic program for women.

Phoenix Country Club, the "new" Augusta national club

2008-06-29T01:05:00.001-04:00

So Hillary has lost and nobody is dancing to the tunes of “Augusta national club is the hotbed of patriarchal conspirarcy” anymore, feminists at the NYT needed some new target to prey on and continue their feminists’ media campaign for creating the ‘women under siege” illusion. And there it is, Phoenix Country Club. Never mind that many public buildings and facilities seem to set up to favor women over men and therefore discriminates against men (New York recently passed a law stating that all new buildings need to install at least 2 public bathrooms for women for every one bathroom for male), one savvy female reporter find out that one room out of a many rooms that a private club in Phoenix, Arizona has, is for men-only. From that moment, her indomitable quest to portray it as the of center of power relations in all of Arizona, failure of becoming a member or of partaking in the ritual grilling in that particular room would be such a career-ending blow for all aspiring Arizonians (do they call that?), male and female alike. (but the governor and at least one US senator, who just happens to be the Republican presumptive nominee and possibly be the next US President, are not even members of the club) She does not forget to insinuate how that policy hinders women’s progress in the states of Arizona (wait, did the female reporter just mentioned that the states has female governor, secretary of state, chief justice, etc…..?) When the world and society are changing so rapidly, it is at least a bit comforting to know that at least there is one thing that remains the same, one media outlet that churn same propaganda piece in the same line like a broken record.

Nice Spot to Eat After Golf, but Women Are Barred

Best article on feminists' whining on Hllary's defeat

2008-06-17T23:59:00.001-04:00

Wow. This is one of the best articles written by anyone in the media about the never-ending feminists whining. I am somehow relieved to learn that people could still voice their criticims of women and feminism -I thought it was criminalized years ago-oh that was in Sweden, feminists' paradise? Or was it in Spain which introduced law forcing men to do housework and the only political news from the country is that pregnant young woman becoming the defence minister, just for the diversity's sake? The next prime minister has to do even more acrobatic appointment, like appointing three-legged half-human, half-sheep as foreign minister to further elevate the country's record on "diversity"...Sorry, back to the point, Hitchenson rules!!!

NOW's reaction to the death of a reporter

2008-06-17T23:40:00.000-04:00

This from NOW's press release: "Our condolescences goes out for Tim Russert's family, but we never forget that he was the one who effectively put an end to Hillary Clinton's history-making run for the Presidency, with his pronouncement on TV that Hillary's chance is essntialy zero, on the night of her "big" win in Indiana and a "close" showing in North Carolina. Now the number one priority for NBC is to fill his position with a woman, any woman, so that "she" can be a role model for millions and millions of women and young girls. It is a high time to break the monoploy of an anchor position of an influential TV program by white males.

Consolation prize for feminists

2008-06-17T23:38:00.001-04:00

Katie, just like Hillary, is obviously trying to capitalize on the so-called sexism charges to her salvage her standing and her show which is stuck at the bottom. It seems now that drumming up the charges of sexsim is her only hope. Hopefully there is enough dummy people to believe it.

Feminists in media are just plain furious at Hillary’s loss, and since their worldview direct them to blame every misfortune and wished did not come true on men, Hillary’s loss could not be attributed to her bad campaigning or anything else, but only to the sexism in media and society.

Now, as the second consolation prize of prospect for veep spot for Hillary is also fading away, feminists are trying to drum up the charges of sexism and start national dialogue on sexism, as their third consolation prize. Now we know that it is not only Hillary, but the entire feminists in media, who are zombies.

Here goes Hirshman again

2008-05-03T12:08:00.003-04:00

Yet another cookie-cutter article from Linda Hirshman. This is an article in which old white feminist come to rescue another old white feminist. It;'s quite symbolic and the most salient feature of the Hillary campaign. Of course to most feminist, any negative description or portrayal of women is a product of patriarchy.

Given this display of old-fahioned, man-hating feminism on full-frontal display everywhere, among Hillary's surrogates (mostly old white women), among her staffs(ditto), among her supporters(ditto), the question now is why blue-class white men are voting for her. That is the biggest mystery in this race. They should realize what die-hard feminists like Hillary, who so far did not ostensibly display that side of her during this campaign - as it ironically turned out that it was "white male" votes that count (much to the chigrin of feminists like Hirshman)-, really think of males. When is the last time she showed concern for men? When did she adressed issues specific to men? Equal pay? Health care reform? "The highest glass ceiling" non-sense? I don't think so. All are based on old, tired feminist dogma that put men as a culprit of all evils in the world. Neanderthall males fearful of modern, ambitious, capable women disriminates against them in wages in an effort to keep them as child-bearing machine. that's how Hirshman and Hillary think of men.

In her feminist utopia, men have no place to live or breathe except as servants of emanicipated femalekind or punching bags.

Obama boys' "sexism"

2008-04-18T21:49:00.004-04:00

On the eve of big Pennsylvania primary, when it is becoming increasingly evident to everyone, including even the most ardent Hillary supporters, that Hillary’s (so-called) history-making run for President is coming to a close, younger generation of women are resorting to tactics now that have been preferred by their older sisters.

Those younger generation of women/feminists' tactics-as told by arche-type of older generation of feminist linda Hirshman is:

-Blame Obama-boys for sexism. It doesn’t matter whether you can point out evidence or not; as usual, women’s “gut” feeling, plus a simple fact that these Obama boys are not voting for a woman, is unmistakable sign of sexism. I thought women are better at describing their feelings, with all their superiority in language and literatures etc., but all these women can do is to say that they have this sort of “gut feeling” that sexism is alive and well, and this is the reason Hillary’s candidacy is now in the tank. And she keep repeating stories of those young women who have never heard their male colleagues or friends, families say anything explicitly "sexist", even by today's very low threshold for judging everything "sexist", all of them knew there's something about those men that tell them that they are closet "sexist" and try to make readers into believing that the sheer number of those "gut feeling", their collective weight, is somehow genuinely the evidence of "sexism". it shows that women are not good t logical thinking or have a sound reasoning; "gut feeling" will become a "fact" if it comes in large numbers; at some point there is no more a need for evidence or proof.

The articles (Hirshman's and the two articles mentioned in her article) also show that women, both old and young, are not accustomed to, or not mature enough, to distinguish between criticism and their imagined attacks by males based on (of course) sexism (what else?). They are simply not used to be on the receiving end of criticism or harsh words. they think that simply by throwing all-utility killer questions, "Is she being criticized because she is a woman?"(version 1), or "If she was a man, would they riticize in the same way?"(version 2), somehow men would be too scared to continue question/criticize women. It is a good, battle-tested tactic; nobody would be able to answer such purely hypothetical question definitively, and simply by not being able to answer definitively, the doubts were somehow substantiated; yes, "it is because she is a woman" that she is being criticized. The questions throw men off balance. The questions, once uttered, magically stops men from further questioning, women will have breathing space and time to recover.

In the lady-first western culture, women get used to having men do everything for them, give credit for them, and on top of that, take all the blames for them. before daydreaming that there will be vagina warriors in the oval office, femnists should first get used to women being question and criticized, becuase that's what's supposed to happen to people in power. The questioning of people in power is sfunction of healthy democracy. Feminists conveninently forget this very basic principel of democracy and think that all positions of power are to be offered to women just becuase they are women, and no question asked, and with no accompanying responsibilities. I think they will need 40 or 50 more Hillary-like politicians getting pummeled and scrutinized,and be mentall prepared for harsh but legitimate criticism.

The sad thing that become apparent from these three articles is that, with all the options and opportunities that were made available to them, women still decide which candidate to vote for on the basis for who their mothers vote for,(and will vote for opposing candidate as a way of saying "I hate yoou mommmeeee!!") and what their “gut feeling” tells them about the dark interior motive behind males voting pattern so that they can vote for the opposing candidate (again). And politicians are supposed to woo these voters. And media loves to portray women having decidedly big say in election, as a large voting bloc, swing voters, as a good, progressive thing.

The problem is not that consciously or unconscious sexism by Obama-boysm, as the author claims. The real problem is the mentality (unconscious) among those young women who simply can’t live with the fact that a woman politician could come with so much dirty political baggage. After all, they were taught all their lives in schools (especially in universities) that women are fair creatures, source of all goodness in the world while all the evil in the world are brought on by men, and that behind the sins of all the women who do bad things, there are men or male dominate society at large who caused women to do such bad things. They cannot stomach the fact that women politicians could be incompetent, or liar, or simply power-mongers. if they (are taught to) belive in the unbonded possibility of women, why are they so reluctant to belive in the women's possibility to be a horrible public figures?

Gee, I hate this article, we need more women (in powerful positions, of course)!!

2008-03-09T03:11:00.002-04:00

Why women like Ms. Pollitt thinks that just seeing an article she dislikes appearing in the Washington Post is a good enough justification for gender quota in the editorial room, etc.? It will be good for her and her less-talented sister journalist to get ahead of more talented male colleagues, but should life be that easy for women (or for anyone, for that matter)?

Old white women's dying wish

2008-03-09T00:33:00.002-05:00

It is quite interesting that quite a large number of very old white women innocently and almost pitifully say that they wish to see a woman President before they die.

We all want to help very old women, right? When we see them having trouble crossing a street, or carrying heavy stuffs, we stop whatever we are doing and help them first, right? And when these very old women, whose days on the earth are limited, have a wish that they want to see happen before they die, we want to do everything in our power to make it happen, right? And these old women want to see Hillary as president – what kind of a bastard would do anything that would remotely make that prospect smaller? We should be spend all our off-hours online-donating, volunteering, calling up voters, caucusing and voting for HER, right?

Maybe very old white men might have kissed their racist past goodbye and might have voted for Obama but many of them have died already. Most of the senior citizens are women. For them, they do not have to worry about race guilt, because they have another victimhood to hide under; women. It doesn’t matter that some of them might have been, or still is, very racist, and even might have been guilty of, especially in the South, accusing innocent black men of raping her (or just staring lusciously at her), and have white brothers beat them up back in the 50s and 60s when nobody questioned white women’s innocence and black men’s guilt.

But if you are very old citizen, and if you worry even a least bit about your grandkids or future generations, you should not be so selfish and impose Hillary on the rest of us. Allow me to be very blunt, (and impolite), but to put it directly, old people may die soon, even before HER inauguration, but all the rest of us, young and not so young and kids under voting age, would have to suffer the consequences of old people’s dyng wish for four / eight years. Is it fair? Is it the legacy that you want to leave for the succeeding generations? If you lived all your life being selfish, can’t you stop being selfish for a moment and think about your grandkids? If you lived all your life always being nice and fair, thinking about others, that is very great; can you do one more, final favour?

Another feminist orgy in Newsweek

2008-03-08T23:45:00.001-05:00

What is all this feminist orgy going on in Newsweek? Obama could never had such a lopsided coverage in favour of him even after 11 consecutive wins, but Hillary does, even with one not-exactly-landslide win in predominantly white, old, blue-color State and barely holding onto a popular vote win (and possibly losing out on a delegate count) in what was once her firewall State. It looks like all the old, white female writers in the Newsweek came out from hiding from the long and disappointing February and chanting feminists roar. February must have felt like forever for these ladies who were frustrated by black men utterly clobbering old white woman in Presidential nomination race (it didn’t help that there was an additional day in the month). Gee, in old days, white women in the South could accuse innocent black men who they don’t like of rape and have their white brothers beat them up. That was only 40 years ago. What a difference time makes, now all they could do was their feminist heroin and her campaign fumbling. ( I wonder how many of those very old white women who innocently say “I want to see a woman President in my lifetime”, actually are guilty of accusation of false rape against black men in the 50’s and 60’s.)

Why is this feminist media orgy, and no party for Obama? Let’s see how many African-Americans are in Newsweek, as writers, staffers, etc. I don’t see many (in fact none of the opinion writers are black). Now let’s see how many women are there? Many. I don’t know how many more junior writers and staffers are women, but I suspect a lot of them. Those old white women in the Newsweek, just like in Ohio or Texas or almost all the States who had primaries and caucuses, are just expressing their preferences. As old feminist guards, they practice what they preach. They are writers and staffers in the Newsweek, one of the preeminent weekly magazines, and it is read by millions of people, Their articles and coverage have influence on what people talk and how people think. They use there position to advance their agenda. If their heroin sister finally got a moment to shine a little, blow it out of proportion. If it is for a good cause, such old and tired media principle as a balanced and objective reporting could wait a while. Plus, March is a women’s month, so what’s wrong with it? Plus, this is not the first time Newsweek’s women hijacked entire issue. It’s funny how Hillary whine about media bias, when in most of the media, Newsweek and others, you will see so many old white women type, well-educated, pant-suit wearing, shoulder-pat feminists.

2008-03-05T23:32:00.002-05:00

My comments on yesterday's mini Super Tuesday, or Super tuesday II...

Now most mainstream media talk as if the next Pennsylvania primary is going to be a key battle for for both Hillary and Obama. ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Obama only needs to stay comfortably close to Hillary and then it's his de facto strategic win, since he's so far ahead in the delegates count. Don't be duped into Hillary's raising expectation game...PA is Hillary's State, because of its demographics and all major power players in the State, most notably the governor himself, is relentlessly campaigning for her. The State was heavily titled for her (20% and more) and the gap is now closing.

It is like saying Mississipi is a key State for Hillary to keep momentum and she absolutely need to win, if she's to be able to make inroads in Blacks, but nobody's saying that. (well, it's much smaller state but the point is that every state has demographic characteristics that favour one candidiate). But media are already in the mindset that if Hillary could keep PA, by even a small margins like 5 points, that proves Hillary is on her way to coronation! - What a non-sense. You set a bar so low that you are very likely to pass it, but spin it as a major, major victory.

The narratives of 2 weeks ago, right after Wisconsin blowput for Obama, was that Hillary needed to win Texas and Ohio, BOTH and in both VERY BIG. Now did she achieved that? Of course not!!! She only narrowly beat Obama in TX, by 3 %, and delegate pickups are minimal. (Could be noen depending on the outocme of the caucuses) In OH, you could barely call it a "big" win, if "big" win eans double-digit victory. 10 is the smallest double digit. Remember, in both States, Hillary was up 20% just a few weeks ago, and OH and TX were both Hillary States to begin with, for its demographics (OH) and Bill's popularity among Hispanics (TX). Actually, to be honest, I was also surprised to see Obama went down in TX, but that actually proves how much he had made inroads in just a few weeks to became a heavy favourite there. Another point, Obama lost his edges among independents, trailed badly again among women, Hispanics, low income voters, and older voters in TX and OH. This looks familiar, losing its base or coalition"? When hillary got her base eaten in Winsonsin by Obama, she was pummelled in the poll (17 point). But when Obama got his base eatne, he still nearly tied in TX (only 3 %, baby). Tell me who is doing better and winning.

Neanderthals and gender roles

2008-02-20T23:18:00.002-05:00

The most interesting part of this new book "Logic of Life", written by Tim Hartford, a bestselling author of "Undercover Economist", is the theory on the reason why Neanderthals died out, losing competition to Homo sapiens. Neanderthals did not have division of labor, while Homo sapiens did. And the division of labor here specifically means division of labor between MEN and WOMEN. Division of labor, come to think of it, is such a basic social arrangement which improves work efficiency dramatically and has been employed since the earliest time in history.

But in the 21st century, in the name of gender equality, Western societies are trying feverishly to do away with any division of labor between men and women. They argue that division of labor between men and women, a.k.a. traditional gender roles, is what kept women at home and hindered their fuller actualization / realization as a human being. But just ask why would anyone want to force clumsy, smelly, hairy men to take care of newborn babies? Their skin is coarse, unsanitary, and their voices low – not something that babies usually like. And why would anyone want to put women in military special forces, when they can't lift heavy weapons by themselves? Their maybe some valid biological reasons, why across all societies and all ages, women are the ones who take care of babies, and men are the ones who went to fighting. Maybe, just like Neanderthals were, 21st century Western countries are on its way to extinction.

Old white women's dying wish

2008-02-20T23:16:00.001-05:00

Leading article from NY Times (on the web), a night after Obama’s another comprehensive win in overwhelmingly white and blue-collar state.

One woman’s response to often-repeated line by many old white women that justifies Hillary’s candidacy; ‘I want to see a woman president before I die,”

Her response; “But you know what? That’s a selfish reason to vote for a president just because you want to see a woman before you die,” she added. “What about the kids coming up? I feel we should vote for the young people.”

Good point. Right. Those old white ladies would die soon after Hilary became President, if their wish comes true. All the younger generations (probably anyone who are under 70?) will be stuck with old white ladies dying wishes for 4 years. Is it fair? They will leave the suffering and burden of Hillary presidency to all the rest of us and they will rest peacefully in the grave. Since when Presidential election became a means to grant old women’s dying wish?

Hillary is NOW NY Part 2

2008-01-31T23:46:00.000-05:00

People should realize that sending another Clinton into the White House means "empowering" these militant feminists. The army of militant feminsts that Hillary would surely bring in with her would propose and push for far more one-sided, discriminatory man-hating legislation, policies, etc.

Right now these lunatics are just part of civil societies, NGOs, capable of issuing statements once in a while or staging a rally or demonstration few media would pick up. But the advent of the Hillary adminisration will turn these militant activists into "government officials", "buraucrats" and "policy advisors" who will have real power in turning their man-hating agenda into public, government policies that will be implemented and enforced, without mercy, on a national scale.

This is an urgent qake-up call to do anything you can do in your poewer to stop Hillary.

Even under the supposedly conservative, right-wing Bush administartion, we continue to see feminists-inspired legislation being passed, Title IX being continued, etc.. Just imagine what would happen if Hillary occupy the House. Just imagine what the rights and the staus of men would be under such a feminist administration.

Hillary is NOW NY

2008-01-31T23:35:00.000-05:00

Whoa. This is just a MAINSTREAM FEMINISM speaking- anyone who do not back a woman candidate is an ENEMY of women. And Hillary's ideological roots and NY NOW women's ideological roots are the same. In other words, Hillary IS NY NOW chapter women and NY NOW chapter women ARE Hillary. They are from the same school of thoughts.

If, god forbid, if we were to have Hillary as the next President, you will see many people like them gaining power in Washington; the shrill, hysteric, man-hating militant feminists. They will be calling the shots and influencing important decisisons in the capital. People who are ideologically not so different from NY NOW President will be filling cabinet posts in the second Clinton administration. Their pals in women's studies course are filling upper echerons of federal bureaucracy and enforce their feminist utopia.

Just imagine having some of the loony heads from NY NOW chapter in key government positions - yet that is exactly what is going to happen when the Clinton wins election! She will bring in tons of people who are associated with NOW and other similar loony militant feminists oprganizations, scholars from women's study course in her administartuion to fill cabinet and other key posts and in many senior posts in the government.

Anyone with a least bit of intelligence could see to it that Hillary is not running for US President to solve Middle East crisis, boost economy, etc, etc ... All those pesky "policy issues" are just adds-on to her most central agenda - establishing a gender-free society, a feminist utopia. She is running to satisfy her onw ego to be the most powerful women in the world.

"Subprime Crisis Snags Women"

2008-01-15T22:32:00.000-05:00

Of course only women are, or women are “disproportionately affected” by, Subprime loan crisis…Not because the actual data suggest so, but because, to some people, men simply do not matter – if men suffer from Subrprime loan crisis or from whatever other causes, they deserve it, because they are men.

You know, newspapers pages are too precious to be expended on plight of men. they have had good times for thousands of years already. There are plenty of other issues that affect women, or plenty of women’s perspectives that need to be introduced and prioritized over others on any important issues that affect the country, I guess.

Wonder Woman gets women's voice

2008-01-15T22:29:00.000-05:00

It is such an important milestone in women’s lib movement that both New York Times and the Newsweek magazine reported. Is it progress or regress, exactly? There is nothing else significant to report in this week’s feminists’ scorecard?

Anyway, my huge congratulations for all womankind out there for finally breaking the “glass ceiling”, or whatever “ceiling” they want to call in this case, of boys’ comic club…I

n this latest frontline of feminists’ constant struggle to tear down patriarchy, feminists celebrate that the comic “Wonder Woman”, after 66 years into existence, will finally have some feminine touch..

Help! there is a dearth of top female chefs!

2007-12-18T22:49:00.000-05:00

I’ve always wondered why most of the top chefs in the word are men, even though most of the home cooking, throughout the world and history have been done by women. This article in the New York magazine tells you that it is because of a blatant sexism.

Perhaps the author of the article graduated from Women’s Studies programme just a few months ago, and employ a pure gender-feminist style analytical framework - The author knows the answer to the low number of top female chefs already – so she does not stop just because “ the chefs we spoke to were at first reluctant to cite sexism as the reason there aren’t more women among the city’s elite chefs .”. Instead she pushed, cajoled and guided the women until she get desired answers and arrived at a pre-set conclusion “ it became clear that gender bias is still an issue.”

So you round up seven of not-exactly-top-tier chefs in New York restaurants, who, to a various degree, are holding anguish and resentment against their male colleagues who pass them over for whatever reasons, real (not as good as male colleagues) or imagined (I am discriminated against because I am a woman), and spit out their rants against male colleagues and patriarchy in consciousness-raising-group-style interview.

Off course food cooked women is better since;

“It’s more from the heart and more from the soul.” And

“more accessible, it’s easier to understand, it’s friendlier, it’s more comforting, and it doesn’t get bogged down in all these nutty freaking trends. And

“because it’s comfort food or it’s very nurturing."

Wait, is this a feminists-approved line?

Anyway, I think the reason why there is a dearth of top-female chefs is the same for why there are fewer top female politicians or scientists or whoever rose to the highest level in whatever fields, compared to males. Men put extraordinary energy and determination to rise to the top. You cannot just do the same job as every others do and wait for someone to promote you over the others. You have to be better than others and have an edge that differentiates between you and the rest of them.

Feminists have now become too accustomed to the idea of just doing ordinary job and waiting for the government or media to pick up on you and push you to the top of the ladder due to your specific demographic character. That complacency (“I am a woman, and I WORK (as opposed to EXCEL), THEREFORE I need to be promoted) seems to be slowly spreading to the chef world too.

Maybe it is not too long before some feminist organizations would start screaming “discrimination” against women in the restaurant business, call for immediate government action and file a string of multi-million dollar sexual harassment lawsuits. It would be soon followed by Five-year government or industry action plan to affirmative- action women into more top chef posts – only then they could see their number increase. Bottom line; they can never rise to the top on their own merit, they need government / industry backed affirmative-action plan to rise to the top.

True face of gender-feminist warrior

2007-12-18T22:32:00.000-05:00

WOOOOOWWWW…

Do men (and women) want this face to be on TV, newspaper and all over the media for the next four or eight years telling you to do this and do that, and preaching that men should be more like women and other her feminists nonsense? Do we REALLY want that?

In Asia (and many other parts of the world) people say that the face gives insights to the inner mind of the people. Hillary looks OLD (indeed really, really OLD) in the picture, but it’s not just being old that make most people feel awfully disgusted. I think the picture shows a true FACE of a person (happens to be a woman, yeah!) who have been pursuing unbridled power and control over other people, a true face of radical gender feminist warrior and petit-totalitarianist.

Even though feminists still want to spin this to their advantage as much as possible; e.g. this is a new female face of power, people should challenge their inner unconscious sexism that make them want to vomit to this image and instead embrace it, need a sensitivity training to old female leaders’ faces or the society is generally hard on women because of sexism and this was the result, etc. etc., the undeniable fact throughout history is that people prefer younger, fresh-looking face over tired, exhausted, senile face.

Why did Nixon lose to Kennedy in 1960? Is it sexism against men? Why Ronald Reagan had to wear make up in front of camera? Do face and style never matter in politics? What, are you living in 19th century?

Managing and projecting good (and young, fresh) images is an important pillar of modern-day political campaigning. That’s why many campaigns hire scores of image consultants, stylists, etc. But when a woman stumbles on this one time, and all of a sudden there is huge cry of sexism?

I remember long time ago, in one of the late night talk show (I forgot which show, but it was many years ago), the guest was Sting, who was famous for his tireless efforts to save Amazon rainforests and the host said that if Sting could finish his guest appearance that night without uttering a word “Amazon rainforest”, the host would give him some small prize. I think he didn’t get the prize, because, you know, he was an activist.

Likewise, I want to offer feminists some small gifts if they could see this picture and hold the urge to scream out the word “sexism”. But I bet they cannot, because they are ‘feminists”. Their brains are wired to remote a computer in feminists world headquarter where they are programmed to scream the word “sexism” at least three times per minute when they see a picture of an old, haggard woman. The feminist programmer meant to program one scream per minute but since she was not so good at computer (she only joined her computer class after the Women in Math and Science programme at her school compelled her to take the class and her grade was padded to atone for past injustices against women in science field)

Althouse: That picture of Hillary on Drudge right now.

Immodest Proposals: The Most Significant Photo of 2007 . . .

Stay-at-home mom

2007-12-18T22:26:00.000-05:00

At the hands of able writers in the NYT, even a stay-at-home mom was portrayed as a well-traveled, influential and efficient campaigner ……. just a small spin, and indeed as a wife of one of the serious contenders in the race of President, she might be just so, but at the same time in the way they title and frame the whole article I can see their hatred against stay-at-home-mom and their desire to “rescue” such moms from their abject circumstances through spin…..

Sexual harassment between politicians in Canada

2007-12-17T23:59:00.000-05:00

This is what happens when you have loads of, or to use feminists' favorite line, "critical mass" of female politicians. She is doing merely what her ideology tells her to do; reduce male politicians as much as possible, since, nothing is more important than increasing women's share in politics, or, in other words, again to use their catch phrase, "empowering women". In their eternal fight to reduce men's presence from any socially significant arena, the charges of sexual harassment only becomes yet another tool.

Thus, it doesn't matter whether the male politician was only looking at his private computer, or whether the female politician was in fact violating his privacy, or whether in fact the material he was looking at was sexually explicit or not. The only thing that matter in this case, at least to politically-correct mainstream media, ,was that the female politician "felt" that there was something wrong in his computer, and the fact that sexual harassment complaint was made. And they were looking only for one thing: to kick another male out from the Canadian legislature, and possibly replace him with ‘a woman”, to drive up female gender ratio a notch. And in the way, they might have figured that they would even be able to highlight the issue of sexual harassment again, focusing this time on sexual harassment by high-ranking men, and against high-ranking woman, as well as against women well past their prime age.

The definition of sexual harassment has been on the constant expansion; gone were the days when strict traditional “quid pro quo” type was the definition and now we are entering the time when vindictive women or women with agenda would go all the way, even sneaking into men’s private computer or correspondence to see the slightest hint of “sexism” and claim that they were victimized by it.

Women and alcohol

2007-12-04T00:47:00.000-05:00

One has to wonder, after reading yet another gender one-sided article by the Newsweek; so this time what kid of new, special treatment exclusively for women do Newsweek recommend? Special studies on effects of alcohol on women? Special treatment plan funded by government? Special awareness raising programme about women and alcohol and special programme to counter negative stereotype associated with women and alcohol?

We can pass a legislation limiting alcohol consumption by women, for example raise the age limit from current 21 to 25 or 30 for women only, or limit the sales of alcohol to women (say, no more than one glass per female customer) or ban consumption of alcohol by women altogether. Is it a discrimination, or simply trying to "protect" these extremely vulnerable creatures?

Female DJs

2007-12-04T00:45:00.000-05:00

Blind celebration of women in stereo-type defying role continues in the New York Times. This time, a gender-bender in…DJ.

Just look at these fem-ideology loaded words that seem to be lifted directly from a textbook in some women’s studies programme; They cannot shake off feminists’-crusade-against-patriarchy mentality even when discussing DJs.

“The barrier was high for females trying to enter an essentially male-dominated field, ”

“D.J.-dom has definitely been a boy’s club, a kind of cabal,” …… It is a club, she noted, that women are only now penetrating in significant numbers.”

Of course, they cannot help but do the bean-counting…otherwise how can you come up with xx-year plan to achieve 50-50 gender parity?

“Today, women are less intimidated, Mr. Principe said. In 2002, when the school was established, 10 to 15 percent of applicants were women. Now that figure is closer to 40 percent.”

Female football reporters

2007-12-04T00:41:00.000-05:00

I have some comments on the entry by Glenn Sacks in his blog on the subject of female reporters in the football..

When women comments on male sports like football, it is NOT JUST" a qualified, knowledgeable expert commenting on the sport and that person just happens to be of female gender" NO, life is not so simple today.

In our politicaly-correct society, that knowledgeable person is not simply commeting on the plays and players and fulfilling her personal dream or ambition as a sport commentator, but wittingly or unwittingly she is an accomplice in promoting supposedly greater and noble cause just by her sheer gender, - breaking stereotypes, increasing visibility of women in media and sports, empowering female viwers, etc., etc. This is what media who hires female reporters want to push for, and the companies that sponsors such sports sprogrammes on TV wants to see. And it is precisely this kind of politically correct plot, disguised as a qualified, knowledgable persons's quest to make comment son TV, shoved down our throat even in our comfort of watching our favourite sports, that is causing some men to resent.

There are now fewer and fewer places in this society were men could be free of the forces of political correctness and constant male-bashing, and you are reminded that one of the last bastions of those gender-feminist-free, stereotype-breaking, tailbraizing women-free world is being breached when you see "women" commenting on men's football games.

Reverse pay gap - borad directors

2007-11-12T21:24:00.000-05:00

Uhhhh… where’s the outrage?? Where is NEWSWEEK’s 20-page special report on appalling wage discrimination against male corporate directors who were so discriminated against that they earn only 87 percent of what female directors earn?
I also looked through New York Times, Washington Post and the Time magazine for any special reports, article, or op-ed that bring the nation’s attention to this outrageous discrimination, but I found none. And then I realized, - oh, yes, it is WOMEN who is outearning men, not the other way around – of course in this case the whole media would go silent.

But why is the disparity? I could speculate a few reasons behind this.

Maybe the board has to put token women director in senior posts, which would come with higher compensations than the rest of directors – this would be understandable as corporations would naturally want to advertise their diversity efforts by putting the token hires in more visible, senior positions.

Also, a larger corporation are more likely to have additional financial resources to place token directors, who cannot contribute to substantive works but could contribute, by their very presence, to meet diversity goals and satisfy diversity-compliance monitors, and one could expect that compensations for directors at large corporations are higher than that of smaller corporations who may not have much room for diversity hires.

Of course, these are my mere speculations and do not have nay data to back up, but looks quite plausible. Maybe I should look into the data someday.

Coffee shop discrimination

2007-11-12T20:59:00.000-05:00

I am always amazed by feminists' bottomless ability to find/cook up gender discrimination in every place imaginable. According to this article, it seems that women are discriminated against literally in every aspect of life, even in coffee shops, which to me seems a rather women-friendly world, with all the “double-macchiat,, blah, blah, blah,….. I don’t even pretend to understand those things on Starbuck’s menu. But one can definitely say that it is more feminine and women-friendly than, say, dive bars.

Is it a really discrimination that on average it takes longer time for coffee shops to serve women? Or is it because male employees spend more time to make sure that cups of coffee or cappuccino for female customers are made to exact recipes and taste perfect, while they don't bother to do so with orders by male customers because they couldn't care less about what male custmers think of them and thier coffees? Now it is discriminaton against whom? Do people really belive that the guys making cappuccinos, upon receiving orders from another sales asscoiate and upon knowing that the orders were placed by female customers, intentionally take another 20 seconds or so off just to remind them of women's place in society?

A few questions popped into my mind as I read the article;

Should Starbucks ban hiring of male employees, to preempt lawsuits by feminist lawyers?

And more importantly, do anyone even care about discrimination anymore? Now the new frontier in a battle for compete gender equality is formed in reducing waiting time for female customers at Starbucks. WHO CARES? Isn’t their any other pressing issues in this society than trying to spare 20 or so seconds of snobbish female customers who have a luxury of patronizing Starbucks?

And on Tim’s last point, it’s interesting to note that the McDonald in Japan has already introduced “women-only” floors, where only women customers are allowed to get in. While they didn’t ban men from getting into their premise entirely, this may be one way to pander more to women customers while not alienating male customers too much.

http://timharford.com/2007/11/smell-the-discrimination-undercover-economist/

Korean feminists

2007-11-09T19:13:00.000-05:00

Oops, it was a “wrong” kind of woman, in the light of gender feminists’ approved ideal women model, because - she was a motherly, traditional woman. Trained in western man-hating brand of feminism, Korean feminists are up in arms against the recent government’s decision to put a woman on the face of its national banknote for the first time, and they are not going to be happy until they see trail-brazing, lesbian militant feminist-type in politics or military or large corporations (in other words, THEIR role model) adorn the banknotes.

In the western media (BBC) the “row” is rather simple and one-sided, a gender feminists’ rant against the decision of the government dominated by reactionary males, but local media (English version) reports a more complicated affair, with another feminist supporting the government’s decision by saying that the woman was actually a modern, western-type independent woman who was unfortunately portrayed as a “motherly” figure as a result of patriarchal conspiracy to keep women barefooted and pregnant, and that restoration of the woman was necessary. Very complicated indeed.

Anyway, if feminists were not happy with the public celebration of a historical woman in national banknotes, why not scrap it altogether? Who needs a little gender-mainstreaming and affirmative action in bank notes? Who wants to be reminded everyday as they reach for money in their wallets a result of gender feminists’ relentless push for affirmative action?

In some other countries (or regional organizations, to be more precise), they could not even celebrate any historical personality, however great their contribution to humanity and history might have been, because - it would discriminate against women. If they start putting faces of historical figures in banknotes, feminists argue, it would be almost all-male affair (understandably, of course). And since nothing carries more weight than feminists’ whims and words in the modern European life, the Euro banknotes do not to adorn any human faces on their notes. Quest for gender equality banned people from celebrating historical (male) personalities. It would not be long before that history would be dead in Europe because of feminism. But I guess they wouldn’t bother because they want to replace history (“his-story”) with “her-story”.

Operah Winfrey school

2007-11-09T19:03:00.000-05:00

Note that the perpetrator of this sex crime is a WOMAN! But of course we cannot blame women for anything in this society, since women are the victims of patriarchal oppression . So the article tries to shit blame to society and (men, of course);

"perhaps because of the sexually freer environment that girls and women are experiencing and the portrayal of women as sex objects. "

But maybe even this female author sensed that shifting blame to soceity and men do not fly in this case, so she desparately try to muddle the issue....

"Most also come from extremely difficult, disorganized circumstances in which affection, love and relationships are deeply rooted in sexual behavior."

Typical Newsweek job.

Hillary's woman defence

2007-11-09T18:59:00.000-05:00

So now it’s official that in the Democratic field for the Presidential race, we have six contenders, who discuss policy issues, trade questions and criticism at each other and could be and held responsible for one’s words and actions, and one who would only announce her policy and intentions but is above any criticism or question.

It portends what Hillary Presidency will look like, if it ever going to happen; she will only announce what she wants to do, or what her policy would be, and any criticism against her decisions or policies would be judged sexual discrimination and silenced by her cronies and liberal mainstream media. Maybe we should think again about whether America should elect someone only for the sake of achieving a diversity milestone and feel good about ourselves or if we want to elect someone who could be held accountable, who do not hide behind gender (or any other identity politic’s) victim card. U.S. Presidency is much, much more important than simply being a trophy for diversity movement. After all, isn’t it the cornerstone of democracy that citizens freely elect some one who is accountable to their constituents?

In a way Hillary is smart in letting her cronies do all the work of playing gender victim card, while she herself keep away from that kind of cheap trick. She could appear strong, statesmanlike, rising above the cheap gender card, all the while ensuring that her opponents and the media will think twice before leveling any criticism against her in the future. And it’s also a rare time that Ferraro could get a media spotlight, after her historic landslide defeat as a token woman candidate for Vice President of the U.S. She surely knows how to play the gender victim card very well because she was the foremost expert on this, in fact it is her only expertise in politics to this date, and her only qualification for VP candidacy was that she was a woman.

CIA, feminized

2007-11-02T22:36:00.000-04:00

Espionage and intelligence collection ain’t what it used to be – just like any other organizations, public or private, CIA is not immune from relentless onslaught by litigation-happy gender-feminists. America’s battle against terrorism and other threats just got a little more complicated with adventure-seeking trail-brazing women types who see career advancement in the world’s foremost intelligence organizations as a part of their self-fulfillment and self-actualization. And when they are done with bean-counting of men and women at the rank and file and investigating subtle gender discrimination and hostile working environment, which they do when they are not doing their jobs as case offices or intelligence analysts, they are ready to launch a sexual discrimination lawsuit so that, the intelligence agency could proud itself as being at least gender-sensitive even when they are not winning its battle against terrorism and other threats.