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.
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Best article on feminists' whining on Hllary's defeat
Wow. This is one of the best articles written by anyone in the media about the never-ending feminists whining. I am somehow relieved to learn that people could still voice their criticims of women and feminism -I thought it was criminalized years ago-oh that was in Sweden, feminists' paradise? Or was it in Spain which introduced law forcing men to do housework and the only political news from the country is that pregnant young woman becoming the defence minister, just for the diversity's sake? The next prime minister has to do even more acrobatic appointment, like appointing three-legged half-human, half-sheep as foreign minister to further elevate the country's record on "diversity"...Sorry, back to the point, Hitchenson rules!!!
Consolation prize for feminists
Katie, just like Hillary, is obviously trying to capitalize on the so-called sexism charges to her salvage her standing and her show which is stuck at the bottom. It seems now that drumming up the charges of sexsim is her only hope. Hopefully there is enough dummy people to believe it.
Feminists in media are just plain furious at Hillary’s loss, and since their worldview direct them to blame every misfortune and wished did not come true on men, Hillary’s loss could not be attributed to her bad campaigning or anything else, but only to the sexism in media and society.
Now, as the second consolation prize of prospect for veep spot for Hillary is also fading away, feminists are trying to drum up the charges of sexism and start national dialogue on sexism, as their third consolation prize. Now we know that it is not only Hillary, but the entire feminists in media, who are zombies.
Feminists in media are just plain furious at Hillary’s loss, and since their worldview direct them to blame every misfortune and wished did not come true on men, Hillary’s loss could not be attributed to her bad campaigning or anything else, but only to the sexism in media and society.
Now, as the second consolation prize of prospect for veep spot for Hillary is also fading away, feminists are trying to drum up the charges of sexism and start national dialogue on sexism, as their third consolation prize. Now we know that it is not only Hillary, but the entire feminists in media, who are zombies.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Here goes Hirshman again
Yet another cookie-cutter article from Linda Hirshman. This is an article in which old white feminist come to rescue another old white feminist. It;'s quite symbolic and the most salient feature of the Hillary campaign. Of course to most feminist, any negative description or portrayal of women is a product of patriarchy.
Given this display of old-fahioned, man-hating feminism on full-frontal display everywhere, among Hillary's surrogates (mostly old white women), among her staffs(ditto), among her supporters(ditto), the question now is why blue-class white men are voting for her. That is the biggest mystery in this race. They should realize what die-hard feminists like Hillary, who so far did not ostensibly display that side of her during this campaign - as it ironically turned out that it was "white male" votes that count (much to the chigrin of feminists like Hirshman)-, really think of males. When is the last time she showed concern for men? When did she adressed issues specific to men? Equal pay? Health care reform? "The highest glass ceiling" non-sense? I don't think so. All are based on old, tired feminist dogma that put men as a culprit of all evils in the world. Neanderthall males fearful of modern, ambitious, capable women disriminates against them in wages in an effort to keep them as child-bearing machine. that's how Hirshman and Hillary think of men.
In her feminist utopia, men have no place to live or breathe except as servants of emanicipated femalekind or punching bags.
Given this display of old-fahioned, man-hating feminism on full-frontal display everywhere, among Hillary's surrogates (mostly old white women), among her staffs(ditto), among her supporters(ditto), the question now is why blue-class white men are voting for her. That is the biggest mystery in this race. They should realize what die-hard feminists like Hillary, who so far did not ostensibly display that side of her during this campaign - as it ironically turned out that it was "white male" votes that count (much to the chigrin of feminists like Hirshman)-, really think of males. When is the last time she showed concern for men? When did she adressed issues specific to men? Equal pay? Health care reform? "The highest glass ceiling" non-sense? I don't think so. All are based on old, tired feminist dogma that put men as a culprit of all evils in the world. Neanderthall males fearful of modern, ambitious, capable women disriminates against them in wages in an effort to keep them as child-bearing machine. that's how Hirshman and Hillary think of men.
In her feminist utopia, men have no place to live or breathe except as servants of emanicipated femalekind or punching bags.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Obama boys' "sexism"
On the eve of big Pennsylvania primary, when it is becoming increasingly evident to everyone, including even the most ardent Hillary supporters, that Hillary’s (so-called) history-making run for President is coming to a close, younger generation of women are resorting to tactics now that have been preferred by their older sisters.
Those younger generation of women/feminists' tactics-as told by arche-type of older generation of feminist linda Hirshman is:
-Blame Obama-boys for sexism. It doesn’t matter whether you can point out evidence or not; as usual, women’s “gut” feeling, plus a simple fact that these Obama boys are not voting for a woman, is unmistakable sign of sexism. I thought women are better at describing their feelings, with all their superiority in language and literatures etc., but all these women can do is to say that they have this sort of “gut feeling” that sexism is alive and well, and this is the reason Hillary’s candidacy is now in the tank. And she keep repeating stories of those young women who have never heard their male colleagues or friends, families say anything explicitly "sexist", even by today's very low threshold for judging everything "sexist", all of them knew there's something about those men that tell them that they are closet "sexist" and try to make readers into believing that the sheer number of those "gut feeling", their collective weight, is somehow genuinely the evidence of "sexism". it shows that women are not good t logical thinking or have a sound reasoning; "gut feeling" will become a "fact" if it comes in large numbers; at some point there is no more a need for evidence or proof.
The articles (Hirshman's and the two articles mentioned in her article) also show that women, both old and young, are not accustomed to, or not mature enough, to distinguish between criticism and their imagined attacks by males based on (of course) sexism (what else?). They are simply not used to be on the receiving end of criticism or harsh words. they think that simply by throwing all-utility killer questions, "Is she being criticized because she is a woman?"(version 1), or "If she was a man, would they riticize in the same way?"(version 2), somehow men would be too scared to continue question/criticize women. It is a good, battle-tested tactic; nobody would be able to answer such purely hypothetical question definitively, and simply by not being able to answer definitively, the doubts were somehow substantiated; yes, "it is because she is a woman" that she is being criticized. The questions throw men off balance. The questions, once uttered, magically stops men from further questioning, women will have breathing space and time to recover.
In the lady-first western culture, women get used to having men do everything for them, give credit for them, and on top of that, take all the blames for them. before daydreaming that there will be vagina warriors in the oval office, femnists should first get used to women being question and criticized, becuase that's what's supposed to happen to people in power. The questioning of people in power is sfunction of healthy democracy. Feminists conveninently forget this very basic principel of democracy and think that all positions of power are to be offered to women just becuase they are women, and no question asked, and with no accompanying responsibilities. I think they will need 40 or 50 more Hillary-like politicians getting pummeled and scrutinized,and be mentall prepared for harsh but legitimate criticism.
The sad thing that become apparent from these three articles is that, with all the options and opportunities that were made available to them, women still decide which candidate to vote for on the basis for who their mothers vote for,(and will vote for opposing candidate as a way of saying "I hate yoou mommmeeee!!") and what their “gut feeling” tells them about the dark interior motive behind males voting pattern so that they can vote for the opposing candidate (again). And politicians are supposed to woo these voters. And media loves to portray women having decidedly big say in election, as a large voting bloc, swing voters, as a good, progressive thing.
The problem is not that consciously or unconscious sexism by Obama-boysm, as the author claims. The real problem is the mentality (unconscious) among those young women who simply can’t live with the fact that a woman politician could come with so much dirty political baggage. After all, they were taught all their lives in schools (especially in universities) that women are fair creatures, source of all goodness in the world while all the evil in the world are brought on by men, and that behind the sins of all the women who do bad things, there are men or male dominate society at large who caused women to do such bad things. They cannot stomach the fact that women politicians could be incompetent, or liar, or simply power-mongers. if they (are taught to) belive in the unbonded possibility of women, why are they so reluctant to belive in the women's possibility to be a horrible public figures?
Those younger generation of women/feminists' tactics-as told by arche-type of older generation of feminist linda Hirshman is:
-Blame Obama-boys for sexism. It doesn’t matter whether you can point out evidence or not; as usual, women’s “gut” feeling, plus a simple fact that these Obama boys are not voting for a woman, is unmistakable sign of sexism. I thought women are better at describing their feelings, with all their superiority in language and literatures etc., but all these women can do is to say that they have this sort of “gut feeling” that sexism is alive and well, and this is the reason Hillary’s candidacy is now in the tank. And she keep repeating stories of those young women who have never heard their male colleagues or friends, families say anything explicitly "sexist", even by today's very low threshold for judging everything "sexist", all of them knew there's something about those men that tell them that they are closet "sexist" and try to make readers into believing that the sheer number of those "gut feeling", their collective weight, is somehow genuinely the evidence of "sexism". it shows that women are not good t logical thinking or have a sound reasoning; "gut feeling" will become a "fact" if it comes in large numbers; at some point there is no more a need for evidence or proof.
The articles (Hirshman's and the two articles mentioned in her article) also show that women, both old and young, are not accustomed to, or not mature enough, to distinguish between criticism and their imagined attacks by males based on (of course) sexism (what else?). They are simply not used to be on the receiving end of criticism or harsh words. they think that simply by throwing all-utility killer questions, "Is she being criticized because she is a woman?"(version 1), or "If she was a man, would they riticize in the same way?"(version 2), somehow men would be too scared to continue question/criticize women. It is a good, battle-tested tactic; nobody would be able to answer such purely hypothetical question definitively, and simply by not being able to answer definitively, the doubts were somehow substantiated; yes, "it is because she is a woman" that she is being criticized. The questions throw men off balance. The questions, once uttered, magically stops men from further questioning, women will have breathing space and time to recover.
In the lady-first western culture, women get used to having men do everything for them, give credit for them, and on top of that, take all the blames for them. before daydreaming that there will be vagina warriors in the oval office, femnists should first get used to women being question and criticized, becuase that's what's supposed to happen to people in power. The questioning of people in power is sfunction of healthy democracy. Feminists conveninently forget this very basic principel of democracy and think that all positions of power are to be offered to women just becuase they are women, and no question asked, and with no accompanying responsibilities. I think they will need 40 or 50 more Hillary-like politicians getting pummeled and scrutinized,and be mentall prepared for harsh but legitimate criticism.
The sad thing that become apparent from these three articles is that, with all the options and opportunities that were made available to them, women still decide which candidate to vote for on the basis for who their mothers vote for,(and will vote for opposing candidate as a way of saying "I hate yoou mommmeeee!!") and what their “gut feeling” tells them about the dark interior motive behind males voting pattern so that they can vote for the opposing candidate (again). And politicians are supposed to woo these voters. And media loves to portray women having decidedly big say in election, as a large voting bloc, swing voters, as a good, progressive thing.
The problem is not that consciously or unconscious sexism by Obama-boysm, as the author claims. The real problem is the mentality (unconscious) among those young women who simply can’t live with the fact that a woman politician could come with so much dirty political baggage. After all, they were taught all their lives in schools (especially in universities) that women are fair creatures, source of all goodness in the world while all the evil in the world are brought on by men, and that behind the sins of all the women who do bad things, there are men or male dominate society at large who caused women to do such bad things. They cannot stomach the fact that women politicians could be incompetent, or liar, or simply power-mongers. if they (are taught to) belive in the unbonded possibility of women, why are they so reluctant to belive in the women's possibility to be a horrible public figures?
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Old white women's dying wish
It is quite interesting that quite a large number of very old white women innocently and almost pitifully say that they wish to see a woman President before they die.
We all want to help very old women, right? When we see them having trouble crossing a street, or carrying heavy stuffs, we stop whatever we are doing and help them first, right? And when these very old women, whose days on the earth are limited, have a wish that they want to see happen before they die, we want to do everything in our power to make it happen, right? And these old women want to see Hillary as president – what kind of a bastard would do anything that would remotely make that prospect smaller? We should be spend all our off-hours online-donating, volunteering, calling up voters, caucusing and voting for HER, right?
Maybe very old white men might have kissed their racist past goodbye and might have voted for Obama but many of them have died already. Most of the senior citizens are women. For them, they do not have to worry about race guilt, because they have another victimhood to hide under; women. It doesn’t matter that some of them might have been, or still is, very racist, and even might have been guilty of, especially in the South, accusing innocent black men of raping her (or just staring lusciously at her), and have white brothers beat them up back in the 50s and 60s when nobody questioned white women’s innocence and black men’s guilt.
But if you are very old citizen, and if you worry even a least bit about your grandkids or future generations, you should not be so selfish and impose Hillary on the rest of us. Allow me to be very blunt, (and impolite), but to put it directly, old people may die soon, even before HER inauguration, but all the rest of us, young and not so young and kids under voting age, would have to suffer the consequences of old people’s dyng wish for four / eight years. Is it fair? Is it the legacy that you want to leave for the succeeding generations? If you lived all your life being selfish, can’t you stop being selfish for a moment and think about your grandkids? If you lived all your life always being nice and fair, thinking about others, that is very great; can you do one more, final favour?
We all want to help very old women, right? When we see them having trouble crossing a street, or carrying heavy stuffs, we stop whatever we are doing and help them first, right? And when these very old women, whose days on the earth are limited, have a wish that they want to see happen before they die, we want to do everything in our power to make it happen, right? And these old women want to see Hillary as president – what kind of a bastard would do anything that would remotely make that prospect smaller? We should be spend all our off-hours online-donating, volunteering, calling up voters, caucusing and voting for HER, right?
Maybe very old white men might have kissed their racist past goodbye and might have voted for Obama but many of them have died already. Most of the senior citizens are women. For them, they do not have to worry about race guilt, because they have another victimhood to hide under; women. It doesn’t matter that some of them might have been, or still is, very racist, and even might have been guilty of, especially in the South, accusing innocent black men of raping her (or just staring lusciously at her), and have white brothers beat them up back in the 50s and 60s when nobody questioned white women’s innocence and black men’s guilt.
But if you are very old citizen, and if you worry even a least bit about your grandkids or future generations, you should not be so selfish and impose Hillary on the rest of us. Allow me to be very blunt, (and impolite), but to put it directly, old people may die soon, even before HER inauguration, but all the rest of us, young and not so young and kids under voting age, would have to suffer the consequences of old people’s dyng wish for four / eight years. Is it fair? Is it the legacy that you want to leave for the succeeding generations? If you lived all your life being selfish, can’t you stop being selfish for a moment and think about your grandkids? If you lived all your life always being nice and fair, thinking about others, that is very great; can you do one more, final favour?
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Another feminist orgy in Newsweek
What is all this feminist orgy going on in Newsweek? Obama could never had such a lopsided coverage in favour of him even after 11 consecutive wins, but Hillary does, even with one not-exactly-landslide win in predominantly white, old, blue-color State and barely holding onto a popular vote win (and possibly losing out on a delegate count) in what was once her firewall State. It looks like all the old, white female writers in the Newsweek came out from hiding from the long and disappointing February and chanting feminists roar. February must have felt like forever for these ladies who were frustrated by black men utterly clobbering old white woman in Presidential nomination race (it didn’t help that there was an additional day in the month). Gee, in old days, white women in the South could accuse innocent black men who they don’t like of rape and have their white brothers beat them up. That was only 40 years ago. What a difference time makes, now all they could do was their feminist heroin and her campaign fumbling. ( I wonder how many of those very old white women who innocently say “I want to see a woman President in my lifetime”, actually are guilty of accusation of false rape against black men in the 50’s and 60’s.)
Why is this feminist media orgy, and no party for Obama? Let’s see how many African-Americans are in Newsweek, as writers, staffers, etc. I don’t see many (in fact none of the opinion writers are black). Now let’s see how many women are there? Many. I don’t know how many more junior writers and staffers are women, but I suspect a lot of them. Those old white women in the Newsweek, just like in Ohio or Texas or almost all the States who had primaries and caucuses, are just expressing their preferences. As old feminist guards, they practice what they preach. They are writers and staffers in the Newsweek, one of the preeminent weekly magazines, and it is read by millions of people, Their articles and coverage have influence on what people talk and how people think. They use there position to advance their agenda. If their heroin sister finally got a moment to shine a little, blow it out of proportion. If it is for a good cause, such old and tired media principle as a balanced and objective reporting could wait a while. Plus, March is a women’s month, so what’s wrong with it? Plus, this is not the first time Newsweek’s women hijacked entire issue. It’s funny how Hillary whine about media bias, when in most of the media, Newsweek and others, you will see so many old white women type, well-educated, pant-suit wearing, shoulder-pat feminists.
Why is this feminist media orgy, and no party for Obama? Let’s see how many African-Americans are in Newsweek, as writers, staffers, etc. I don’t see many (in fact none of the opinion writers are black). Now let’s see how many women are there? Many. I don’t know how many more junior writers and staffers are women, but I suspect a lot of them. Those old white women in the Newsweek, just like in Ohio or Texas or almost all the States who had primaries and caucuses, are just expressing their preferences. As old feminist guards, they practice what they preach. They are writers and staffers in the Newsweek, one of the preeminent weekly magazines, and it is read by millions of people, Their articles and coverage have influence on what people talk and how people think. They use there position to advance their agenda. If their heroin sister finally got a moment to shine a little, blow it out of proportion. If it is for a good cause, such old and tired media principle as a balanced and objective reporting could wait a while. Plus, March is a women’s month, so what’s wrong with it? Plus, this is not the first time Newsweek’s women hijacked entire issue. It’s funny how Hillary whine about media bias, when in most of the media, Newsweek and others, you will see so many old white women type, well-educated, pant-suit wearing, shoulder-pat feminists.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
My comments on yesterday's mini Super Tuesday, or Super tuesday II...
Now most mainstream media talk as if the next Pennsylvania primary is going to be a key battle for for both Hillary and Obama. ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Obama only needs to stay comfortably close to Hillary and then it's his de facto strategic win, since he's so far ahead in the delegates count. Don't be duped into Hillary's raising expectation game...PA is Hillary's State, because of its demographics and all major power players in the State, most notably the governor himself, is relentlessly campaigning for her. The State was heavily titled for her (20% and more) and the gap is now closing.
It is like saying Mississipi is a key State for Hillary to keep momentum and she absolutely need to win, if she's to be able to make inroads in Blacks, but nobody's saying that. (well, it's much smaller state but the point is that every state has demographic characteristics that favour one candidiate). But media are already in the mindset that if Hillary could keep PA, by even a small margins like 5 points, that proves Hillary is on her way to coronation! - What a non-sense. You set a bar so low that you are very likely to pass it, but spin it as a major, major victory.
The narratives of 2 weeks ago, right after Wisconsin blowput for Obama, was that Hillary needed to win Texas and Ohio, BOTH and in both VERY BIG. Now did she achieved that? Of course not!!! She only narrowly beat Obama in TX, by 3 %, and delegate pickups are minimal. (Could be noen depending on the outocme of the caucuses) In OH, you could barely call it a "big" win, if "big" win eans double-digit victory. 10 is the smallest double digit. Remember, in both States, Hillary was up 20% just a few weeks ago, and OH and TX were both Hillary States to begin with, for its demographics (OH) and Bill's popularity among Hispanics (TX). Actually, to be honest, I was also surprised to see Obama went down in TX, but that actually proves how much he had made inroads in just a few weeks to became a heavy favourite there. Another point, Obama lost his edges among independents, trailed badly again among women, Hispanics, low income voters, and older voters in TX and OH. This looks familiar, losing its base or coalition"? When hillary got her base eaten in Winsonsin by Obama, she was pummelled in the poll (17 point). But when Obama got his base eatne, he still nearly tied in TX (only 3 %, baby). Tell me who is doing better and winning.
Now most mainstream media talk as if the next Pennsylvania primary is going to be a key battle for for both Hillary and Obama. ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Obama only needs to stay comfortably close to Hillary and then it's his de facto strategic win, since he's so far ahead in the delegates count. Don't be duped into Hillary's raising expectation game...PA is Hillary's State, because of its demographics and all major power players in the State, most notably the governor himself, is relentlessly campaigning for her. The State was heavily titled for her (20% and more) and the gap is now closing.
It is like saying Mississipi is a key State for Hillary to keep momentum and she absolutely need to win, if she's to be able to make inroads in Blacks, but nobody's saying that. (well, it's much smaller state but the point is that every state has demographic characteristics that favour one candidiate). But media are already in the mindset that if Hillary could keep PA, by even a small margins like 5 points, that proves Hillary is on her way to coronation! - What a non-sense. You set a bar so low that you are very likely to pass it, but spin it as a major, major victory.
The narratives of 2 weeks ago, right after Wisconsin blowput for Obama, was that Hillary needed to win Texas and Ohio, BOTH and in both VERY BIG. Now did she achieved that? Of course not!!! She only narrowly beat Obama in TX, by 3 %, and delegate pickups are minimal. (Could be noen depending on the outocme of the caucuses) In OH, you could barely call it a "big" win, if "big" win eans double-digit victory. 10 is the smallest double digit. Remember, in both States, Hillary was up 20% just a few weeks ago, and OH and TX were both Hillary States to begin with, for its demographics (OH) and Bill's popularity among Hispanics (TX). Actually, to be honest, I was also surprised to see Obama went down in TX, but that actually proves how much he had made inroads in just a few weeks to became a heavy favourite there. Another point, Obama lost his edges among independents, trailed badly again among women, Hispanics, low income voters, and older voters in TX and OH. This looks familiar, losing its base or coalition"? When hillary got her base eaten in Winsonsin by Obama, she was pummelled in the poll (17 point). But when Obama got his base eatne, he still nearly tied in TX (only 3 %, baby). Tell me who is doing better and winning.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Old white women's dying wish
Leading article from NY Times (on the web), a night after Obama’s another comprehensive win in overwhelmingly white and blue-collar state.
One woman’s response to often-repeated line by many old white women that justifies Hillary’s candidacy; ‘I want to see a woman president before I die,”
Her response; “But you know what? That’s a selfish reason to vote for a president just because you want to see a woman before you die,” she added. “What about the kids coming up? I feel we should vote for the young people.”
Good point. Right. Those old white ladies would die soon after Hilary became President, if their wish comes true. All the younger generations (probably anyone who are under 70?) will be stuck with old white ladies dying wishes for 4 years. Is it fair? They will leave the suffering and burden of Hillary presidency to all the rest of us and they will rest peacefully in the grave. Since when Presidential election became a means to grant old women’s dying wish?
One woman’s response to often-repeated line by many old white women that justifies Hillary’s candidacy; ‘I want to see a woman president before I die,”
Her response; “But you know what? That’s a selfish reason to vote for a president just because you want to see a woman before you die,” she added. “What about the kids coming up? I feel we should vote for the young people.”
Good point. Right. Those old white ladies would die soon after Hilary became President, if their wish comes true. All the younger generations (probably anyone who are under 70?) will be stuck with old white ladies dying wishes for 4 years. Is it fair? They will leave the suffering and burden of Hillary presidency to all the rest of us and they will rest peacefully in the grave. Since when Presidential election became a means to grant old women’s dying wish?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Hillary is NOW NY Part 2
People should realize that sending another Clinton into the White House means "empowering" these militant feminists. The army of militant feminsts that Hillary would surely bring in with her would propose and push for far more one-sided, discriminatory man-hating legislation, policies, etc.
Right now these lunatics are just part of civil societies, NGOs, capable of issuing statements once in a while or staging a rally or demonstration few media would pick up. But the advent of the Hillary adminisration will turn these militant activists into "government officials", "buraucrats" and "policy advisors" who will have real power in turning their man-hating agenda into public, government policies that will be implemented and enforced, without mercy, on a national scale.
This is an urgent qake-up call to do anything you can do in your poewer to stop Hillary.
Even under the supposedly conservative, right-wing Bush administartion, we continue to see feminists-inspired legislation being passed, Title IX being continued, etc.. Just imagine what would happen if Hillary occupy the House. Just imagine what the rights and the staus of men would be under such a feminist administration.
Right now these lunatics are just part of civil societies, NGOs, capable of issuing statements once in a while or staging a rally or demonstration few media would pick up. But the advent of the Hillary adminisration will turn these militant activists into "government officials", "buraucrats" and "policy advisors" who will have real power in turning their man-hating agenda into public, government policies that will be implemented and enforced, without mercy, on a national scale.
This is an urgent qake-up call to do anything you can do in your poewer to stop Hillary.
Even under the supposedly conservative, right-wing Bush administartion, we continue to see feminists-inspired legislation being passed, Title IX being continued, etc.. Just imagine what would happen if Hillary occupy the House. Just imagine what the rights and the staus of men would be under such a feminist administration.
Hillary is NOW NY
Whoa. This is just a MAINSTREAM FEMINISM speaking- anyone who do not back a woman candidate is an ENEMY of women. And Hillary's ideological roots and NY NOW women's ideological roots are the same. In other words, Hillary IS NY NOW chapter women and NY NOW chapter women ARE Hillary. They are from the same school of thoughts.
If, god forbid, if we were to have Hillary as the next President, you will see many people like them gaining power in Washington; the shrill, hysteric, man-hating militant feminists. They will be calling the shots and influencing important decisisons in the capital. People who are ideologically not so different from NY NOW President will be filling cabinet posts in the second Clinton administration. Their pals in women's studies course are filling upper echerons of federal bureaucracy and enforce their feminist utopia.
Just imagine having some of the loony heads from NY NOW chapter in key government positions - yet that is exactly what is going to happen when the Clinton wins election! She will bring in tons of people who are associated with NOW and other similar loony militant feminists oprganizations, scholars from women's study course in her administartuion to fill cabinet and other key posts and in many senior posts in the government.
Anyone with a least bit of intelligence could see to it that Hillary is not running for US President to solve Middle East crisis, boost economy, etc, etc ... All those pesky "policy issues" are just adds-on to her most central agenda - establishing a gender-free society, a feminist utopia. She is running to satisfy her onw ego to be the most powerful women in the world.
If, god forbid, if we were to have Hillary as the next President, you will see many people like them gaining power in Washington; the shrill, hysteric, man-hating militant feminists. They will be calling the shots and influencing important decisisons in the capital. People who are ideologically not so different from NY NOW President will be filling cabinet posts in the second Clinton administration. Their pals in women's studies course are filling upper echerons of federal bureaucracy and enforce their feminist utopia.
Just imagine having some of the loony heads from NY NOW chapter in key government positions - yet that is exactly what is going to happen when the Clinton wins election! She will bring in tons of people who are associated with NOW and other similar loony militant feminists oprganizations, scholars from women's study course in her administartuion to fill cabinet and other key posts and in many senior posts in the government.
Anyone with a least bit of intelligence could see to it that Hillary is not running for US President to solve Middle East crisis, boost economy, etc, etc ... All those pesky "policy issues" are just adds-on to her most central agenda - establishing a gender-free society, a feminist utopia. She is running to satisfy her onw ego to be the most powerful women in the world.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
True face of gender-feminist warrior
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 . . .
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 . . .
Friday, November 09, 2007
Hillary's woman defence
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.
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.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
YOU MUST VOTE for the Madame President
Here is a peice that goes "YOU HAVE TO VOTE HILLARY BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!!".
I amazed that the author of this article actually went so far as to say that guys (Obama and Edwards) cannot and should not be the President because they are “guys”. I think it’s OK for him to say these things without fear of repercussion because, first, he is are discriminating against men and it is sooooo OK in this country, and second, he is also a black, which means that he is not going to be fired since the management will be in trouble for diversity non-compliance for one less black face in the editorial room.
But one thing he may got right is that women can only vote for other women, because, well, they are women and do not have ability to weigh pros and cons of each candidacy and see deeply into policy alternatives offered by different candidates. Maybe those analytical traits, fair and balanced, belong only to men. Maybe women are a kind of species that could only see the sex of the candidates, could note only whether they speak in high tone, wear skirts, wear pink or red clothes, and have breasts and bigger hips. And if none of the candidates have breasts or large hips, then maybe, maybe look at policy issues. Maybe women are so myopic in their visions and entrapped in a feeling-based, analysis-free thinking that could only care about being in a very, very good mood on November 2008 over the fact that a woman finally become the President, but could not and do not care to think about the political, economic and social long-term consequences that the Hillary presidency might bring. And these people now comprise majority of American electorates – isn’t it a tragedy?
if you endorse the author's view, then you agree with the above statement.
What media is trying to do here is to frame the Clinton candidacy as a sort of referendum on women becoming the US President. Instead of asking what Hillary has done in the past and what she would do in the future, and whether it is good or bad for America, the questions are framed as "whether Americans are ready for Madame President?" or "Americans are sexist enough to not vote for Hillary?" This is a very shrewd tactics. Of course if questions are framed in these ways, most Americans, who do not want to be caught saying politicaly-incorrect thing, would answer that they are ready to elect a female president - but that does not necessarily mean that they want Hillary to be the one. But the media hastily treat this as people's endorsement of Hillary as the next President. I don't know how long this kind of CHEAP TRICK would work.
I would imagine that as Clinton's campaign starts to flounder, and trail behind Guilliani, she and her mediA allies would resort to usual "women" defence. A kind of defence that were in full display when French female presidential candidate Ms. Royal sank behind THE eventual and WELL-deserved winner Mr. Sarkozy in the polls right before the election. You know, "The media, the society are sexist, biased against women", "I was unfairly attacked for being a woman", or "Men are still afraid of women in power", that kind of usual emotional rhetoric favoured by feminists.
I amazed that the author of this article actually went so far as to say that guys (Obama and Edwards) cannot and should not be the President because they are “guys”. I think it’s OK for him to say these things without fear of repercussion because, first, he is are discriminating against men and it is sooooo OK in this country, and second, he is also a black, which means that he is not going to be fired since the management will be in trouble for diversity non-compliance for one less black face in the editorial room.
But one thing he may got right is that women can only vote for other women, because, well, they are women and do not have ability to weigh pros and cons of each candidacy and see deeply into policy alternatives offered by different candidates. Maybe those analytical traits, fair and balanced, belong only to men. Maybe women are a kind of species that could only see the sex of the candidates, could note only whether they speak in high tone, wear skirts, wear pink or red clothes, and have breasts and bigger hips. And if none of the candidates have breasts or large hips, then maybe, maybe look at policy issues. Maybe women are so myopic in their visions and entrapped in a feeling-based, analysis-free thinking that could only care about being in a very, very good mood on November 2008 over the fact that a woman finally become the President, but could not and do not care to think about the political, economic and social long-term consequences that the Hillary presidency might bring. And these people now comprise majority of American electorates – isn’t it a tragedy?
if you endorse the author's view, then you agree with the above statement.
What media is trying to do here is to frame the Clinton candidacy as a sort of referendum on women becoming the US President. Instead of asking what Hillary has done in the past and what she would do in the future, and whether it is good or bad for America, the questions are framed as "whether Americans are ready for Madame President?" or "Americans are sexist enough to not vote for Hillary?" This is a very shrewd tactics. Of course if questions are framed in these ways, most Americans, who do not want to be caught saying politicaly-incorrect thing, would answer that they are ready to elect a female president - but that does not necessarily mean that they want Hillary to be the one. But the media hastily treat this as people's endorsement of Hillary as the next President. I don't know how long this kind of CHEAP TRICK would work.
I would imagine that as Clinton's campaign starts to flounder, and trail behind Guilliani, she and her mediA allies would resort to usual "women" defence. A kind of defence that were in full display when French female presidential candidate Ms. Royal sank behind THE eventual and WELL-deserved winner Mr. Sarkozy in the polls right before the election. You know, "The media, the society are sexist, biased against women", "I was unfairly attacked for being a woman", or "Men are still afraid of women in power", that kind of usual emotional rhetoric favoured by feminists.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Newsweek's annual women & power orgy
It is a time for Newsweek’s annual (?) celebration of woman, an issue when all the female writers, editors, etc in the Newsweek come out to celebrate themselves, dance around, and feel good about themselves.
It is the “special” among “special reports” in the Newsweek, with unusually large spaces, or pages in the publication devoted to the issue. No other cover stories, or “special report” are given such huge coverage, because it is a topic of “super-special” or “extra-special” importance, and it is easy to see the reason why – why wouldn’t female editors devote just a few extra pages on a cause that make them feel better about themselves, make prospects of their future promotion bigger (women in power is the future of organization!), and advance their cause? A shortcut icon will be left for almost forever in its website to signify its uniquely special status of the topic.
It is also an opportunity for female writers and editors at the publication to mingle with so-called “women leaders” through interviews, etc; and exchange stories about the subtle or not-so-subtle discriminations they both face, whine about difficulty of achieving work-life balance (if female staffers at the Newsweek were ever married) and exchange tips on how to get ahead of men in a career race – I am sure women in the Newsweek are wishing that magazine's all 52 issues in a year could be devoted to the same topic! It is almost like a mass group therapy played out on a mass scale, on the pages of national news magazine.
You see what happens when “women take charge” - they came out to celebrate themselves to feel better.
With a considerable lead Hillary has gained over other Democratic contenders and possible Republican candidates in the polls, the Newsweek will no doubt notch up this kind of “women-leader” hype, to safeguard this lead and condition people into thinking that it is better to have a woman leader for the country and for your lives. Expect to see more special reports and articles that will portray Hillary positively, and her opponent, especially Guilliani, negatively. Expect to see a barrage of brainwashing articles that whispers you, or hypnotize you into thinking that women leaders are not only ok or good, but better than men. In fact the current issue took a small jab at this by suggesting that women governors are better at bi-partisan politics.
It is the “special” among “special reports” in the Newsweek, with unusually large spaces, or pages in the publication devoted to the issue. No other cover stories, or “special report” are given such huge coverage, because it is a topic of “super-special” or “extra-special” importance, and it is easy to see the reason why – why wouldn’t female editors devote just a few extra pages on a cause that make them feel better about themselves, make prospects of their future promotion bigger (women in power is the future of organization!), and advance their cause? A shortcut icon will be left for almost forever in its website to signify its uniquely special status of the topic.
It is also an opportunity for female writers and editors at the publication to mingle with so-called “women leaders” through interviews, etc; and exchange stories about the subtle or not-so-subtle discriminations they both face, whine about difficulty of achieving work-life balance (if female staffers at the Newsweek were ever married) and exchange tips on how to get ahead of men in a career race – I am sure women in the Newsweek are wishing that magazine's all 52 issues in a year could be devoted to the same topic! It is almost like a mass group therapy played out on a mass scale, on the pages of national news magazine.
You see what happens when “women take charge” - they came out to celebrate themselves to feel better.
With a considerable lead Hillary has gained over other Democratic contenders and possible Republican candidates in the polls, the Newsweek will no doubt notch up this kind of “women-leader” hype, to safeguard this lead and condition people into thinking that it is better to have a woman leader for the country and for your lives. Expect to see more special reports and articles that will portray Hillary positively, and her opponent, especially Guilliani, negatively. Expect to see a barrage of brainwashing articles that whispers you, or hypnotize you into thinking that women leaders are not only ok or good, but better than men. In fact the current issue took a small jab at this by suggesting that women governors are better at bi-partisan politics.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Usual "New York Times" - thing
You know that the New York Time is just doing their usual “New York Times” -things when you see articles that picks up and discusses every moves and words uttered by Hillary Clinton, both old and new, or articles that focus on daughters
and wives of male Presidential candidates; I mean any female relatives of the candidates, so that the main subject of the news is women, but not men. People in New York Times (mostly power-hungry women and their male sevants) are getting increasingly averse to the idea of featuring men in the news. Their sense of self-confidence is impaired by too much covering of male candidates in the Presidential election, and they cannot stand it anymore. So women and their servants have decided that the bulk of news must be either on Hillary or women surrounding the rest of the male candidates, so that "SHE" is the subject of the new, not "HE". (in NYT the only legitimate place for featuring "HE" is in crime section)
At the same time, they do not forget to lay a groundwork for pummeling of Giuliani as the likelihood of his winning the Republican nomination is getting higher and may eventually face Hillary (-they would certainly hope). Expect more of the same in coming months.
and wives of male Presidential candidates; I mean any female relatives of the candidates, so that the main subject of the news is women, but not men. People in New York Times (mostly power-hungry women and their male sevants) are getting increasingly averse to the idea of featuring men in the news. Their sense of self-confidence is impaired by too much covering of male candidates in the Presidential election, and they cannot stand it anymore. So women and their servants have decided that the bulk of news must be either on Hillary or women surrounding the rest of the male candidates, so that "SHE" is the subject of the new, not "HE". (in NYT the only legitimate place for featuring "HE" is in crime section)
At the same time, they do not forget to lay a groundwork for pummeling of Giuliani as the likelihood of his winning the Republican nomination is getting higher and may eventually face Hillary (-they would certainly hope). Expect more of the same in coming months.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Some cant take criticism
Female politicians always get away with anything they do or say by just uttering one of the following words; discrimination, harassment, gender-based, sexism, patriarchy.
Democratic frontrunner for the 2008 Presidential election, and a master of gender politics, Hillary Clinton is one of the most frequent user of this tactics. Of course when you make such deragatory comments about Republicans, you would draw a lot of criticism. But, girl, it was not a gender-based attack. It was rather mild, inhibited quips about such irresponsible and reckless comments uttered by such a high-office holder. If you were a man, you would get far harsher criticism from your opponents who do not have to worry about the consequences of looking to be criticizing women・ If you were a man, you could not sling completely baseless charge of gender-based・attack, because there is supposedly no such thing as gender-based attack against men, it goes in only one way, right? Well of course if you were a man, you couldnt marry Bill and became the First Lady, you political launching pad in the first place.
The only gender difference in this case is that, while male politicians would always have to face consequences of their words and actions and take responsibility in the end, female politicians can always get away with uttering the words, gender-based・and discrimination・ This is one of the biggest advantages that female politician have, and Hillary of course knows it best. She has mastered the art of accusation or insinuation of gender discrimination and employs it so tactfully and strategically, it could be now considered her biggest political asset.
Hillarys strategic use of gender victim card and medias willingness to make it into a big story creates two distinct categories of politicians; male politicians who are responsible and answerable to charges and female politicians, consequence / responsibility-free, and immune from criticism. American voters are presented with two such categories of politicians to choose from, and the current politically correct climate dictates that the politicians of the latter category (consequence-free females) be more represented in Senate and Congress.
Although male politicians have no chance of evading from the consequences of their actions by playing gender-victim card, the experiences of taking responsibility, facing consequences actually made male politicians tougher, more responsible, and better politicians, in their innate quality as well as to the eyes of public. By striving to be more responsible, cautious and Public also know that male politicians always have to answer to charges and critics as they have no gender-victim card to play with and thus would trust more on them.
On the other hand, paradoxically, female politicians, free from facing similar consequences that male politicians would otherwise have to face by simply uttering the word discrimination, havent had a chance to be trained in the same way as male politicians. Public would not trust politicians who do not take responsibility for what they say but would only scream gender discrimination, and whose questionable words and actions are not to be covered by mainstream media due to the prevailing politically correct atmosphere.
If feminists want to increase the number of women in politics, their often stated biggest goal in the movement (its not about equality anymore its about power grab) isnt it time for them to learn to take responsibility for what they say and do? It may hurt a bit, but it in the long run, it may help them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030700443.html
Democratic frontrunner for the 2008 Presidential election, and a master of gender politics, Hillary Clinton is one of the most frequent user of this tactics. Of course when you make such deragatory comments about Republicans, you would draw a lot of criticism. But, girl, it was not a gender-based attack. It was rather mild, inhibited quips about such irresponsible and reckless comments uttered by such a high-office holder. If you were a man, you would get far harsher criticism from your opponents who do not have to worry about the consequences of looking to be criticizing women・ If you were a man, you could not sling completely baseless charge of gender-based・attack, because there is supposedly no such thing as gender-based attack against men, it goes in only one way, right? Well of course if you were a man, you couldnt marry Bill and became the First Lady, you political launching pad in the first place.
The only gender difference in this case is that, while male politicians would always have to face consequences of their words and actions and take responsibility in the end, female politicians can always get away with uttering the words, gender-based・and discrimination・ This is one of the biggest advantages that female politician have, and Hillary of course knows it best. She has mastered the art of accusation or insinuation of gender discrimination and employs it so tactfully and strategically, it could be now considered her biggest political asset.
Hillarys strategic use of gender victim card and medias willingness to make it into a big story creates two distinct categories of politicians; male politicians who are responsible and answerable to charges and female politicians, consequence / responsibility-free, and immune from criticism. American voters are presented with two such categories of politicians to choose from, and the current politically correct climate dictates that the politicians of the latter category (consequence-free females) be more represented in Senate and Congress.
Although male politicians have no chance of evading from the consequences of their actions by playing gender-victim card, the experiences of taking responsibility, facing consequences actually made male politicians tougher, more responsible, and better politicians, in their innate quality as well as to the eyes of public. By striving to be more responsible, cautious and Public also know that male politicians always have to answer to charges and critics as they have no gender-victim card to play with and thus would trust more on them.
On the other hand, paradoxically, female politicians, free from facing similar consequences that male politicians would otherwise have to face by simply uttering the word discrimination, havent had a chance to be trained in the same way as male politicians. Public would not trust politicians who do not take responsibility for what they say but would only scream gender discrimination, and whose questionable words and actions are not to be covered by mainstream media due to the prevailing politically correct atmosphere.
If feminists want to increase the number of women in politics, their often stated biggest goal in the movement (its not about equality anymore its about power grab) isnt it time for them to learn to take responsibility for what they say and do? It may hurt a bit, but it in the long run, it may help them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030700443.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)