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.
Showing posts with label Hirshman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hirshman. Show all posts
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Saturday, September 22, 2007
men too good for women - It's a dsicrimination!
I’ve been emphasizing that the real motive for feminists’ so-called quest for gender equality has nothing to do with gender equality but simply a carefully disguised attack on males.
This article, also found on insidehighered.com, which I have been enjoying reading for the last few days, maybe one of a spinoffs from Linda Hirshmann’s article that provoked quite a controversy some time ago.
Anyway, excerpt from the article;
“why not simply require faculty fathers to produce half again as much (teaching, scholarship, whatever) at each step of the way that the faculty mothers do, rather than lowering the requirements for the women? Demanding of these pampered fellas that they work as hard, over all, as their female counterparts do would add a salutary dash of reality to their perceived superiority to women in the workplace, level the playing field and create some job opportunities for ambitious women who want to do a little extra. A modest proposal.”
So Linda openly advocates and thinks it “A modest proposal” to restrict men to produce half as much academic work as women do, to compensate for the fact that women cannot produce as much as men.
It is interesting. Employ any means necessary to achieve gender parity on paper. If women is lagging behind, first, give them a few extra hand. If women are still behind, keep men from going so far ahead so that women can catch up and, alas, men and women are the same and therefore equality achieved!
I think the feminists have come to grudging realization (though they never would admit to it) that men are simply superior and more productive in academic field and their s no way or women to trully catch up with them, and thus their focus has shifted from how to empower and give a few extra points for being a woman, to how to restrict or control men’s uncontrollably superior ability compared to women.
Thus feminists’ new gender-equality mantra is defined.
1. Men are too good for women to catch up – it’s a gender discrimination!
2. How we could restrict men’s ability so that women could catch up?
I think this could be called “negative equality” - an attempt to control everyone’s ability or outputs so that everyone’s outputs are equal and no one fall behind, as opposed to “positive equality”, where all people can exercise their full potential on a level playing field.
After decades of pursuing gender equality on the assumption on the latter positive equality, when feminists believed that men and women’s potential are the same, they have finally saw the reality, that it is not. But they haven’t given up the ‘gender-equality” game, or “gender-sameness” game, and I'll bet those militant feminists soon will be hell-bent on restricting men’s ability.
This article, also found on insidehighered.com, which I have been enjoying reading for the last few days, maybe one of a spinoffs from Linda Hirshmann’s article that provoked quite a controversy some time ago.
Anyway, excerpt from the article;
“why not simply require faculty fathers to produce half again as much (teaching, scholarship, whatever) at each step of the way that the faculty mothers do, rather than lowering the requirements for the women? Demanding of these pampered fellas that they work as hard, over all, as their female counterparts do would add a salutary dash of reality to their perceived superiority to women in the workplace, level the playing field and create some job opportunities for ambitious women who want to do a little extra. A modest proposal.”
So Linda openly advocates and thinks it “A modest proposal” to restrict men to produce half as much academic work as women do, to compensate for the fact that women cannot produce as much as men.
It is interesting. Employ any means necessary to achieve gender parity on paper. If women is lagging behind, first, give them a few extra hand. If women are still behind, keep men from going so far ahead so that women can catch up and, alas, men and women are the same and therefore equality achieved!
I think the feminists have come to grudging realization (though they never would admit to it) that men are simply superior and more productive in academic field and their s no way or women to trully catch up with them, and thus their focus has shifted from how to empower and give a few extra points for being a woman, to how to restrict or control men’s uncontrollably superior ability compared to women.
Thus feminists’ new gender-equality mantra is defined.
1. Men are too good for women to catch up – it’s a gender discrimination!
2. How we could restrict men’s ability so that women could catch up?
I think this could be called “negative equality” - an attempt to control everyone’s ability or outputs so that everyone’s outputs are equal and no one fall behind, as opposed to “positive equality”, where all people can exercise their full potential on a level playing field.
After decades of pursuing gender equality on the assumption on the latter positive equality, when feminists believed that men and women’s potential are the same, they have finally saw the reality, that it is not. But they haven’t given up the ‘gender-equality” game, or “gender-sameness” game, and I'll bet those militant feminists soon will be hell-bent on restricting men’s ability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)