Outrage at dearth of minority third-base coaches in MLB

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.”

New gender equality

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.””

Problem with women taking charge

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."

Girl sports pack economic punch (as backed up by one anecdote)

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…

Girl valedictorian Part III

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

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

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.

On laid-off (high income) males

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…

Mr. Kristof - Part 5 "Token" women indeed

The article also advances ther tired argument of “token” women;

"There are a couple of issues I didn’t have space for. One is a point that Marie Wilson of the White House Project makes in her excellent book, Closing the Leadership Gap: Add Women, Change Everything. She notes that it’s important not just to have a token woman or two, but some critical mass. As she puts it: “A single woman leader or a few women in a larger group are tokens; each token has to prove she’s man enough for the job.”"

But actually they are right. They are TOKENS, definitely. They are nothing other than the expression of company’s commitment to politically-correct notion of gender equality, that a company is willing to sacrifice some degree of competitiveness and productivity by hiring second-rate person who doesn’t merit to be there, that company is paying price, to play along with feminists' game.

What the White House project doesn't understand is that;

1) even a large company cannot afford to have too many "tokens", the cost become simply too much for a company to bear. It is especially so in the times of economic downturn like now. it is correct when feminists complain that current economic downturn hit women's career prospect harder than that of men's, but wrong in blaming discrimination as a reason. It's just a bad time to expect affirmative action for women.
These are indeed difficult times for women and other under-qualified people to get ahead.

2) people who advance this line of argument also imply that women cannot begin to function if they find themselves to be in a demographic minority. Why should company even bother to promote or hire a woman who will just freak out to find out that she is mostly surrounded by males colleagues in a boardroom and is too frighten or "disempowered" to work?

Mr. Kristof - Part 4 Hidden costs of affirmative action

I think there are quite large social and economic costs for trying to artificially increase women in senior posts just to satisfy statistic-obsessed people like Mr. Kristof and feminists. These are:

1. costs for the campaign to put more women in senior posts, such as campaign ads, time and energy that could have been used otherwise for other, more productive purpose.

2. costs for the company that was pressured to hire second-rate people (affirmative-actioned women) in senior posts, which is essentially a productivity decrease by bypassing the most qualified people for the job (sorry Mr. Kristof and other readers but they are most likely men) and hiring under-qualified women.

3. further costs for the company that was put in disadvantageous position against other companies that hire the most qualified person whom it had to pass simply because that person was a male.

4. costs associated with setting up and operating government agencies tasked with monitoring percentage of women in senior jobs.

Now, let's look at the benefits of having second-rate women as senior managers:

1. It will make Mr. Kristof and other feminists happy; nothing could give them more pleasure than sipping coffee and glancing at a pie chart showing more women are getting senior jobs.

2. It will make women who got unusually fast promotion happy - who doesn't like promotion, which means more power, more status and more money!?

Remember, if you know economics even a little bit, all the costs for the above 1-4 will eventually be passed on to general public in the long run. The only winner in this bizarre gender-equity game is Mr. Kristof and some women who would get undeserved promotion, who could not rise to senior posts otherwise.

Mr. Kristof - Part 3

Well, if the Wall Street had been estrogen-filled rather than testosterone-filled, actually I would agree with Mr. Kristof that there would not have been financial crash, since there would not have been rapid economic development in the first place! Remember what put you in an “prestigious” position to have a “crash”. You cannot have a financial sector “crash” in Rwanda (which by the way Mr. Kristof lauds for having highest female representation in politics) if all your possession is pigs and chickens and if there is no functioning financial market in the country. (Mr. Kristof, where are all the benefits that feminists' rule are supposed tobring in this poverty-stricken country?) Remember, testosterone is what made it possible for Mr. Kristof to woe about this crash on internet (who created internet?) in his comfortable office equipped with latest computer (who made his computer?) and other gismo in a high-rise office building (who built buildings?)

You could live in an alternative matriarchy universe in which technology and social, economical development is stuck in the Middle Age (no testosterone, no printing machines, no ocean-sailing ships, no gunpowder) where you don’t have to worry about financial meltdown, mortgage crisis and so on. And better yet, you don’t have to worry about global worming (no testosterone, no internal combustion engine) or nuclear war (no testosterone, no nuclear science).

Mr. Kristof - Part 2, my suggestions

I think the best thing Mr. Kristof could for advancing the feminist cause to which he so emphatically pander (although this quite advanced level of pandering is still not enough for some of more hard-core feminists: ), is to resign as a columnist of NYTimes. Rather than simply preaching the beauty and benefits of world ruled by women, in one move, he can;

-reduce the percentage of white, hetero-sexual, educated, middle-age, male.

Better yet, after resigning (or actually before resigning and while on the job) he can do something abhorrent like sexually assault one of the young female interns in NYT. In this way he can;

-Further damage the reputation of white-middle-aged man, which he tried so hard to tarnish over the years

-make it much more difficult for large companies to hire white males in respectable positions, columnists or editors or managers, etc., which perfectly suits his agenda of reducing proportion of white males in those positions.

I suggest that Mr. Kristof insists his position be taken over by;

black(or hispanic or Asian or Indian or any other under-represented minority group), homosexual, uneducated, disabled women (or better yet, transsexual person) so that there would be more “diversity” as diversity sounds like the single most important thing in turning around economy and make world a better place. If possible, it is suggested that this person is not only uneducated (can score high on anti-elitist point), but not brilliant/capable or even retarded or has mental problem (so that we can overcome prejudice against retarded person or people worth mental disability).

Mr. Kristof - Part 1

Mr. Kristof’s unending pandering to women is nothing new. When not calling attention of international community for man-made catastrophe (there is no “women-made” catastrophe as such, since anything women do is good according to his worldview) in Sudan or somewhere in Africa, “particularly” the plight of women (this “particularly” part is important as it actually means “exclusively”), he is busy these days kow-towing to man-hating feminists.

What are the possible reasons for this Mr. relentless cozying up to feminists? Here is a list of possible reasons;

a. It’s politically in vogue.

b. NYT senior management will see you in favorable light as you champion their favorite progressive cause.

c. It givers you a bump reader’s rating, mostly from progressive and female-heavy NYT readers.

d. He fancy a good place in an eventual world to be ruled by women (according to him), for embracing their cause from early on.

e. He actually it makes economic sense.


Now let’s analyze each of possible reason;

a. probably, could be one of the reasons

b. also probably yes

c. again, also probably yes

d. Does he seriously believe that men would have any place in a new matriarchy run by man-hating feminists? If so, I must say he must been deluded. The only possible exceptions in a new matriarchy are gay or trans-gendered person(male to female), I would think –but former may not be still technical and medically male, so they would be treated as any other “males”; even the latter is a XY choromosne holder at cell level so not sure about them either.

e. Please study economic 101

What’s the good terms for this kind of male-feminists, (defeatist?, femi-Nazi collaborator?) We need a name, a catchy one for this kind of people. And what could be the reason / motivation for these guys to pander to a group of people who think of you as nothing other than possible rxpist? Some possible reasons are listed above but there could be others. And how are the inner psychology of these men? Masochist?

Fussy feminists...

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,

Phoenix Country Club, the "new" Augusta national club

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

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.

Stay-at-home mom

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…..

Female DJs

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.”

"Gray rape"

First there was a rape, and then there was a "date rape" now let me introduce you to a newest form of rape, or rape 2.0 - it's dubbed "gray rape" - no it's not a rape of a gray woman by a gray guy (I don't want to think about that, do you? but this also may be a new frontier for gender feminists)

Read this article...in the NY Times City page...

One solution, just like minors under the age of 21, make it illegal for ALL WOMEN to drink alchohol. If they can not be held legally responsible for their actions, or if they cannot take responsibility over their own actions after drinking alchohol, then ban it altogether. If feminists want to treat women like kids, then so be it. Only men, but no kids and women, will be allowed to consume alchohol becaue they are the only ones who will take reponsibilities for their own actions.

If all-rights-and-no-responsibility womenkind are barred from drinking, then there wil be no incidents of so-called “gray rape”, (and no jobs for feminist experts citedin the article), no female “victims” as well as male “victims” who are painted as “rapist” under this new capricious (just like women) legal concepts. And no more fun of course. Welcome to Brave New Feminist World.

I think where we are heading to is a society where all forms of sexual intercourse is deemed a rape, as a prominent feminist once famously proclaimed. While many of the even die-hard radical feminists would on surface try not be associated with this radical notion, they believe deep in their heart that all forms of sexual intercourse is rape.

Perhaps, five or ten years down the road, this emerging new legal concept of “gray rape” will be imposed on us as a established leagl concept even though most of us think it absurd, supported by “research after research” (as feminists like to add to most of their spurious claims), and would move on to claim that even explicitly consensual sex is a form of rape, because in a strongly patriarchal environment women live in (as in present day U.S.), women will not be totally free of its evil patriarchal incluence that permeats every facets of society and even personal lives, and therefore cannot be said to have consented to the sexual acts on a completely independent, free will. Long live Andrea Dworkin!

Women small business failing

Prime example of equality of results mentality.

Gender feminists are not content with the fact that there is an equality of opportunity between men and women in opening up small business (actually women now far surpass men in terms of opening new small business by account of two to one), but they are demanding that result, the profit earned by those small companies by men and women, be same.

Gender feminists’ frenzied quest for achieving absolute equality, on paper, in statistical terms, in opportunity and in results never ends.

Once small business is opened, it is entirely up to the business owners’ ability to make it big or fail it. I don’t know how feminists think that it is possible to ensure that the outcome is same, that is, the earning by the small business operated by men and women are the same. The free market is competitive and relentless, as it may seem sometimes, but it is a fair system that rewards good business with increased profits and punish bad ones with decreased profits. Sorry if this reality is too harsh for gender feminists who’s been told by their bigger sisters that the world is theirs, is there to please them, and help them achieve maximum self-actualization. It is not.

Here again for gender feminists, individual choice or plan does not matter. While briefly acknowledging that women small business owner, by the very reason many of them started small business, would prefer more free time over profit, she quickly laid out myriad of plans to boost women business’ profits. In order to catch up with men, they need to be taught to “think big” and need lots of “coaching”. If women can’t still catch up with men, despite all these extra-helping hands (and don’t forget those government contracts that favor women and minorities), maybe feminists would want to cap men’s business’ profits at the level women business can reach. Then everybody will be “equal”, and happy.

By the way, I thought we were told by feminists that women are better at operating small business as they were more adept in “multi-tasking”, a requisite ability for small business owners and as small business address needs of common women. But after all these preferential treatments by government, special financial and incentive programmes exclusively for women, and extra-coaching, networking and mentoring for women, women still cannot catch up with men – what’s wrong with them?