Cokie Roberts

I think at some point people need to take this woman not as a serious journalist – she is just one of militant feminists who do mediocre job at their chosen profession but rose to fame and fortune for just being women only because the industry needed some female faces. We already know her radical feminist views from her book “Founding mothers” a pathetic effort to confuse unsuspecting people that those “founding” women were somehow just as important players in the foundation of the United States as the Founding Fathers.

“when the Mark Sanford thing broke, I went tearing into my husband's office and said, "Okay, that's it. Women just are better. Men are just lesser beings."”

I thought this was an extra-marital but completely consensual relationship between two adults (Mark Sanford and an Argentinean woman), but according to Cokie Roberts, it proves that “men are just lesser being”. WHY? Why women aren’t lesser being? – after all, a woman was involved in that affair too, just that she wasn’t as visible as her lover.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2009/08/05/cokie-roberts-leads-carol-smith-in-the-misandry-sweepstakes/

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

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

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.

Disabled kids or single women first?

So exactly what is the problem here? It’s very unclear from reading of the article. Clearly from the title, the author of the article intends to promote feminists’ agenda at the expense of state of disabled kids, but as far as you can see in the article, it is hard to understand why an article on disabled children ends up lamenting the sorry state of single women.

The author doesn’t even pretend for a second to show concern for the state for disabled children which should be a main concern for most sane people, but instead focus solely on women who take care of them, somehow magically turning it into a women’s issue. Instead of looking into more valid questions such as whether the disabled kids fare better or worse in single female household compared to single male household or normal two-parent household (or in two-female parent household or two-male parent household or….these days there are so many alternative family structure) or non-biological parent(s) or…. The article simply say that more women are taking care of these kids than men, implying that this is some kind of major social problem that is in need of immediate attention and social remedy.

To liberal mainstream media the fact that more women are taking care of kids than men are such an irrefutable established social problem, they don’t even bother to elaborate why it is bad. Why a social problem? Is it because kids will fare worse when taken care of by women than when taken care by men?

Let’s put the question this way. So, what will be the solution? When all the women are freed from the dire chore of taking care of kids and shove it onto men, so that women can concentrate on their career aspirations, so that men are deprived of career opportunity and bound at home, thereby “leveling the playing field”? Or when absolute equal number of men and women are taking care of kids so that both sexes have equal chances of losing career opportunity as well as of pursuing career? Who is talking about kids here?

Transgendered science prof

So here comes a whining science professor out from a closet. Now he (or she, as “he” used to be, or whatever) is an instant media celebrity as a living testament of entrenched gender bias in scientific establishment.

Of course the New York Times, the Washington Post and host of other liberal media will love him. He is a transgendered person. He testifies that there is a gender bias in the scientific community. He belittles former Harvard president Summers. He has all the necessary elements to be the leftist media darling. Remember, he has personal experience and very unique insight into this issue which not many other people (or any other people, I suspect) would have. He will be, along with people like the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan, a media icon who would be relied upon by liberal media from time to time to render final verdict for the whole world on controversial political and social issues.

So, with an account of personal experience of one unknown scientist, who remained obscure during when he was a woman because of bias (or simple she was not as talented as other male colleagues – but this question does not matter as Dr. Barres and the media already seem to have an answer), media is ready to conclude that Dr. Summers was a just a sexist, white male.

But how good this professor is as a scientist? Dr. Barres asks, “Why do Asian girls do better on math tests than American boys?” My question is - does he think it is really “scientific’ to compare Asian girls with American boys? Why not compare Asian girls to Asian boys and American boys to American girls? The answers would be obvious – in both ethnic groups, boys will do much better. It is just that when you compare math tests of Asians and Americans as a whole, for some cultural or other reasons, Asians do better. But the great discriminated scientist Dr. Barres compares Asian girls with American boys and satisfied with the result he gets. Now we know his standard of scientific method, and also reasons why he got a bad rap as a scientist when he was a woman and why he is such a celebrity. He chose a wrong career. He should have been political activist than scientist.

Black women winning victim sweepstake!

Looks like black women is again winning the I-am-the-biggest-victim sweepstake, according to Joy Jones, a black women (what other demographic group could a person who say something like this belong to?).

According to her, “declining marriage rates among African Americans hit women the hardest.”. This despite the fact that more black men than black women have never been married (by a narrow margin - 43.3 percent versus 41.9 percent), and black women`s chief reasons for not marrying, again according to her own writing, seems to be something like; “(women) don't want to lose their freedom.", or “many of their female peers are satisfied with the lives they have constructed and are less likely to settle for marriage”, as “marriage may not be a business deal that offers sufficient return on investment” for black women who nowadays are on average far more educated, well-salaried, and accomplished and than average black men.

As opposed to black women`s selfish, ego-centric and drama-queen reasons for not marrying, black men`s far more serious reasons for not (or not being able to) marrying, such as incarceration, indebtedness with child support or alimony to wealthier ex-wives, drug and alchohol abuse, etc., are not mentioned at all. Instead, single women who think in the lines of “why should well-salaried women marry?", are portrayed as victims of low rate of marriage among blacks. Here men are treated as commodity or object that women could use in case women wished to look for some companionship and spiritual satisfaction, when she need some respite from her life centered on her high-flung career.

Well, now it’s Olympic season, and judging from the rather low attendance and ticket sales in Turin, I do not know how many people are paying attention to this sporting event, but there was one interesting story on Washington Post.

First thing gender feminists do, when things don’t go in their way or confronted with hard facts, is to fight straight back, and not just fight back, but make it a vehicle to further promote their agenda. Thus, when several female luge racers crashed in a difficult Turin luge course while only one male crashed in the same course, and the question of women’s aptitude in this luge race arise, they not only declared unilaterally that the crashes were gender-blind, but also cheered for inclusion of women’s ski jump, making downhill skiing course more difficult, and allowing bodycheck in women’s ice hockey.

It’s the same kind of knee-jerk reaction by militant gender feminists, who, when confronted with such uncomfortable and inconvenient fact that women commit domestic violence almost as often as men do, deny the fact, scream about the patriarchal oppression of women by the society and call for more research, funding, advocacy legislation to “protect” women.

I do not know if these people are really worried about the safety of female athletes or just interested in playing statistics game, - you know, to achieve 50 - 50 parity in every sphere of society.

Gender feminists again reached its new high (or low) in meaningless, trivial gender representation statistics, in their relentless pursuit of absolute statistical parity in every nook and cranny of the social sphere (insofar as they deem it is advantages to them).

In a latest story, the first woman president (of course only in TV, and it WILL be only in TV) laments such triviality as (it doesn’t even qualify as trivial in my view, though) less than one to four female to male ratio in crowd scenes in movies and deplore how it negatively affects girl’s self-image, and our venerated Washington Post is more than happy to promote this kind of nonsense put up by professional whiners. I remember some feminists complaining that Lord of the Rings series put male characters too much on the centerstage, they just can’t stand the fact that men (or boys) are in the limelight, not taking orders from or hiding behind strong, trailblazing, stereotype-shattering (to use feminists favorite word) girls.

Well, actually they should remember that girls are doing great in movie too, they can be in a special force (G.I. Jane), and lots of other stuffs, but, oh, still men are better, because we can fly the sky (Superman) and bend railway and throw trains around (Spyderman) and travel though times. What’s the gender breakdown of people who have traveled though time, feminists? That must be one interesting statistics.