A few more articles that written by feminist opportunists who use this global financial crisis as a tool to attack men…. Some interesting lines from this article published a while ago (February) about Davos world economic forum in a Guardian, a publication that is even more Marxist than NYT.
“The idea that that can be achieved while excluding half the population is breathtaking in its arrogance”
This sentence makes sense only if the white men who gathered in Davos were there to represent the Caucasian males of the world, to discuss Causcasian males’ interest and their interest only.
OFF COURSE NOT. They gathered there not to represent particular demographic group, ethnicity or gender, but to represent firstly the companies they each lead and secondly the large global businesses as a whole, to seek ways for better cooperation and way out of recession. Even if were to take this author’s logic, there were some women in Davos, however minority, so it doesn’t mean that half of the population were entirely excluded from the meeting.
But with the same logic this author uses, you can also say that all the teenagers/Africans/Blacks/disabled/homosexuals/transgendered/dogs/chimps/rats, etc, etc. weren’t represented in Davos. Feminist should stop seeing any large private meetings (Davos is not an inter-governmental body) with influential participants as some sort of a world governing body in which all demographic groups and types should be statistically proportionately represented, and in which they mistakenly believe that they have right to representation by virtue of their genitalia.
“Women such as Oxfam director Barbara Stocking, who has been lobbying the WEF for several years to bring in more women, believes its definition of leadership is too narrow and should be broadened to include, say, female community leaders from Africa.”
Right, opening up the meeting to groups that produce absolutely nothing and rely their sustenance entirely on foreign assistance (whose money originally came from white males gathered in Davos) may be a good idea. Like having beggars and financiers on a same table and discuss world economic issues as if they are equals. I guess it fits feminists’ and leftists’ vision of equality.
“Women are the single biggest - and least acknowledged - force for economic growth on the planet. This is not a claim made by rampant feminists, but by the Economist,…”
It is still a claim made by a rampant feminists, just like Ruth Sunderland, the author of this article. Rampant feminists somehow getting a job in the Economist through affirmative action does not make them serious economists or journalists, they still are rampant journalists, just like Ruth Sunderland.
Next up, just one quote from this article about my perennial favourite Ms. Harriet Her"person" of UK.
"Somebody did say that if it had been 'Lehman Sisters'”
If it had been Lehman Sisters, it sure wouldn’t have caused such big problem since it wouldn’t have grown into such a large firm whose meltdown would have such a big effect on the financial market. It would have been crushed or stayed as a small women-only firm with no real talents to lead the company to stay competitive and grow, with many employees taking turn to take maternity leaves and leave work at 5 to pick up babies or go shopping.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Another self-serving agit-prop from Newsweek...
Is this a serious journalism or just another agit-prop articles that appear in Newsweek and other once-serious media at an increasing rate, that are disguised as a serious journalism and serious economic forecast? Or is it just another attempt by feminists to spin the recession and use it as a tool to launch a broadside attack against men in general (think: "Death of macho" in Foreign policy magazine)?
Much of the article is filled with agit-prop for women's power and feminist issues and very little on serious insights into post-recession economy.Who said that women holding the power of the purse is good for economy? For example, women in Japan, like in any other country I suppose, make more than 80% of the economic decisions. Even many of women in Japan are housewives, that doesn't prevent them from making economic decisions on behalf of their husbands, and Newsweek's optimistic view on females' priorities notwithstanding, Japan's economics has been in the tank for the last... how many years?
Even the author also knows this;
"In fact, women already make the majority of the world's purchasing decisions. BCG estimates that they control some $12 trillion of the world's $18.4 trillion in annual consumer spending.."
This is not a new phenomenon, and has been so for years, including before and during recession, therefore it is hard to understand why promoting this trend could be touted as way a out of recession. If anything, this could have been the CAUSE of the recession, if you only look at the timeline.
The author likes to paint women as some kind of saints who only care about others and children, but in fact what do most (Western) women spend their most money on? It's clothes, shoes, accessories, cosmetics, and so on!. Sure the prices of these are much higher that tobacco and alcohol, which are listed as typical of men's spending, but still you never heard of country rising out from poverty just by making clothes and shoes.
The truth is that men always made money FOR their family, that is their wives and children, and wives made most of the economic decisions for family on behalf of men from long time ago. Men worked hard and let women use their hard earned money, and spend very little on their own (like tobacco and alcohol!) Women always used men's money, both for family items as well as personal items such as clothes and jewelries. The difference is that there are now ever more thankless women who think that now that they graduated from top universities (with dad's hard-earned money), and got a good job (through affirmative action), and free to spend, they think they own and rule the world. That there are more women who thinks (thanks in no small part for this kind of misinformation) that the society and economy has to be restructured to suit their spending and wish priorities. In fact, the trend of increasing young female professionals could be worse for economy, as they are more likely to spend money on cloth and shoes, and less on healthcare and education - since they are less likely to get marry and have kids in the first place!
Much of the article is filled with agit-prop for women's power and feminist issues and very little on serious insights into post-recession economy.Who said that women holding the power of the purse is good for economy? For example, women in Japan, like in any other country I suppose, make more than 80% of the economic decisions. Even many of women in Japan are housewives, that doesn't prevent them from making economic decisions on behalf of their husbands, and Newsweek's optimistic view on females' priorities notwithstanding, Japan's economics has been in the tank for the last... how many years?
Even the author also knows this;
"In fact, women already make the majority of the world's purchasing decisions. BCG estimates that they control some $12 trillion of the world's $18.4 trillion in annual consumer spending.."
This is not a new phenomenon, and has been so for years, including before and during recession, therefore it is hard to understand why promoting this trend could be touted as way a out of recession. If anything, this could have been the CAUSE of the recession, if you only look at the timeline.
The author likes to paint women as some kind of saints who only care about others and children, but in fact what do most (Western) women spend their most money on? It's clothes, shoes, accessories, cosmetics, and so on!. Sure the prices of these are much higher that tobacco and alcohol, which are listed as typical of men's spending, but still you never heard of country rising out from poverty just by making clothes and shoes.
The truth is that men always made money FOR their family, that is their wives and children, and wives made most of the economic decisions for family on behalf of men from long time ago. Men worked hard and let women use their hard earned money, and spend very little on their own (like tobacco and alcohol!) Women always used men's money, both for family items as well as personal items such as clothes and jewelries. The difference is that there are now ever more thankless women who think that now that they graduated from top universities (with dad's hard-earned money), and got a good job (through affirmative action), and free to spend, they think they own and rule the world. That there are more women who thinks (thanks in no small part for this kind of misinformation) that the society and economy has to be restructured to suit their spending and wish priorities. In fact, the trend of increasing young female professionals could be worse for economy, as they are more likely to spend money on cloth and shoes, and less on healthcare and education - since they are less likely to get marry and have kids in the first place!
Friday, March 20, 2009
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…
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…
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Male-bashing in the era of recession
Liberal news media these days simply cannot stop belittling men and hounding them into doing more housework, or to be more like “housewives”. In addition to a piece by New York Times, the Newsweeks also jumped on the use-economic-downturn-as-means-to-realize-feminist-utopia bandwagon. I don’t know exactly what kind of benefits it will bring to national economy as a whole if laid-off men do more housework rather than watch TV (do they?) or look for the next job, but it doesn’t matter to feminists. They would rather have more men permanently stay at home to be stay-at-home-dads than seeing economic recovery. It’s in a way understandable since the economic recession seems to be taking toll much more on men (and especially high-paid men in financial sector, etc.) than on women, so feminists would lose nothing by seeing this recessions going even deeper. Just wait to see more men, especially in high-paid position, get pink slips, and see the proportion of women in workforce rise higher (and to break the historic 50% mark). They know they are inching towards a feminist utopia. Now that’s a “silver lining” or what?
Feminists don’t need to worry much about recession anyway because as they can thrive on government entitlements and giveaways. So when most people are worried about how to pay the next mortgage or rent, instead feminists’ minds are preoccupied with how to make more men to do more housework, how to change people’s perception of men from breadwinner to stay at home caretaker!
Continuing economic downturn is a cause of great concern for all of us except feminists, but it is even worse to see the degree to which this country is poisened with man-hating brand of feminism - which can only see current economic downturn as "opportunity" to further their social engineering agenda.
Feminists don’t need to worry much about recession anyway because as they can thrive on government entitlements and giveaways. So when most people are worried about how to pay the next mortgage or rent, instead feminists’ minds are preoccupied with how to make more men to do more housework, how to change people’s perception of men from breadwinner to stay at home caretaker!
Continuing economic downturn is a cause of great concern for all of us except feminists, but it is even worse to see the degree to which this country is poisened with man-hating brand of feminism - which can only see current economic downturn as "opportunity" to further their social engineering agenda.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Women overtaking men in workforce - NYTimes
For feminist warriors and social engineers, anything that help or propel their agenda is good. Anything. Even one of the worst recession in the country’s history that is costing people millions of jobs. Especially that millions of job used to belong mostly to men.
Just like World War II is being remembered by feminists mostly not as a catastrophe that took millions of lives, or associated with holocaust, or atomic bomb, but a turning point or a historic opportunity in which women took over men's jobs at homefront which were usually dominated by men, such as factory assembly line, etc.
So this on-going large scale recession looked to those feminists as just another opportunity to push their agenda and gender role reversal. Their central focus is men to do more of cooking, cleaning, diaper-changing and free up women's time so that she can concentrate more on work and be more effective, so that she can outdo those few remaining men in workforce - so that more women in senior position, more women in workforce, more pay for women, less men in workforce, especially senior position and lower pay for men.
It's a bit scandalous to think that there are people who welcome and embrace this recession as once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to further their agenda, isn't it?
Does anyone wants to talk about how the current recession is “discriminatory” against men given that men were disproportionately high among those laid off recently? Anyone? Hello?
If it was women, not men, who were hit hardest by the recession, NYT will be running full-page article bemoaning gender discrimination and how society is stacked against women every single day, but since it is men who are getting the pink slips, it’s just the matter of how to utilize this opportunity to promote gender role reversal.
If you look at this recession from another angle, you can perhaps say that economy in which women share proportion of workforce is a slow and sluggish one. It is important to remember here that no country or society in history has achieved high growth and economic development by relying mostly on “women” jobs, such as teaching, nursing, providing health care, etc. If such “women” jobs are to represent higher portion of country’s economy in the coming days, then it is a bad news, since economy is simply not going to grow just by relying on people providing service to other people. It would naturally mean that country as a whole will become poorer, since those jobs aren’t high-paying job anyway, but this is nothing to do with the supposed gender discrimination. You would need people to “create” things, be it products or buildings or infrastructure, in order for economy to grow and society to develop.
The countries who are rapidly expanding and developing are the ones that value and utilize the talents of male workers, such as in hi-tech industry, manufacturing, construction, as you can see most clearly in countries like China and India. If you devalue or belittle male talents, the country’s economy will shrink
Just like World War II is being remembered by feminists mostly not as a catastrophe that took millions of lives, or associated with holocaust, or atomic bomb, but a turning point or a historic opportunity in which women took over men's jobs at homefront which were usually dominated by men, such as factory assembly line, etc.
So this on-going large scale recession looked to those feminists as just another opportunity to push their agenda and gender role reversal. Their central focus is men to do more of cooking, cleaning, diaper-changing and free up women's time so that she can concentrate more on work and be more effective, so that she can outdo those few remaining men in workforce - so that more women in senior position, more women in workforce, more pay for women, less men in workforce, especially senior position and lower pay for men.
It's a bit scandalous to think that there are people who welcome and embrace this recession as once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to further their agenda, isn't it?
Does anyone wants to talk about how the current recession is “discriminatory” against men given that men were disproportionately high among those laid off recently? Anyone? Hello?
If it was women, not men, who were hit hardest by the recession, NYT will be running full-page article bemoaning gender discrimination and how society is stacked against women every single day, but since it is men who are getting the pink slips, it’s just the matter of how to utilize this opportunity to promote gender role reversal.
If you look at this recession from another angle, you can perhaps say that economy in which women share proportion of workforce is a slow and sluggish one. It is important to remember here that no country or society in history has achieved high growth and economic development by relying mostly on “women” jobs, such as teaching, nursing, providing health care, etc. If such “women” jobs are to represent higher portion of country’s economy in the coming days, then it is a bad news, since economy is simply not going to grow just by relying on people providing service to other people. It would naturally mean that country as a whole will become poorer, since those jobs aren’t high-paying job anyway, but this is nothing to do with the supposed gender discrimination. You would need people to “create” things, be it products or buildings or infrastructure, in order for economy to grow and society to develop.
The countries who are rapidly expanding and developing are the ones that value and utilize the talents of male workers, such as in hi-tech industry, manufacturing, construction, as you can see most clearly in countries like China and India. If you devalue or belittle male talents, the country’s economy will shrink
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Natural evolution of women
Those two articles that were published in the Times, are quite far apart in the subject matters they discuss and also chronologically (one of them was published two years ago, the other one just last month), but nonetheless I see some similarity, or a common thread, apart from the fact that both articles discuss women’s issues.
Would a (supposedly) natural evolution of women from submissive, multi-tasking mothers in the hunting ages into independent, strong political, economic and social leaders of the modern world, as happily and self-absorbedly described by power-hungry feminists at the one of the biggest feminists parties (a.k.a. Women's Forum for the Economy and Society) something akin to a theory discussed in the mid-1970’s by sports scientists?
Back in the 70’s people wondered, scientists examined, and feminists revelled at the idea that someday women may overtake men in (extreme) long-distance running (42km marathon or longer) because of the higher fat ratio in their bodies. Now, 30 years later, nobody in right mind seriously believes that. That 70’s extremely simplistic, linear thinking which held that simply because women have more fat than men, women can outrun men in the long distance, has yielded way to more rigorous analysis and studies, which found that that WILL NOT HAPPEN. (Unless we genetically engineer women into men, that is, and I guess there may be many feminists who might like that idea for the sake of no-excuse-allowed gender equality)
Much in the same way, the idea that simply women are better at empathy, communication and multitasking, and since modern world requires more and more of them, women will become natural leaders of the modern world, may be too linear and simplistic. (I am getting used to it, but sometimes still baffled by feminists who say that women and men are absolutely same in every way, and in the next breath say that women are genetically better at communication, empathy, multitasking and son on…) Wouldn’t modern world require more and more of scientific and mechanical knowledge, or more organizational and leadership skill, or more focused, in-depth knowledge on increasingly compartmentalized fields of expertise? Or will empathy such an important factor in getting ahead in the 21 st century career race? Or an ability to chat about boys and fashion and deserts for several hours straight a kind of communication style required in modern world? Is multitasking of feeding baby, washing dishes and cleaning floor same things as overseeing employees, preparing for important presentations, checking company’s balance sheet all at the same time?
Would a (supposedly) natural evolution of women from submissive, multi-tasking mothers in the hunting ages into independent, strong political, economic and social leaders of the modern world, as happily and self-absorbedly described by power-hungry feminists at the one of the biggest feminists parties (a.k.a. Women's Forum for the Economy and Society) something akin to a theory discussed in the mid-1970’s by sports scientists?
Back in the 70’s people wondered, scientists examined, and feminists revelled at the idea that someday women may overtake men in (extreme) long-distance running (42km marathon or longer) because of the higher fat ratio in their bodies. Now, 30 years later, nobody in right mind seriously believes that. That 70’s extremely simplistic, linear thinking which held that simply because women have more fat than men, women can outrun men in the long distance, has yielded way to more rigorous analysis and studies, which found that that WILL NOT HAPPEN. (Unless we genetically engineer women into men, that is, and I guess there may be many feminists who might like that idea for the sake of no-excuse-allowed gender equality)
Much in the same way, the idea that simply women are better at empathy, communication and multitasking, and since modern world requires more and more of them, women will become natural leaders of the modern world, may be too linear and simplistic. (I am getting used to it, but sometimes still baffled by feminists who say that women and men are absolutely same in every way, and in the next breath say that women are genetically better at communication, empathy, multitasking and son on…) Wouldn’t modern world require more and more of scientific and mechanical knowledge, or more organizational and leadership skill, or more focused, in-depth knowledge on increasingly compartmentalized fields of expertise? Or will empathy such an important factor in getting ahead in the 21 st century career race? Or an ability to chat about boys and fashion and deserts for several hours straight a kind of communication style required in modern world? Is multitasking of feeding baby, washing dishes and cleaning floor same things as overseeing employees, preparing for important presentations, checking company’s balance sheet all at the same time?
New "wage gap"
People seem to be coming up with more and more new, creative and inventive ways to stigmatize men and corporations, and put the dead-old gender wage gap issue on the news.
It’s interesting to see in this article how Neandelthaal men actually out-earn egalitarian tree-hugging type male in the workplace. Forget all the circular and self-serving reasonings for this wage gap between traditional and egalitarian males that these scientists tried to come up with to cozy up to power-feminist type; may be one of the reason for this is that egalitarian male put brake on themselves - they might be thinking, “if I perform at my full potential, I would be so far ahead of women in the next performance review and that is so against my egalitarian view; I will perform on a par or below my female colleagues so that women will be promoted ahead of me, get higher wage, and I can show with my own example that women can be as good as men, or men can be as bad or even worse than women”.
Or the other reason would simply be that these egalitarian men are simply not as good as traditional men. Even if you control for IQ or education, you cannot control for their ability or performance; it may not simply be that these testosterone-ridden traditional males were aggressive during salary negotiations only, they may have been aggressive in their work also, aggressive in completing the task, achieving goals, etc., and these may have led to higher performance review, hence faster promotion and higher salaries. On women’s side, whether they have traditional or progressive views on gender roles would have little to do with their testosterone level (which is low across the board), and therefore resulted in little difference in wage-gap=performance gap between them.
Why do you have to assume that men (or women) with similar IQ or similar education, background will have identical performance?
It’s interesting to see in this article how Neandelthaal men actually out-earn egalitarian tree-hugging type male in the workplace. Forget all the circular and self-serving reasonings for this wage gap between traditional and egalitarian males that these scientists tried to come up with to cozy up to power-feminist type; may be one of the reason for this is that egalitarian male put brake on themselves - they might be thinking, “if I perform at my full potential, I would be so far ahead of women in the next performance review and that is so against my egalitarian view; I will perform on a par or below my female colleagues so that women will be promoted ahead of me, get higher wage, and I can show with my own example that women can be as good as men, or men can be as bad or even worse than women”.
Or the other reason would simply be that these egalitarian men are simply not as good as traditional men. Even if you control for IQ or education, you cannot control for their ability or performance; it may not simply be that these testosterone-ridden traditional males were aggressive during salary negotiations only, they may have been aggressive in their work also, aggressive in completing the task, achieving goals, etc., and these may have led to higher performance review, hence faster promotion and higher salaries. On women’s side, whether they have traditional or progressive views on gender roles would have little to do with their testosterone level (which is low across the board), and therefore resulted in little difference in wage-gap=performance gap between them.
Why do you have to assume that men (or women) with similar IQ or similar education, background will have identical performance?
Thursday, September 11, 2008
CEO's pay-gap
I don't how much the so-called "equality" or pay-equity at CEO's level would matter to most of the people. It is in any way an astronimical figures for most of the people which does not have much real meaning, whether women earn 10 million or men earn 20 million. It is so detached from the life of ordinary people and trying to portray this issue as such a huge gender discrimination issue is so ridiculous and makes a mockery of the entire discrimination issue. For these CEOs it is a differnce between one being able to buy 5 vacation houses around the world or only 2 vacations houses, and whether one can own 10 Rolce Royse or only 2 Ferraris - whao, life is so unfair!!!
The only issue here seems to be the old feminist's vindictiveness against men in general. When you care more about super-rich female CEO (most of whom are affirmative-actioned in the first place) earning several millions less (several millions!!) than male counterparts, than, say, thousands of homeless, jobless people on the streets (most of whom are men), you know that only hatred against men motivated this female author.
You can see that same-old same-old feminists lines being repeated here; the much-recycled Summers’ comment (he was talking about science, no!?), the so-called pay gap (21 cent less per dollar, which begs the questions of why companies do not stop hiring such expensive men to cut costs) very shaky and unscientific comparison of salaries without any regard to the size of company, profits, or title, citing one study done by – of course – women to back up a shaky claim, reference to “stereotypes” and exhorting readers (women only) to talk about successful women among themselves so that they can feel better about themselves - no talk about the ditched female CEOs except in the context of blaming male-dominated corporate society, because women CEO deserves only success, failure or not meeting targets or getting profits – is presumably a carefully plotted and disguised form of discrimination against women. She even tries to introduce a new criteria for gender discrimination – low expectation for women. If women fall under pressure for too much expectation- would that also be a “discrimination”?
It is easy to understand that the higher the position goes, the bigger the pay differences could become. It does not make much difference to companies’ overall earning or profits whether an entry level clerk or sales assistants, one of hundreds or even of thousands, do a terrific job or a mediocre job. But it would do make a difference if one CEO or one senior VP makes a big mistake, or make a very wise prescient decision. The pay will reflect that.
It will also be more difficult to assess whether the pay is fair or appropriate or not at more senior level than lower, entry level positions. Lower entry level positions’ jobs are usually more standardized, routine and could be done by any other equally qualified persons. It is much less so at the senior level where persons’ vision, leadership, strategic decisions influence the entire fate of the company.
A risk means a “risk” only when it entails probability for both success and failure. Feminists seems to want a societal guarantee for success for any senior female executives in their quest for higher career and risk-taking jobs, and flabbergasted when that “success” did not come in handy, and start a witch-hunt for those who are responsible for not delivering “success” to these female executives, such as Ms. Cruz or Ms Callan. In many cases, culprits are sexist corporate culture, media or, male colleagues - usual scapegoats who could never escape the eternal sin of being born a male. In other words, in the views of people like Ms. Dobrzynski, women getting CEO positions are “fair” but women not succeeding in their positions are “unfair”. Perhaps a good place to start is to ditch this kind of childish wishful thinking and confront the stern reality of business world where success, results are rewarded and whining are not.
The only issue here seems to be the old feminist's vindictiveness against men in general. When you care more about super-rich female CEO (most of whom are affirmative-actioned in the first place) earning several millions less (several millions!!) than male counterparts, than, say, thousands of homeless, jobless people on the streets (most of whom are men), you know that only hatred against men motivated this female author.
You can see that same-old same-old feminists lines being repeated here; the much-recycled Summers’ comment (he was talking about science, no!?), the so-called pay gap (21 cent less per dollar, which begs the questions of why companies do not stop hiring such expensive men to cut costs) very shaky and unscientific comparison of salaries without any regard to the size of company, profits, or title, citing one study done by – of course – women to back up a shaky claim, reference to “stereotypes” and exhorting readers (women only) to talk about successful women among themselves so that they can feel better about themselves - no talk about the ditched female CEOs except in the context of blaming male-dominated corporate society, because women CEO deserves only success, failure or not meeting targets or getting profits – is presumably a carefully plotted and disguised form of discrimination against women. She even tries to introduce a new criteria for gender discrimination – low expectation for women. If women fall under pressure for too much expectation- would that also be a “discrimination”?
It is easy to understand that the higher the position goes, the bigger the pay differences could become. It does not make much difference to companies’ overall earning or profits whether an entry level clerk or sales assistants, one of hundreds or even of thousands, do a terrific job or a mediocre job. But it would do make a difference if one CEO or one senior VP makes a big mistake, or make a very wise prescient decision. The pay will reflect that.
It will also be more difficult to assess whether the pay is fair or appropriate or not at more senior level than lower, entry level positions. Lower entry level positions’ jobs are usually more standardized, routine and could be done by any other equally qualified persons. It is much less so at the senior level where persons’ vision, leadership, strategic decisions influence the entire fate of the company.
A risk means a “risk” only when it entails probability for both success and failure. Feminists seems to want a societal guarantee for success for any senior female executives in their quest for higher career and risk-taking jobs, and flabbergasted when that “success” did not come in handy, and start a witch-hunt for those who are responsible for not delivering “success” to these female executives, such as Ms. Cruz or Ms Callan. In many cases, culprits are sexist corporate culture, media or, male colleagues - usual scapegoats who could never escape the eternal sin of being born a male. In other words, in the views of people like Ms. Dobrzynski, women getting CEO positions are “fair” but women not succeeding in their positions are “unfair”. Perhaps a good place to start is to ditch this kind of childish wishful thinking and confront the stern reality of business world where success, results are rewarded and whining are not.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
"Subprime Crisis Snags Women"
Of course only women are, or women are “disproportionately affected” by, Subprime loan crisis…Not because the actual data suggest so, but because, to some people, men simply do not matter – if men suffer from Subrprime loan crisis or from whatever other causes, they deserve it, because they are men.
You know, newspapers pages are too precious to be expended on plight of men. they have had good times for thousands of years already. There are plenty of other issues that affect women, or plenty of women’s perspectives that need to be introduced and prioritized over others on any important issues that affect the country, I guess.
You know, newspapers pages are too precious to be expended on plight of men. they have had good times for thousands of years already. There are plenty of other issues that affect women, or plenty of women’s perspectives that need to be introduced and prioritized over others on any important issues that affect the country, I guess.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Reverse pay gap - borad directors
Uhhhh… where’s the outrage?? Where is NEWSWEEK’s 20-page special report on appalling wage discrimination against male corporate directors who were so discriminated against that they earn only 87 percent of what female directors earn?
I also looked through New York Times, Washington Post and the Time magazine for any special reports, article, or op-ed that bring the nation’s attention to this outrageous discrimination, but I found none. And then I realized, - oh, yes, it is WOMEN who is outearning men, not the other way around – of course in this case the whole media would go silent.
But why is the disparity? I could speculate a few reasons behind this.
Maybe the board has to put token women director in senior posts, which would come with higher compensations than the rest of directors – this would be understandable as corporations would naturally want to advertise their diversity efforts by putting the token hires in more visible, senior positions.
Also, a larger corporation are more likely to have additional financial resources to place token directors, who cannot contribute to substantive works but could contribute, by their very presence, to meet diversity goals and satisfy diversity-compliance monitors, and one could expect that compensations for directors at large corporations are higher than that of smaller corporations who may not have much room for diversity hires.
Of course, these are my mere speculations and do not have nay data to back up, but looks quite plausible. Maybe I should look into the data someday.
I also looked through New York Times, Washington Post and the Time magazine for any special reports, article, or op-ed that bring the nation’s attention to this outrageous discrimination, but I found none. And then I realized, - oh, yes, it is WOMEN who is outearning men, not the other way around – of course in this case the whole media would go silent.
But why is the disparity? I could speculate a few reasons behind this.
Maybe the board has to put token women director in senior posts, which would come with higher compensations than the rest of directors – this would be understandable as corporations would naturally want to advertise their diversity efforts by putting the token hires in more visible, senior positions.
Also, a larger corporation are more likely to have additional financial resources to place token directors, who cannot contribute to substantive works but could contribute, by their very presence, to meet diversity goals and satisfy diversity-compliance monitors, and one could expect that compensations for directors at large corporations are higher than that of smaller corporations who may not have much room for diversity hires.
Of course, these are my mere speculations and do not have nay data to back up, but looks quite plausible. Maybe I should look into the data someday.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Feminization of a profession
This is quite an interesting article. By the way, both for and against the original idea by professor Clark - that feminization of medicine profession could lead to losing of influence and status - could be labeled as pro-women, and therefore, of course, anti-women. It depends on the gender of the speakers primarily and also on which side of the political spectrum you are coming from. Thus, men can always be labeled “sexist” whether you are for or against the original position – if you agree with Prof. Clark, you are sexist since you think that occupations consisting primarily of women have less stature, and if you oppose her view, you are denying the fact that those feminine fields are regarded in lower status than predominantly male profession, thus wanting to perpetuate the inequality.
Anyway, there is also a feminists’ favorite line that teachers’ salaries are low because it is a predominantly female occupation. I wonder if they ever care to consider some facts and numbers (which maybe difficult for women as Lawrence Sommers explained);
-Do the salary of teachers decline in real terms since the time when it was primarily male occupation?
-Or is it when compared to private sectors that teachers’ salaries are considered to be low?
-Or is it when compared to other public, government sectors?
-Would local governments be able to afford to pay law firm or hedgefund companies-like salaries to teachers?
-Do teachers and schools make huge financial profits from which they could be reimbursed as their salaries and bonuses?
-What are the qualifications of teachers and difficulties of getting in the field?
But of course, crunching numbers and talking data would not be as sexy and has as much headline-grabbing potential as simply shouting at the top of their voice that “Teacher’s salaries are low because of gender discrimination against predominantly female profession!”
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/412
Anyway, there is also a feminists’ favorite line that teachers’ salaries are low because it is a predominantly female occupation. I wonder if they ever care to consider some facts and numbers (which maybe difficult for women as Lawrence Sommers explained);
-Do the salary of teachers decline in real terms since the time when it was primarily male occupation?
-Or is it when compared to private sectors that teachers’ salaries are considered to be low?
-Or is it when compared to other public, government sectors?
-Would local governments be able to afford to pay law firm or hedgefund companies-like salaries to teachers?
-Do teachers and schools make huge financial profits from which they could be reimbursed as their salaries and bonuses?
-What are the qualifications of teachers and difficulties of getting in the field?
But of course, crunching numbers and talking data would not be as sexy and has as much headline-grabbing potential as simply shouting at the top of their voice that “Teacher’s salaries are low because of gender discrimination against predominantly female profession!”
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/412
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Immigrant women
A typical “You go, girl” advocacy article, with a hint of “what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine” mentality el Latino version.
Of course what husbands earn in foreign countries in hard and often dangerous labor remitted back home should totally belong to women, so that they can make important financial and household decisions, which may have been traditionally done by men, and thereby “empowering’ women, when these women do go to work in foreign countries, money is not going to flow to men back in their home countries, but of course, to other women, women relatives or friends. To put it simply, “Men’s money is mine, and my money is mine, or in the temporary custody of other female members of the family.” This is justified by one study done by some obscure organization that belongs to feminist-pandering United Nations (upon closer look it is an UN research institute that deal exclusively with women’s issue - so much for independent, objective study) since men are lazy and tend to squander money on unworthy things.
Wait, the radical feminist is not done with her one-sided gender bashing yet, she went on to complain that those men who are left behind do not take up new role of child rearing, in the mold of feminists’ ideal “new feminine-men”, and laments that the gender wage gap in “comparable works” (these words sound familiar, don’t they?) is persistent even in country like Argentina who is otherwise happy to elect the wife of current President as a new President and establish gender quota for women in the parliament. Their goal: use whatever resources and social phenomena, including men’s remittance from abroad, more female immigrants, to re-engineer society in the image of feminist utopia.
What's troubling here is this kind of gender-feminist's proponsity to look for every opportunity to "empower" women and blame patriarchy. If men work in foreign countries, it is not seen as sacrifice by men to earn money for families back home (by the way, "families" include not only wives, but children also, remember!), but opportunity to be capitalized, with the money men remit,and the void in household decision making authority. And if women work abroad and need to remit home, money is to go to female members of families, so that these women and the women immigrant themselves when they return home could use the resource as basis for further women's economic empowerment. What is entirely lacking throughout in the article is a viewpoint of, and the need of, "family", but in radical feminist's myopic world where outdoing men gets the ONLY priority, economic empowerment of women by whatever means takes precedent.
Of course what husbands earn in foreign countries in hard and often dangerous labor remitted back home should totally belong to women, so that they can make important financial and household decisions, which may have been traditionally done by men, and thereby “empowering’ women, when these women do go to work in foreign countries, money is not going to flow to men back in their home countries, but of course, to other women, women relatives or friends. To put it simply, “Men’s money is mine, and my money is mine, or in the temporary custody of other female members of the family.” This is justified by one study done by some obscure organization that belongs to feminist-pandering United Nations (upon closer look it is an UN research institute that deal exclusively with women’s issue - so much for independent, objective study) since men are lazy and tend to squander money on unworthy things.
Wait, the radical feminist is not done with her one-sided gender bashing yet, she went on to complain that those men who are left behind do not take up new role of child rearing, in the mold of feminists’ ideal “new feminine-men”, and laments that the gender wage gap in “comparable works” (these words sound familiar, don’t they?) is persistent even in country like Argentina who is otherwise happy to elect the wife of current President as a new President and establish gender quota for women in the parliament. Their goal: use whatever resources and social phenomena, including men’s remittance from abroad, more female immigrants, to re-engineer society in the image of feminist utopia.
What's troubling here is this kind of gender-feminist's proponsity to look for every opportunity to "empower" women and blame patriarchy. If men work in foreign countries, it is not seen as sacrifice by men to earn money for families back home (by the way, "families" include not only wives, but children also, remember!), but opportunity to be capitalized, with the money men remit,and the void in household decision making authority. And if women work abroad and need to remit home, money is to go to female members of families, so that these women and the women immigrant themselves when they return home could use the resource as basis for further women's economic empowerment. What is entirely lacking throughout in the article is a viewpoint of, and the need of, "family", but in radical feminist's myopic world where outdoing men gets the ONLY priority, economic empowerment of women by whatever means takes precedent.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
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?
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?
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Feminists conquer the Economist
A painful reminder that even a respected publication, such as the Economist, is not immune from the onslaught of gender-feminists’ advocacy articles…
Faced with politically-incorrect, undesirable realities of the rapid rise of some developing countries like China and India, which are not exactly the feminist paradise as Sweden is, gender feminists, who have infiltrated into the editorial room of the Economist (thanks largely to gender-hiring quota, I guess), countered with estrogen-filled, substitute-logic -with-emotion article. Even if we forget China, India and the internet, it is hard to believe that women are the driving force of world economy, if elite women, the vanguard of women’s rights and the ones who decide what are good for other women on their behalf (i.e. gender feminists), could only write article like this that is totally devoid of any logic or data.
Women in the workforce
http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6800723
The importance of sex
Apr 12th 2006From The Economist print edition
Faced with politically-incorrect, undesirable realities of the rapid rise of some developing countries like China and India, which are not exactly the feminist paradise as Sweden is, gender feminists, who have infiltrated into the editorial room of the Economist (thanks largely to gender-hiring quota, I guess), countered with estrogen-filled, substitute-logic -with-emotion article. Even if we forget China, India and the internet, it is hard to believe that women are the driving force of world economy, if elite women, the vanguard of women’s rights and the ones who decide what are good for other women on their behalf (i.e. gender feminists), could only write article like this that is totally devoid of any logic or data.
Women in the workforce
http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6800723
The importance of sex
Apr 12th 2006From The Economist print edition
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Discrimination in ……of course, Sweden.
My belief is that gender feminists will never stop their accusing of men and society in general for gender discrimination, no matter how much progress women make, or how many gender quota laws were enacted, how many daycare centers were established, how many so called “deadbeat dads” were thrown into prison and how fewer number of men go to college. The victimology and demonization of men are so deeply entwined in basic tenets of gender feminism, indeed it is theoretically impossible to conceive of modern gender feminism in other way. One example to prove this point is an article published in an international edition of newsweek titled “The Gender Gap: Moms Not Wanted”.
The female author of this article claims that Sweden’s welfare system, which, to feminist’s dream, provides 480 day parental leave with 80% pay, is actually hurting women, because private sector is, oh what a surprise, "less willing to deal with the disruption caused by very long maternity leaves," and thus is less likely to hire women. I emphasize with Swedish companies. I emphasize with them even more when you think that there are looming threat to these companies of a new gender quota in the boardroom, just like the one that has hitted its neighbor, Norway. Long maternity leave is a course of a new "glass ceiling" and a “subtle discrimination”, as one gender feminists put it in the article.
What do these feminists want? Didn’t they want ridiculously long, macro-and micro-economically-challenged maternity leave for every women with all the perks and privileges? Now that they've got that in this northern feminist utopia, they are blaming it a discrimination? This would lead one to wonder as to the solution to this dilemma in the feminist-utopia - get rid of this long maternity leave or force companies to ban considering the possibility of long maternity leave in hiring of new personnel? Of course the correct answer, as gender feminist would tell us, will be the latter, but how? Another gender-quota law or re-education camp?
This is a good example that feminists will never stop their accusation of discrimination, and perpetual blaming of men and society. It is ironic that their supposedly women-friendly programme actually turned out to hurt some of the women (and needless to say rest of the society), it predictably led to cry for further corrective social engineering scheme, with more vengeance.
The female author of this article claims that Sweden’s welfare system, which, to feminist’s dream, provides 480 day parental leave with 80% pay, is actually hurting women, because private sector is, oh what a surprise, "less willing to deal with the disruption caused by very long maternity leaves," and thus is less likely to hire women. I emphasize with Swedish companies. I emphasize with them even more when you think that there are looming threat to these companies of a new gender quota in the boardroom, just like the one that has hitted its neighbor, Norway. Long maternity leave is a course of a new "glass ceiling" and a “subtle discrimination”, as one gender feminists put it in the article.
What do these feminists want? Didn’t they want ridiculously long, macro-and micro-economically-challenged maternity leave for every women with all the perks and privileges? Now that they've got that in this northern feminist utopia, they are blaming it a discrimination? This would lead one to wonder as to the solution to this dilemma in the feminist-utopia - get rid of this long maternity leave or force companies to ban considering the possibility of long maternity leave in hiring of new personnel? Of course the correct answer, as gender feminist would tell us, will be the latter, but how? Another gender-quota law or re-education camp?
This is a good example that feminists will never stop their accusation of discrimination, and perpetual blaming of men and society. It is ironic that their supposedly women-friendly programme actually turned out to hurt some of the women (and needless to say rest of the society), it predictably led to cry for further corrective social engineering scheme, with more vengeance.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Thoughts on NY Times article on ad agencies
The New York Times came up with routine, obligatory, advocacy piece that screams about gender gap in advertising agency. I though it about time they would come up with a new piece on gender gap; I guess there has to be at least one per day or so, maybe there even would be a quota on this, which, if not achieved, could also constitute discrimination against women. Never mind that these days a majority of advertisements are targeted to women, be it consumer goods or anything, gender feminists who sit in the office of the Times are not satisfied with the fact that gender ratio at the executive level are not equal between men and women. And of course, the insufficient number of female execs to satisfy the feminist statisticians brings up the same reasons for the so-called discrimination; sexism in industry, and the lack of role model and women-friendly workplace. Of course the future female leaders with high education who would supposedly compete in the tough world of ad business first need a role model so that they would feel, I guess, to use feminist's favorite words, safe to enter the business and feel accepted and encouraged to pursue the career. In addition, as usual, it provides every conceivable methods of bean-counting, including a raw number of female execs, a ratio at senor level, a ratio at this and that level and this and that field to prove how women are discriminated against. Of course the writer does not forget to put some feel-good paragraphs about women's achievement and progress made to satisfy herself as she wrote the piece and the like-minded readers who have extremely heightened sensitivity (doctors call it paranoia) who crave for this kind of article in the Times. It is also chilling to note that a concept of gender quota is permeating to every corner of the society, including, ridiculously, at the judge positions in an advertising festival, to ensure that those affirmative action female judges can check the gender of the ad creator first and judge accordingly. After all the rantings about the low representation of women in high jobs, no one seems to care about other number about 80% of purchasing decision are made by women - or in other words, only about 20% of such decision are made by men why there is no call for more government-funded programme, education, workshops and campaigns to level the number?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)