Saturday Night Live on Tiger Woods

Another sequel to a never-ending Tiger Woods DV/cheating saga..

The article says Saturday Night Live (SNL) was criticized for its skit satiring apparent DV against Tiger Woods by his wife Erin.

But exactly what the SNL is being criticized for ?

a) For making light of the issue of domestic violence (of women against men)

b) For airing it when Rihanna was a guest (the one who initiated a domestic violence but now lionized as a symbol of domestic violence victim, or

c) Suggesting that a woman can be an abuser in domestic violence case.

I think it’s the combination of all three. DV to a feminist man-hating industry is a sacrosanct issue that nobody should make an even the a slightest fun of (especially men should not), and that one of the core tenets of feminist DV theory is that it is only perpetrated by men against women, and therefore suggesting that a wife could beat up a husband is simply not acceptable. And showing this skit in front of Rihanna would remind her of bitter consequences of initiating violence against Chris Brown, I guess that’s a too bitter memory for someone who is indulging in DV victim status granted to her by society and DV industry.

By the way, it’s interesting to see one of the reaction;

"Had the tables been turned and a man was suspected of beating up his wife, there definitely wouldn't be a lighthearted sketch like this. But since it's female-on-male domestic violence, our current culture deems it kind of, sort of okay to make fun of and the scandal had to be addressed before it lost heat."

This is same kind of logic and expression Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) use to draw attention of DV against men. But in this case, I’m not sure if the writer really meant it, because it’s so hard to think that a regular mainstream reporter is even a bit concerned about DV against men. I guess what he really meant was that DV (by men against women in his mind) should not be treated lightly and in the process he inadvertently ended up drawing attention to the issue of DV by women against men.

Battered Tiger a victory for feminism

Slightly old article, but it’s worth mentioning. This one should go down in the history of media as an article that most explicitly supported violence against men by women. She legitimizes use of violence, including the use of potentially lethal weapons such as an iron golf club, as a means by the wronged wives to get even on cheating husbands. In her view, the year 2009 was historic, since now women can wield a golf club to go after cheating husband. (I remember that according to feminists’ logic, wives cheating on husband is husbands fault since the husbands failed to take care of wives or were not attractive and attentive enough that wives needed to look elsewhere for satisfaction, etc, but of course that logic flew out of the window when wives are cheated – NOW it’s a serious matter). This truly shows that the benefit of empowering women; before they were too disempowered to think of beating up cheating husbands, but not anymore! Now a woman can swing a heavy golf iron, run fast enough to chase after a big SUV, and smash down windows! A frail woman from a foreign country intimidating a world-class professional athlete! Feminism has come a long way.

Feminist DV law backfires

It’s a pretty bad time for feminists, they are on the ropes now with the story of Tiger Woods all over the news. What to do? Ignore? Or spin?

Let’s see some master work on spin.

There are so many lies and spins in this short article that I don’t want to even bother discussing it. Except to say that there are many good comments in the “Fray” section for this article.

“Primary aggressor” theory is basically a feminist invention and its main purpose was to make men the guilty party in any domestic dispute and enable police to arrest men, without actually referring to “men” or “women”, as the law’s language needs to be gender-neutral. Including criteria such as physical size in determining a primary aggressor is a clever and pretty sure way to ensure that fingers are almost always at men, and if in rare case a woman happens to be bigger than man, then other criteria apply. It’s ironic (and very, very amusing to be honest) that this automatic DV arrest policy is becoming problematic for women. I hope women will now realize what men have been subjugated for many, many years. They shouldn't be suffering like this (nor men should), but blame your feminists sisters.

And my guess is that finally this problematic policy would soon be reviewed now that women is on the receiving end. There is a famous saying, “The best way to eliminate child support is to make women pay it”. So I guess in this case, we can say “The best way to change unfair DV law is to make women suffer from it”.

Though I'm sure feminists will waist no time in inventing even cleverer, seemingly gender-neutral ways to make men guilty ones in all domestic disputes.

Feminists' attention deficit disorder

Remember Super-bowl-DV study that was proved to be an ideology-driven propaganda? This new article gives you a reminder that feminists won't give up after just one failed attempt. They will keep coming back with new lies and hoaxes that each time look a bit truthy-ier than the last. And so here comes the newest, fanciest football-DV “study”. This one even nicely try to link women's high earnings with lower occurence of DV (against women of course), as if to create a false impression that if women's earning power is raised (by another feminist inspired law on gender paycheck “audit” or some other wealth re-distribution scheme), DV(against women) could be prevented. Nice try. Keep wishing.

This happens ("this" means this study, not the so-called uptick in DV) because feminists are jealous of all the attention that football games get at after Thanksgiving dinner - and women are not in it! Again, "men" (football stars) are the center of all the attention, and "men" (fans) are having pretty good time watching the games. Where are women in this equation? People need to pay attention to women, because this century belongs to women!! (me doing a little feminist talk) Focusing on the so-called uptick in DV (against women) after football game is a nice entry-point for feminists to inject "women" in this very popular American pastime and stigmatize football fans as well as football game itself which is allegedly causing men to behave macho against their partners.

More on global financial crisis....

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.

Good riddance - REALLY?

Given their record, should men really be running the world?”

Ummm. At the risk of other arm meeting blender, I have to say YES, or emphatic yes, given that;

-Men are responsible for all modern inventions (think computers, lights, telephones, cars)
-Men are responsible for all the social and economic development.
-Men are responsible for all the great liberal (if you are liberal) and conservative ideas (if you are conservative), such as freedom, liberty, etc.

Maybe the better way to approach this issue is what would today’s world look like if risk-aversing, over-emphasizing women are in charge of the world since circa 2,000B.C.

We would still think that the world is flat- no, not that Freedman’s World is Flat but the earth (given women’s poor special recognition capacity), we mostly live on subsistent farming (women are good at nurturing-including plants), no electric lights, telephones, cars (Mr. Edison, Bell, Ford had to help housework and rear child as dictated by matriarchs-scientific experiment and inventions are uniquely male concepts and in fact a male privilege that were made possible by sacrifice of female labour).

We don’t fight and go to wars, in fact there is no such thing as weapons – remember women don’t fight with other people (????), nor do they hunt animals, as they have too much empathy to kill animals – and therefore no army or military. By the way, no military means there would be NO inventions that originated in military and later turned to wide public use, such as internet, etc.

And yes, there would be no huge oil spilling in the Ocean (as Michael Moore lampooned men in his book aptly titled “Stupid white men) –because women will not (or are not able to) build a large ship (women are not good engineers), nor operate a ship (not a good operator-again it requires special recognition ability), nor travel across ocean (no risk-taking please, that’s’ for Neandelthaal men), nor make use of oil, build internal combustion engine, build a oil drilling, and so on.

So far it sounds good, no? especially for those who like to hug trees. But wait, in a world ruled by women, there would be no consumer shopping, only barter trade - there will be no Walmart (that megalomaniac retail giant hellbent on conquering, in a typical alpha male fashion, small family-owned business) . Oh, sorry feminist-type are too high-browed to shop at Walmart - but I'm sure feminists will be disappointed that there won't be Bloomingdale or Zara either - because there will be no department building to house those retailers, no trucks, highway and paved roads to transport goods, no factory to manufacture, no computer and CAD softwarre to design goods. etc.

Well some of you may say there are a plenty of women who work in such fields as construction, manfacture, transportation, auto industry, etc., etc., and are capable of doing it, and even some assume senior positions in the field. First of all, yes there are plenty of them, but they only studied in these disciplines - that were developed by men and taught by men. This is entirely different story than finding, inventing and developing from these from the scratch. (and tell me who did all of them) And second, yes, there are some women who has senior position in these fields. Has anyone ever heard of “affirmative action? Anyone?

So , in a world ruled by women since 2,000BC, you are basically living in a world that looked exactly like 2,00 0years ago. no lights, no internet, no supermarket, or department store, etc.

The death of macho....?

NOT SO FAST!!! All you communists and feminists who gloat over the “he-session” and the plight of thousands (or millions) of white-collar and blue collar men losing jobs and being hectored by now bread-earner wives, and dream about the coming so-called women-ruled world! You celebration is a bit premature.

Of all the articles that made fun of former-bank-exec alpha males and exhorted out-of-work men to do more housework (what does it have to do with recession?) and declared without much supporting evidence that more women in power is the only way out of this recession, that continued to appear in the liberal press in recent months, this lengthy article on the Foreign Policy magazine may be the most virulent, vitriolic, male-hating article that you can find.

One thing I found it that, although this is common to all the poke-fun-at-alpha-male articles, how come if men are losing jobs, or on the receiving end of misery, there is no outcry to help these men, and target the help and assistance specifically to them, but instead what they all do is to make fun, and call for the end of alpha-male culture? Imagine, if 80% of all the job losses are on women, do we make fun of their excessively emphatic nature of these women. NO. The are either still poor, vulnerable victims of this recession (oh, I though this was ‘he-session”?) or the demographic group next in line to take control of the world as Reihan Salam seem already so firmly convinced of.

In the face of all the facts, some extreme feminists and the United Nations (itself taken over by extreme feminists) even assert that “The economic and financial crisis puts a disproportionate burden on women…”

….Unbelievable…with this kind of logic and one-sidedness, maybe you can say that white Aryan German suffered disproportionately under Nazi rule for whatever reason you can make up….(for example, being made to look a corroborator of Nazi or did not take action against Nazi, etc…)

Brad Barber and Terrance Odean memorably demonstrated in 2001, of all the factors that might correlate with overconfident investment in financial markets—age, marital status, and the like—the most obvious culprit was having a Y chromosome.

Risky or over confident investment is called risky and overconfident when it failed, but would have other names when it succeeds. (like wise, prescient, visionary, etc.) Of course not all risky behaviour succeeds -by definition they won’t, and they are more likely to fail than to succeed, but it is precisely those risky or overconfident investment, or business entrepreneurship that build the foundation of today’s developed society and business –imagine if all the world is dominated by risk-averting, empathy/estrogen-plenty women in the late-19 th and early 20h century for example -then we’d still be writing our mails with pen under candlelight, and bartering goods at roadside (unpaved) makeshift small market. (note: this may be green’s ideal world)


Soon after, tiny, debt-ridden Lithuania took a similar course, electing its first woman president: an experienced economist with a black belt in karate named Dalia Grybauskaite. On the day she won, Vilnius’s leading newspaper bannered this headline: “Lithuania has decided: The country is to be saved by a woman.”

An economist experienced in “penis competition” of male-dominated investment banking? A black-belt in karate? What does this additional, seemingly irrelevant information supposed to convey? That she is also a macho? Then shouldn’t she be “banished” also? Well, we can let women handle countries like Iceland and Latvia whose economic catastrophe will have minimal impact on global economy. Their economy is in such shambles (hit the rock bottom already and couldn’t be worse) that you can probably install chimps as their heads of state and still see their economies recover after a while. Although I’m sure that if their economy recover even a tiny bit (of course it will), feminists will attribute all the success to women’s unique style of governing and innate superiority in politics and economy.

Then, however, there’s the other choice: resistance. Men may decide to fight the death of macho, sacrificing their own prospects in an effort to disrupt and delay a powerful historical trend.

WHAT? Which historical trend? Where is it?

Much of the second half of the article is not so much about an analysis of current economic crisis, or how males allegedly contributed to it, but simply a blueprint for bringing about their fantasized version of women-controlled world.

In the end, the author notches up ante, this is not only about current economic crisis, and introduce a new paradigm for the coming conflict.

According to her, the Clash of civilization was wrong - author was male-, no, “The axis of global conflict in this century will not be warring ideologies, or competing geopolitics, or clashing civilizations. It won’t be race or ethnicity. It will be gender.

It may sound funny, but on this last point, I agree with her. Gender will be the axis of global conflict. Western gender feminists, who based their Marxist’s class conflict, in which there is an inherent conflict between two classes until one conquer the other, will continue to vilify, blame, poke fun at, and attack males, and current political, social, economic and cultural institutions as based on patriarchy. Their battle will unfold at homefront, where feminists would push (and even legislate as you can see in Spain) that men do more housework, and use domestic violence and divorce laws to drive men out of work, home, and children and cast them out of society by locking men up and impoverish them with ridiculously high child support; and at politics and business with a push for gender quota for female politicians and CEOs.

And this battle is going to continue for good. Feminists are not going to call it a day and say their struglle is over when, say a woman become the President or when women make up a half of all politicians. Don't believe when feminists say, "If there is equality between men and women now, I wouldn't have to be doing thsese things" or "If women achive equality with men, feminism will become obsolete and will cease to exist." NO. Feminism is not that benign. Just as the proletariat dictatorship has to be maintained and its grip be even tightened over the mass after the fall of boureoisee to guard the revolution from imagined or real sabotage by anti-revolutionary forces, feminists' struggle also takes on characteristics of the Marxist's permanent revolution. Just see how feminists in New Zealand, Sweden and Norway are doing; in New Zealand, alarmed feminists warned women in the country not be content with “seemingly satisfactory” situation where President, Prime Minster and other major high offices of the country are all occupied by women, but to continue fight against patriarchy; in Sweden, feminists tried to institute “man tax”, an unique scheme (to say the least) under which people are taxed just because they are men; and Norway, another feminists haven, where large companies were given ultimatum to give at least 40% of board membership to women or face extinction.

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.

Belfort Bax

I have come across this long article written in 1910’s, when women suffragists were campaigning hard for women’s right to vote, in the era of the so-called first wave of feminism, which many people, including people who normally take an anti-feminist stand, view somehow favorably as a more benevolent kind of feminism, a classical, original, or “good” feminism before it devolve into a virulent anti-man movement in the 60’s and the 70’s with the advent of the second and the third wave of feminism.

Well, it seems it is not so simple – as in old days of original, true feminism was good, only modern incarnation of it is bad.

By glancing through this classic article written by Belfort Bax, a noted Socialist but also known for his ardent anti-feminism views at the time, you would immediately see that even early feminism is fundamentally the same as the modern gender feminism. Both are based on the principles of equality (or sometimes superiority) of women under law as well as preservation of women’s special privileges that ironically have roots in old times when women were regarded and treated as second class citizens.

Entire article could be accessed here;
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism

This is truly a classis anti-feminist article. I have rarely seen an article this long, written by a prominent figure, devoted exclusively on the subject of problems of feminism. Though in the article the author express his disdain for giving voting rights for women (even I cannot agree with him on this point), the article shows that double standards, special privileges for women, unequal law (criminal, matrimonial, etc.) and its enforcement, execution for men and women, male sympathizers (“femi-nabler” to use a word suggested in one of the comments to this blog) in government, judiciary, press, in other words, all the ingredients of modern-day anti-male gender feminists movement are all there as early as in the 1910’s.

Now does this give us a hope? Nope. To know that those problems associated with gender feminists are actually not unique to them, that they have history of nearly a century and deeply rooted in the original feminist movement, led me to think that anti-male characters of feminist movement will not simply go away, just because some courageous people (mostly women) voice their skepticism against them.

Some quotes from the article;

“Personal violence on the part of the husband is severely punished; on the part of wife she will be let off with impunity.”

Hmmm. Looks like the same charade has been going on for a century now.

“…should be legally compelled to pay a certain sum to his wife, ostensibly as wages for her housekeeping services, no matter whether she performs the services well, or ill, or not at all.."

Did Hillary and other feminists get their idea that government (who else?) should pay for the work for housewives here?

“..demand that in the case of the murder by a woman of her illegitimate child, the putative father should be placed in the dock as an accessory! In other words, a man should be punished for a crime of which he is wholly innocent,”Purely absurd, but this is feminism.“This sex hatred, so often vindictive in its character, of men for men, which has for its results that: "man-made" laws invariably favor the opposite sex, and that "man-administered justice" follows the same course, is a psychological problem which is well worth the earnest attention of students of sociology and thinkers generally.”

“I must confess to being unequal to the task of accurately fathoming the psychological condition of the average man who hates man in general and loves woman in general to the extent of going contrary to..”

I completely agree. I think that some (men) needs to take a comprehensive look into the minds of feminist male, to see what motivates them into this “sex-hatred’ phenomena. (my personal view is that those feminist male are motivated by the expectation that they, as ardent male feminists from early on, will be rewarded handsomely in the coming (or so they think) “feminist-run utopia”)

“A man murdered by a woman is always the horrid brute, while the woman murdered by the man is just as surely the angelic victim.”

Sounds familiar….

"The mere physical fact of sex was never for a moment regarded as of itself sufficient to entitle the woman to any special homage, consideration, or immunity, over and above the man.."

In the Medieval period, the word “chivalry” did not mean what it generally means today.

"Sir Walter Besant, entitled "The Revolt of Man," depicting the oppression of man under a Feminist regime, an oppression which ended in a revolt and the re-establishment of male supremacy."

This must be also a “must-read”

“…that woman is, as Herbert Spencer and others have pointed out, simply "undeveloped man"--in other words, that Woman represents a lower stage of evolution than Man.”

“Take the instance of Madame Curie. When radium was first discovered in the laboratory of the late Professor Curie we were told that the latter had made the discovery, it being at the same time mentioned that he possessed in his wife a valuable aid in his laboratory work. We were afterwards told that the discovery of radium was the joint work of both, the implication being that the honors were equally divided. Now, Feminist influence has succeeded in getting Madame Curie spoken of as herself the discoverer of radium!”

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…

Re-educate those young girls - Part 2

The article exemplifies old radical feminists thinking style:

"perhaps the first time their generation has been compelled to think aloud about dating violence."

This is interesting since feminists always scream about the national scourge of young women getting beaten by their boyfriends, yet for many girls, this incident seem to be their first encounter with such dating violence! How could they have missed all the violence that were allegedly going around everywhere according to feminists?

"On a Facebook discussion, one girl wrote, “she probly ran into a door and was too embarrassed so blamed it on chris.”"

Even some girls (non-New York Times reading type), seem to know that in real life, many women conjure up stories of violence by men as an excuse for their fault or mishaps.

"don’t shock Marcyliena Morgan, executive director of Harvard’s hip-hop archive. “But it’s the girls!” she said. “Where have we gone wrong here?”"

Where’s the sisterhood here? All the females are supposed to line up behind other fellow females under any circumstances!! Girls are not supposed to use their own judgment or think independently, just follow suit of older women, who knows better than them that all men are enemy and all the evils in this world have been created by men!

"Acknowledging his attack would make them feel vulnerable: How could they have a crush on someone who could do that? It was less terrifying to blame Rihanna."

Good job trying to psycho-analyze psyche of young girls who uncomprehendingly don’t stand behind feminists. But is it the young girls or actually the old feminists who are really feeling "vulnerable" or "terrified" about this? Who are feeling vulnerable that their feminist old guards' torch has not been properly passed on to younger generation?

“What really matters is that we don’t destroy boys.”

Oh, really? It rather seems that there is a huge social drive not to destroy the lives of girls, or to make life easier for girls at any expense. As if excelling in school over boys on most areas is simply not enough, pushing bright young girls into studying physical science rather than English literature is getting so much more attention and public money than helping underachiveing boys. Boys’ lives, especially those of black, Latinos in inner city are so routinely destroyed that it’s not going to be even a news in this world.

"In the last few years, efforts to educate teenagers about abusive relationships have begun."

Looks like young girls have been let loose, and there has not been enough indoctrination of young girls in feminists ideology, so now we march on!


“Rewrite the ending of ‘Othello,’ ” they were told, “where there’s an intervention before Othello comes in with the pillow.”

Here’s a good old example of radical feminists' effort to re-write history, re-write great literature, and to alter the great cultural heritage of western civilization so that it fits their agenda and worldview. Remember, these so-called great literature is written by a man after all...reflecting ethos of the time that is extremely misogynistic by today's feminists' standard. How can we teach "his"tory when it is all writen by men... We need to teach "her"story..

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.

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?

True face of gender-feminist warrior

WOOOOOWWWW…

Do men (and women) want this face to be on TV, newspaper and all over the media for the next four or eight years telling you to do this and do that, and preaching that men should be more like women and other her feminists nonsense? Do we REALLY want that?

In Asia (and many other parts of the world) people say that the face gives insights to the inner mind of the people. Hillary looks OLD (indeed really, really OLD) in the picture, but it’s not just being old that make most people feel awfully disgusted. I think the picture shows a true FACE of a person (happens to be a woman, yeah!) who have been pursuing unbridled power and control over other people, a true face of radical gender feminist warrior and petit-totalitarianist.

Even though feminists still want to spin this to their advantage as much as possible; e.g. this is a new female face of power, people should challenge their inner unconscious sexism that make them want to vomit to this image and instead embrace it, need a sensitivity training to old female leaders’ faces or the society is generally hard on women because of sexism and this was the result, etc. etc., the undeniable fact throughout history is that people prefer younger, fresh-looking face over tired, exhausted, senile face.

Why did Nixon lose to Kennedy in 1960? Is it sexism against men? Why Ronald Reagan had to wear make up in front of camera? Do face and style never matter in politics? What, are you living in 19th century?

Managing and projecting good (and young, fresh) images is an important pillar of modern-day political campaigning. That’s why many campaigns hire scores of image consultants, stylists, etc. But when a woman stumbles on this one time, and all of a sudden there is huge cry of sexism?

I remember long time ago, in one of the late night talk show (I forgot which show, but it was many years ago), the guest was Sting, who was famous for his tireless efforts to save Amazon rainforests and the host said that if Sting could finish his guest appearance that night without uttering a word “Amazon rainforest”, the host would give him some small prize. I think he didn’t get the prize, because, you know, he was an activist.

Likewise, I want to offer feminists some small gifts if they could see this picture and hold the urge to scream out the word “sexism”. But I bet they cannot, because they are ‘feminists”. Their brains are wired to remote a computer in feminists world headquarter where they are programmed to scream the word “sexism” at least three times per minute when they see a picture of an old, haggard woman. The feminist programmer meant to program one scream per minute but since she was not so good at computer (she only joined her computer class after the Women in Math and Science programme at her school compelled her to take the class and her grade was padded to atone for past injustices against women in science field)

Althouse: That picture of Hillary on Drudge right now.

Immodest Proposals: The Most Significant Photo of 2007 . . .

Feminists want to control your perceptions

I don’t know exactly when it started, but from sometime in the late 20th century, feminism began to explore ways to regulate and control human’s mind at both conscious and unconscious levels. This was actually a quite a large shift in their focus from their previous emphasis on ensuring equal rights and opportunity in the external social and political settings (this endeavor seems to have ended by the 1960’s), to seeking statistical sameness in the behaviors of two sexes and working of inner minds of human being. This, needless to say, originates from their hypothesis that continuing non-existence of statistical parity in political and economical powers between the sexes (also termed as “gender discrimination” by some) and in their endless quest to achieve such statistical parity, in other words, equality of results. Subtle, even unconscious or sub-conscious bias of otherwise perfectly PC people may be hindering women’s progress in workplace, as they do not value masculine women who exhibits anger and aggressiveness, which is understood as a necessary elements to be successful in today’s cutting-edge, dog-eats-dog world of business and politics. What’s need to be done?

Maybe more researches need to be done to look into the psychology of human beings, and how they perceive gender roles and stereotypes. And subsequently more researches may be in order to rectify such biased perception of the people.

People’s inner mind, which many people would understandably consider to be the most private of all private lives, free of any governmental or outside control, could no longer be out of bounds, if biases in inner minds were “proven”, by some untouchable feminist advocacy groups, to be hindering women’s workplace progress.

Trying to regulate people’s inner mind poses fundamental challenges to ideas and principles of individual liberties and freedom. But such concern could be easily overrun by much larger societal need to urgently ensure the absolute statistical sameness between men and women.

After all, of course, these notions of individual liberties and freedom were created long long time ago, when women didn’t have a right to vote and when there was no affirmative action and gender quota, by a bunch of old men who kept their sorry housewives to mandane lives of domesticity while they engage in esoteric discussion on rights and freedom. Right, feminists?

Karen hughes failed

It is intresting that all 3 persons charged with the task of promoting the US public diplomacy in Arab world after 9/11, including Karen Hughes herself, the perons who is subject of this article, are WOMEN. And all FAILED MISERABLY. Of course it is not all attributable to the fact that they were women (in fact maybe far from it), but for the record, it must be noted that these WOMEN failed. Because it is easy for many poeple in the liberal circle (and of course among feminist sisters) to get selective amneisa and recall only the achievements of women in senior roles and somehow start believing that women are better in politics and diplomacy.

It is also intersting to see that Hughes was not taken very well among Arab women. Here the Republican's uncharcteristic foray into Democrat-style feminist-pandering has failed. They should know that they shouldn't be playing by gender-feminist playbooks. It seems that even the so-called "oppressed Arab women" know that American-style militant feminism, characterized by its hatred against men and children (boys) and most of all, against family and family values, is not what they want.

In fact, there is something unsettling about the supposedly conservatie Bush admnistration's blind pursuit of diversity in its administration. The administration was even credited by some liebral media as the most diverse administration in history, but it seems that many of the "diversity" appointments have backfired (Gonzales, and now Hughes)

Mainstream modern feminists

Very interesting site...If you want to know what today's cutting-edge feminists are thinking, you've got to visit this site....

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/