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 feminists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminists. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Friday, August 07, 2009
Water is gender issue!?
Contempt for all things male and worshipping of all things female never stops in UN... To make all internatinal issues palatable and appealing to radical feminists audiences, who make up the the biggest and strong constituents of UN, all issues are "gendered", that is, analyzied through radical feminsts' "gendered' lenses.
Water is no exception.
Here, you can see text from the exhibition at the UN, that regards men like camels or something that can survive on a little amount of water, or otherwise suffer from just low work productivity caused by illness. That's right, lack of clean water to men only means that they get sick and therefore cannot work (and provide for women and children I suppose).
Not a big problem.
Women and girls, on the other hand, suffer tremendously, in a much much more serious manner, since they: have to spend hours getting water, and have to keep children's hands and bodies clean, and maintain family's hygine. Yes, that is absolutely much more important than MEN GETTING SICK!!
You don't even need to read what are UN's advice to solve this problem would be, it's the same knee-jerk advice that it gives to all gender issues - giving more political, economic and social power to women, set aside a quota for women in parliament, include women in decisions making proess, and women and girls' need for water must given priority over that of men and boys, etc., etc.
Water is no exception.
Here, you can see text from the exhibition at the UN, that regards men like camels or something that can survive on a little amount of water, or otherwise suffer from just low work productivity caused by illness. That's right, lack of clean water to men only means that they get sick and therefore cannot work (and provide for women and children I suppose).
Not a big problem.
Women and girls, on the other hand, suffer tremendously, in a much much more serious manner, since they: have to spend hours getting water, and have to keep children's hands and bodies clean, and maintain family's hygine. Yes, that is absolutely much more important than MEN GETTING SICK!!
You don't even need to read what are UN's advice to solve this problem would be, it's the same knee-jerk advice that it gives to all gender issues - giving more political, economic and social power to women, set aside a quota for women in parliament, include women in decisions making proess, and women and girls' need for water must given priority over that of men and boys, etc., etc.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Cokie Roberts
I think at some point people need to take this woman not as a serious journalist – she is just one of militant feminists who do mediocre job at their chosen profession but rose to fame and fortune for just being women only because the industry needed some female faces. We already know her radical feminist views from her book “Founding mothers” a pathetic effort to confuse unsuspecting people that those “founding” women were somehow just as important players in the foundation of the United States as the Founding Fathers.
“when the Mark Sanford thing broke, I went tearing into my husband's office and said, "Okay, that's it. Women just are better. Men are just lesser beings."”
I thought this was an extra-marital but completely consensual relationship between two adults (Mark Sanford and an Argentinean woman), but according to Cokie Roberts, it proves that “men are just lesser being”. WHY? Why women aren’t lesser being? – after all, a woman was involved in that affair too, just that she wasn’t as visible as her lover.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2009/08/05/cokie-roberts-leads-carol-smith-in-the-misandry-sweepstakes/
“when the Mark Sanford thing broke, I went tearing into my husband's office and said, "Okay, that's it. Women just are better. Men are just lesser beings."”
I thought this was an extra-marital but completely consensual relationship between two adults (Mark Sanford and an Argentinean woman), but according to Cokie Roberts, it proves that “men are just lesser being”. WHY? Why women aren’t lesser being? – after all, a woman was involved in that affair too, just that she wasn’t as visible as her lover.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2009/08/05/cokie-roberts-leads-carol-smith-in-the-misandry-sweepstakes/
Monday, May 04, 2009
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!”
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!”
Saturday, April 04, 2009
How to create a "controversy"
Just saw a movie “Slumdog millionaire”. It’s a fun movie, fast-paced, good soundtrack..etc. After getting home, I did some research on the movie (my favourite wikipedia) I found out that the movie is not without a co-director” of the movie who missed out on the Oscar nomination. Actually it is not really a “controversy”, or should not be called so, but in the sense that as long as there is someone out there who is determined to stir up one in order to push their agenda, yes, it may be a “controversy”.
(Ms. Jan Lisa Huttner-Champion of women filmmakers, or one-woman controversy protagonist)Feminists, as we all know, never miss a chance to claim credit even when it’s not due. So when sympathetic and (a bit patronizing as well in my view) “real” director Danny Boyle decided to give his “casting director” an unusual title of “co-director”, and that casting director happened to be a female (a rare kind in the industry we’re told), and with the film’s huge success, the stage was set for a “controversy”, at least in one feminist’s view.
A feminist who is used to entitlements, handouts and to getting pampered by males seemed to have had a hard time understanding why (male-dominated) Oscar nominated only the (male) director and not the (female) co-director. And gender imbalance is a bad thing- except in prison population or suicide rate, or high school drop out rate or unemployment in recent economic crisis - , so the on-line campaign to flood (and intimidate) Oscar board members with petition letters is one good way to rectify that imbalance.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
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..
"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..
Monday, January 05, 2009
Sexual harassment is terrorism?
This should rank quite high in the list of hyperbolic rhetoric by feminists – “sexual harassment is a terrorism”. To be sure, the Slate’s XX bloggers are not the first one to employ the term “terrorism” to describe sexual harassment - there are many precedents – after all, feminists are the ones who are particularly prone to this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric among other leftist activists (I think some in-depth study and comparison on this topic would be interesting- who is the most militant in their verbiage – black activists, environmentalists, gay activists, animal rights activists, etc.?).
I guess feminists equate Sexual Harassment (SH) with terrorism since;
1) the trauma inflicted by SH to the women are so horrific and is on par with horror of real terrorism (the kind you see in Iraq and Afghanistan)
2) or just want to grab media attention to promote their cause by using the “T” word
On 1), I wonder if feminists are actually perpetuating “fragile women myth” by saying that women are so fragile that they are just as frightened by a few unwanted sexual advances are as they are frightened by roadside IED, etc.
Or may be it is that the feminsits who heard the story of another women sexually harassed are so shocked and distressed by the story that they are in the same mental state of victims of real terrorism, - who had IED blown off 30 yard away and see torn heads and limb flying in their faces. In other words, they are in perpetual state of paranoia.
Intersting line from the blog post:
“They'(Sexual harassment)re designed to keep women in the lower-paying jobs on the ladder.”
It’s good that you have another excuses or someone else (i.e. men of course) to blame for your low performance and non-competence which is really holding you back. It is also clearly an expression of deranged feminists’ paranoia. Because I’m not sure if these men who made unwanted sexual advances are doing so with a clear intent of keeping those women on lower paying job. If they wish to do so, they are other ways to do that.
I guess feminists equate Sexual Harassment (SH) with terrorism since;
1) the trauma inflicted by SH to the women are so horrific and is on par with horror of real terrorism (the kind you see in Iraq and Afghanistan)
2) or just want to grab media attention to promote their cause by using the “T” word
On 1), I wonder if feminists are actually perpetuating “fragile women myth” by saying that women are so fragile that they are just as frightened by a few unwanted sexual advances are as they are frightened by roadside IED, etc.
Or may be it is that the feminsits who heard the story of another women sexually harassed are so shocked and distressed by the story that they are in the same mental state of victims of real terrorism, - who had IED blown off 30 yard away and see torn heads and limb flying in their faces. In other words, they are in perpetual state of paranoia.
Intersting line from the blog post:
“They'(Sexual harassment)re designed to keep women in the lower-paying jobs on the ladder.”
It’s good that you have another excuses or someone else (i.e. men of course) to blame for your low performance and non-competence which is really holding you back. It is also clearly an expression of deranged feminists’ paranoia. Because I’m not sure if these men who made unwanted sexual advances are doing so with a clear intent of keeping those women on lower paying job. If they wish to do so, they are other ways to do that.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
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 . . .
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 . . .
Thursday, November 01, 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?
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?
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.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Japanese career women
So the New York Times, a newspaper of career women, by career women, for career women, set out to investigate their sisters' conditions in other parts of the world with pre-determined conclusiond. If they wish, they could continue this campaign for the next 190 days, the number ofcountris in the world according to the United Nations, to cover all countries in the world; since in feminists’ worldview, there is no country where true gender equality exists (even in Norway or Sweden – just listen to what feminists in these countries are saying, if anything, they are even more vitriolic than their counterparts in other parts of the world).
You can notice that feminists have capitalized on the problem of shrinking population as their newest weapons to push for gender equality (read: more women in managerial positions).
The argument that by not utilizing the talent of women, the society “…is losing half of its brainpower as it faces a labor shortage.” is so bogus. There are many problems with statement like this. First, it assumes that there will be total employment of all people who are capable of working (meaning total elimination of unemployment) and that every one is able to maximize their potential in the work. Second, all women are to engage in occupations that utilize brainpower, not a muscle power, as in managerial positions. Obviously these assumptions are patently wrong. In fact, many Japanese companies are not suffering from shortage of brain power; managerial positions in these companies are always in very short supply, and competitions to get those positions (mostly internally) are very competitive. It is not as if these positions are left vacant in drove with many women staying at home and not willing to come out to work, as feminists want to have you believe (this is not the case unless, of course, you have government-imposed gender quota, just like those in Norway, that sets aside certain number of positions only for women). These positions have been filled mostly by men, however feminists hate the idea, who are very competent, talented and dedicated, and who have been primarily responsible for Japanese economic growth.
The void slogan for cultivating women’s talent is without a merit unless feminists could prove the concrete merit of it. What would be the merit? Because they bring in “feminine touch” to the job? I think now it is a criminal offense in some parts of the world to reinforce such sexist stereotype. Because they have different capacities, e.g. ability to multitask and attention to details? Though this is touted even in some liberal circles, again this is contrary to strict feminist orthodoxy which holds that men and women are exactly the same. Which brings me to the next question - if they are exactly the same, why society or company has to invest extra money and energy to recruit people with the exact same talent and capability, but who happen to wear skirt instead of pants?
Career Women in Japan Find a Blocked Path
By MARTIN FACKLER
Published: August 6, 2007
You can notice that feminists have capitalized on the problem of shrinking population as their newest weapons to push for gender equality (read: more women in managerial positions).
The argument that by not utilizing the talent of women, the society “…is losing half of its brainpower as it faces a labor shortage.” is so bogus. There are many problems with statement like this. First, it assumes that there will be total employment of all people who are capable of working (meaning total elimination of unemployment) and that every one is able to maximize their potential in the work. Second, all women are to engage in occupations that utilize brainpower, not a muscle power, as in managerial positions. Obviously these assumptions are patently wrong. In fact, many Japanese companies are not suffering from shortage of brain power; managerial positions in these companies are always in very short supply, and competitions to get those positions (mostly internally) are very competitive. It is not as if these positions are left vacant in drove with many women staying at home and not willing to come out to work, as feminists want to have you believe (this is not the case unless, of course, you have government-imposed gender quota, just like those in Norway, that sets aside certain number of positions only for women). These positions have been filled mostly by men, however feminists hate the idea, who are very competent, talented and dedicated, and who have been primarily responsible for Japanese economic growth.
The void slogan for cultivating women’s talent is without a merit unless feminists could prove the concrete merit of it. What would be the merit? Because they bring in “feminine touch” to the job? I think now it is a criminal offense in some parts of the world to reinforce such sexist stereotype. Because they have different capacities, e.g. ability to multitask and attention to details? Though this is touted even in some liberal circles, again this is contrary to strict feminist orthodoxy which holds that men and women are exactly the same. Which brings me to the next question - if they are exactly the same, why society or company has to invest extra money and energy to recruit people with the exact same talent and capability, but who happen to wear skirt instead of pants?
Career Women in Japan Find a Blocked Path
By MARTIN FACKLER
Published: August 6, 2007
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
What`s real news?
Translation of the news below - Norwegian feminists are getting worried that their funding and support are diminishing....
NewsTrack - Top News
Rape up dramatically in Oslo
OSLO, Norway, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- Rapes are becoming increasingly common in Norway's capital city, with the number of victims seeking help from Oslo's clinic doubling in a decade.
This year, the emergency clinic reports almost 300 victims have come in for treatment, Aftenposten reported. That's up from 235 last year and enough that Oslo's per capita rate of reported sexual assaults is higher than New York's.
"Our resources have been the same for the past 10 years, while the number of our patients has doubled, and continues to increase this year," said Endre Sandvik, the head of the Oslo Legevakt Hospital.
Sandvik said clinic staff are also taking more time with each victim to secure evidence for prosecutors.
"The growth in the number of rapes is dramatic," said Councilwoman Sylvi Listhaug. "It makes me angry, and worried about the young women of our city."
NewsTrack - Top News
Rape up dramatically in Oslo
OSLO, Norway, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- Rapes are becoming increasingly common in Norway's capital city, with the number of victims seeking help from Oslo's clinic doubling in a decade.
This year, the emergency clinic reports almost 300 victims have come in for treatment, Aftenposten reported. That's up from 235 last year and enough that Oslo's per capita rate of reported sexual assaults is higher than New York's.
"Our resources have been the same for the past 10 years, while the number of our patients has doubled, and continues to increase this year," said Endre Sandvik, the head of the Oslo Legevakt Hospital.
Sandvik said clinic staff are also taking more time with each victim to secure evidence for prosecutors.
"The growth in the number of rapes is dramatic," said Councilwoman Sylvi Listhaug. "It makes me angry, and worried about the young women of our city."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)