Climate change - women disproportionately affected!

Looks like some people took the old joke “The world to end tomorrow – women affected disproportionately”* seriously.

Feminists seriously believe that climate change will negatively impact women more so than it does for men. With their feminine and soft grasp of science and mathmatics (which explains why there aren't as many female scientists as feminists would like) and an extremely self-centric (or oval-centric as some feminists put it) view of the world, an issue that looks to affect the entire planet, not just human beings but also polar bears, among other countless animals and plants, is now defined as a problem that affects women disproportionately, and taken up only in that perspectives as if that is the only perspective that MATTERS.

And though some sane commentors to the article in the website politely expressed their suspicion as to whether this is really a gender issue, the doctrinaire feminist stuck to their bizarre view.

Discussion on climate change, now at the hands of feminists, have been relegated to another rounds of endless bean-counting - on how many males and females are in imporant positions - by feminists… Well, if the most important issue in climate change debate is about increasing women in high-level positions in organizations/institutions dealing with the issue, then it is not so important after all…ISNT'T IT? Feminists will have you believe, put some people with breasts in these important positions, and alas, the planet will start to cool down from tomorrow…. Himalayan glacier will stop melting, and polar bears are so happy that they won't have to drown in Arctic sea anymore….


*If you want to take a bit serious, statistical look at this, you will find out that it is not correct. If the world is really to end tomorrow, and all the people on earth are to perish, then 56 million more males than females would die (world population in 2009: male 3,442 million, female 3,386 million).

Glass Ceiling for Female Terrorists

A very interesting article…if you are a “true feminist”, then you need to pursue gender parity in leadership position whether it is in a government, large corporations or…..terrorist organizations. It almost sounds like too crazy to be true that this article was penned by a mainstream (and therefore liberal)author(and some comments to this article suspected conservatives parodying PC cause), but I guess this is very logical consequence of pursuing what is the most important goal for feminists and liberals. Feminists always say that they want to see gender parity in all facets of life (-including criminal and terrorist world, now I know).

White House as kindergarden

Can we now say that it is official that liberals and feminists want to impose gender and any other demography-based quota on any of the recreational activities at the White House?

Gender-quota zealots will not cease counting beans and checking gender balance even for one moment. In their logic, if Obama wants to play some hoop, equal number of men and women should be in the court. If Obama plays golf, there should be equal number of men and women playing with the President.

I can see what’s next – equal number of points should be scored by men and women in such a basketball game - who knows, the Prez may bond stronger with better, higher scoring players!))

At the Whitehouse everything must be done together by men and women, at roughly same proportion, be it its official duties (equal number of men and women should be in cabinet meeting!) or unofficial, recreational basketball game (men and women should be playing together!) The White house now resembles kindergarden in the sense that everything has to be done together by little boys/men and little girls/women. While at kindergarden, it may be sennsible for little boys and girls to do everything together (though even at that age the differences betwen male and female are distinct), if grown-up adults, some in their fifties and sixties, were to do everything together, hand in hand, it is...ummm how should I say... revolting?


And feminists are not happy with achieving what is supposed to be one of their ultimate goals – statistical gender parity – in the number of White House staff. Now that the numbers are roughly equal, they looked for the next excuse to continue their crusade against men - and suddenly there are more important measure of equality,i.e. the exposure to media and visibility. Now they contend that there needs to be equal amount of exposure to media and equal level of importance to the jobs that women do in the White House.


““Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers”



WHAT!!?? Many women, including almost 100% of the feminists, were determined to derail Obama’s historic quest for the nomination for the Democratic Party only a year ago, and were doing anything they can do achieve that. Obviously many women don’t seem to have good memory, as far as you can read from De Dee Myers’ comment. (women should deal with amnesia before they ask for more important jobs!). By the way, guess what kind of book Ms. Misinformation Dee Dee Myers wrote.





It’s time for Obama to stop trying to appease feminists. They will never be happy. Perhaps they were born with special genes that make them complaining all the time. If appeasing angry unhappy women is going to be the number priority for the Obama administration, there is going to be not much chance for success.

More article on this topic here.

Do female judges use sex appeal to influence male judges?

There are a quite a lot of points to make on this article;

Obama owes his victory to whom? Women? Weren’t women (especially, white old ones) firmly behind Hillary to realize their dream of “a woman President in their lifetime” at the expense of the first black President? Wasn’t it actually white men, who weren’t caught in either race or gender identity politics that shaped the democratic nominee process who tipped the whole election in favour of Obama? Shouldn’t Obama owe his victory to white men and therefore give another seat to one of them in case someone retires from the Supreme Court bench?

And whose “article of faith” is it that the next vacancy (and the next one too – yes, keep wishing) will be filled by a woman? Isn’t it just Ms. Dahlia Lithwick and other small group of fellow feminist comrades who want to promote as an article of faith that not only the next vacancy in the Supreme Court but any high-profile public (and private) positions be filled by women? This advocacy article conveniently comes with a list of possible female candidates to fill the vacancy if it indeed comes up. Again, keep wishing.

Now let’s turn on to the arguments made in the article.

"The male judges were 10 percent more likely to rule against alleged sex-discrimination victims. And male judges were "significantly more likely" to rule in their favor if a woman judge served on their panel"

First of all, who decided that it is better for judges to rule in favour of alleged sex discrimination victim? Isn’t it precisely judges’ job to decide whether there are merits in the cases brought about by the suitors (and by the way who are sex discrimination “victim”?) Doesn’t author know that “significant” percentage of sex discrimination cases do not have case or filed for profit or personal (such as retaliation) reasons. And if female judges rule in favour for alleged sex discrimination victims just because they are women and their ovary or breasts whatever female things interfere with their legal reasoning and analysis of the cases, then there should be fewer female judges, not more. Remember, whenever there are women (so-called “victims”) and her feminists attorneys profiting from baseless sex discrimination cases, there are plenty of male supervisors/co-workers/management suffering unjust legal and financial consequences. And ultimately it is consumers and public at large who have to bear the cost.

"It may suggest female moral reasoning—if such a thing exists—might be contagious."

Or is it because male judges were afraid that not rendering judgments along with the feminist party line (that all women are discriminated against and women never lie) would make their own positions vulnerable? That female judges sitting on the same bench would report to some “gender committee” about her male colleagues “resistance” to rule in favour of “victims”? Or are these female judges using their “sex appeal” or some “feminine attributes” to coax fellow male judges into thinking that they should rule in favour of women?

"It's why liberal lion William Brennan could write so expansively about equality and fairness and justice while still refusing to hire female law clerks."

Doesn’t he have a right “not to hire”, as opposed to “refuse to hire” underqualified female law clerks or does Ms. Lithwick think gender quota should apply in every judges’ offices?

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.

Rwanda - feminists' experiment

A couple of interesting points on this NYT Kristof's blog....

It is interesting that he is noting this majority (or superiority), although a slight one, with a hint of glee. Well, I guess sometimes “equality is not enough” and you may be tempted to compensate for inequality in the past or inequality in other areas.

“That much of what has happened is a result of genocide can’t be denied…”

As sad as it may sound, you simply cannot de-link this artificially high proportion of women representatives, which in many parts owes to the imposition of gender quota, which was sneaked in by western white feminists, to this historic catastrophe.

“Rwanda’s situation is vastly different from the U.S. and an authoritarian hand is in large part responsible for female representation.”

This cannot be stressed enough. The “authoritarian hand” which is actually mostly a “feminine hand” that combines authoritarian forces of women representatives in the country (as they now constitute a majority) and mostly white international feminists groups, and major donors (most of whom are co-opted or pressured by international feminists groups), who take advantage of a chaotic situation in a country that’s ravaged by years of genocide and conflicts, and try to sneak in their model of utopian gender-free / gender neutral or even pro-matriarchal society.

Mr. Kristof - Part 6, Women not "represented" nor 'utilized"?

One of the most repeated reasons why there need to be more women in parliament is that unless there are more women in the Parliament, women, who constitute half (or slightly more than half) of the population, are not represented.

REALLY?

Just the most basic understanding of how democracy work (and this level of stuff must be taught in civic class at elementary school) can tell you this is not correct. If, say, a white guy Mr. Smith is elected to US Congress from district 123, does it mean that Mr. Smith represents only his demographic group in district 123, white males, while all the rest of people, women, black, Hispanic, Indian, Asian and etc. were not represented in the US Congress? (I mix in ethnicities here since black and Latino activists, among others, also advance a similar line of argument) If the district 123 has only elected white guys in its entire history, does it mean that those rest of the demographic people have never been represented, EVER? Isn’t he a representative of the entire district, which also includes women, black, Hispanic, Indian and Asian voters?

If we were to follow this flawed logic, then no matter who will be elected, more than half of the population will always be unrepresented. If a white woman was elected, all the guys plus non-white women are not represented, which amounts to more than half of the population. If Indian man is elected, then all the population except Indian males are not represented at the District. If Asian woman as elected, no one but Asian women (who are quite a minority in most parts of the country) are happy. In districts, there are roughly equal number of men and women, and there are many different ethnicities (though the proportion of each will vary from district to district) in each district, mathematically the demographic character of elected person (gender and ethnicity) will never more than half of the population in the district.

Is this what “representative democracy” was supposed to mean?

Mix in the party affiliation and it’d be even more complicated. What if district 234 elected Ms. Jones, a black Democrat? Are all the women in the district represented, including a white Democrat, and a black Republican?

Feminists also like push the argument that a Parliament that doesn’t have 50% women ratio is “not utilizing the talent of half of population” (I guess the “half” means women). This one is even harder to comprehend. Again, if Mr. Smith, a nice white guy, is elected, can you assume that all the talents of white males in district 123 have been utilized? The talents that include that of electricians, farmers, bankers, lawyers, janitors, teachers, etc., and Mr. Smith somehow embodies the aggregate talents of all white males in the district but not at all the women or non-white males? Or Mr. Smith’s talent is confined to what Mr. Smith, only one individual in the district of tens of thousands of people, has personally acquired over the years through education and experience? Or should white male janitors in the district take solace in the fact that a same white guy is elected and therefore his “talent” of fixing broken pipes is going to be utilized in the US Congress?

OK, let’s move from each individual district to a national level, and see the entire Congress. Let’s say women legislator comprise about 20% of Congress. Does it mean that only 20% of American women are represented in the congress? If so, which 20% of women are represented? Would that mean all 100% of women voters in district 234 which elected Ms. Jones are represented (again, including white, Latin, Indian, and Republican women?) but 0% of women in Mr. Smith’s district 123 (even if she volunteered for his campaign and waited in line for 5 hours to vote for him)?

In the representative democracy, the person elected represents the entire district, not just the particular democratic group that the elected person belongs to. The elected person even in theory represents people who did not vote for that person, or voted against that person, or people in different political parties. Period.

Mr. Kristof - Part 2, my suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Kristof - Part 1

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

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

a. It’s politically in vogue.

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

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

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

e. He actually it makes economic sense.


Now let’s analyze each of possible reason;

a. probably, could be one of the reasons

b. also probably yes

c. again, also probably yes

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

e. Please study economic 101

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

Working While Female (WWF) vs.Working While Male (WWM)

Another related post on the same site (my favourite XX blog in Slate)

Feminists have craftily adapted DHB (driving while black) into WWF (working while female).

Well maybe there is such a thing as WWF – such as promoted over other more qualified men (especially Caucasian men) into senior management positions, freedom to pick and choose the male targets of your sexual harassment charges, opportunity to file sex discrimination lawsuits against your company if you are in a mood of buying a new mansion or luxury cars, watches and precious stones, etc. threaten your boss that low performance review for you will bring a big trouble for him, for example, finding his name on one of the defendants of sexual discrimination case, etc.

The moment you start working for a company, all of the above benefits come with you as WWF. You think the above are exaggerated? No, many companies (especially larger ones that could become easy target of feminist lawyers) have de facto gender quota, or numerical target for female representation at senior positions, and evaluate managers performance by how many female workers he have promoted, hired, or evaluated positively. Not to mention many “women-only” career networks, study groups, career orientations, mentorship programs or counseling programs in the industry or inside company that benefits only women. These are certainly beneficial, although to much less dramatic ways than the above, and are mostly or exclusively available for women.

Now let’s imagine the benefits and risks of WWM (working while male)

Promotion being passed over because you are men – companies has numerical target for senior female managers to meet and you are so getting in the way!

24/7 risk of being accused by female workers of sexual harassment/discrimination/assault or whatever convenient charges women can haul against men.

Work in physically dangerous occupation that have much higher risk of getting injured than, say, cleaning hotel rooms, and at the same time vilified by feminists for out-earning blue-color women.

If you happen to be a manager in a large company, you will be living and breathing in a corporate and social environment that defines you and your presence as the relic of patriarchal past, and view your presence as the evidence of the company's lack of commitment to gender equality at the senior positions and hindrance to achieving women’s full empowerment

CEO's pay-gap

I don't how much the so-called "equality" or pay-equity at CEO's level would matter to most of the people. It is in any way an astronimical figures for most of the people which does not have much real meaning, whether women earn 10 million or men earn 20 million. It is so detached from the life of ordinary people and trying to portray this issue as such a huge gender discrimination issue is so ridiculous and makes a mockery of the entire discrimination issue. For these CEOs it is a differnce between one being able to buy 5 vacation houses around the world or only 2 vacations houses, and whether one can own 10 Rolce Royse or only 2 Ferraris - whao, life is so unfair!!!

The only issue here seems to be the old feminist's vindictiveness against men in general. When you care more about super-rich female CEO (most of whom are affirmative-actioned in the first place) earning several millions less (several millions!!) than male counterparts, than, say, thousands of homeless, jobless people on the streets (most of whom are men), you know that only hatred against men motivated this female author.

You can see that same-old same-old feminists lines being repeated here; the much-recycled Summers’ comment (he was talking about science, no!?), the so-called pay gap (21 cent less per dollar, which begs the questions of why companies do not stop hiring such expensive men to cut costs) very shaky and unscientific comparison of salaries without any regard to the size of company, profits, or title, citing one study done by – of course – women to back up a shaky claim, reference to “stereotypes” and exhorting readers (women only) to talk about successful women among themselves so that they can feel better about themselves - no talk about the ditched female CEOs except in the context of blaming male-dominated corporate society, because women CEO deserves only success, failure or not meeting targets or getting profits – is presumably a carefully plotted and disguised form of discrimination against women. She even tries to introduce a new criteria for gender discrimination – low expectation for women. If women fall under pressure for too much expectation- would that also be a “discrimination”?

It is easy to understand that the higher the position goes, the bigger the pay differences could become. It does not make much difference to companies’ overall earning or profits whether an entry level clerk or sales assistants, one of hundreds or even of thousands, do a terrific job or a mediocre job. But it would do make a difference if one CEO or one senior VP makes a big mistake, or make a very wise prescient decision. The pay will reflect that.

It will also be more difficult to assess whether the pay is fair or appropriate or not at more senior level than lower, entry level positions. Lower entry level positions’ jobs are usually more standardized, routine and could be done by any other equally qualified persons. It is much less so at the senior level where persons’ vision, leadership, strategic decisions influence the entire fate of the company.

A risk means a “risk” only when it entails probability for both success and failure. Feminists seems to want a societal guarantee for success for any senior female executives in their quest for higher career and risk-taking jobs, and flabbergasted when that “success” did not come in handy, and start a witch-hunt for those who are responsible for not delivering “success” to these female executives, such as Ms. Cruz or Ms Callan. In many cases, culprits are sexist corporate culture, media or, male colleagues - usual scapegoats who could never escape the eternal sin of being born a male. In other words, in the views of people like Ms. Dobrzynski, women getting CEO positions are “fair” but women not succeeding in their positions are “unfair”. Perhaps a good place to start is to ditch this kind of childish wishful thinking and confront the stern reality of business world where success, results are rewarded and whining are not.

CIA, feminized

Espionage and intelligence collection ain’t what it used to be – just like any other organizations, public or private, CIA is not immune from relentless onslaught by litigation-happy gender-feminists. America’s battle against terrorism and other threats just got a little more complicated with adventure-seeking trail-brazing women types who see career advancement in the world’s foremost intelligence organizations as a part of their self-fulfillment and self-actualization. And when they are done with bean-counting of men and women at the rank and file and investigating subtle gender discrimination and hostile working environment, which they do when they are not doing their jobs as case offices or intelligence analysts, they are ready to launch a sexual discrimination lawsuit so that, the intelligence agency could proud itself as being at least gender-sensitive even when they are not winning its battle against terrorism and other threats.

Feminization of a profession

This is quite an interesting article. By the way, both for and against the original idea by professor Clark - that feminization of medicine profession could lead to losing of influence and status - could be labeled as pro-women, and therefore, of course, anti-women. It depends on the gender of the speakers primarily and also on which side of the political spectrum you are coming from. Thus, men can always be labeled “sexist” whether you are for or against the original position – if you agree with Prof. Clark, you are sexist since you think that occupations consisting primarily of women have less stature, and if you oppose her view, you are denying the fact that those feminine fields are regarded in lower status than predominantly male profession, thus wanting to perpetuate the inequality.

Anyway, there is also a feminists’ favorite line that teachers’ salaries are low because it is a predominantly female occupation. I wonder if they ever care to consider some facts and numbers (which maybe difficult for women as Lawrence Sommers explained);

-Do the salary of teachers decline in real terms since the time when it was primarily male occupation?

-Or is it when compared to private sectors that teachers’ salaries are considered to be low?

-Or is it when compared to other public, government sectors?

-Would local governments be able to afford to pay law firm or hedgefund companies-like salaries to teachers?

-Do teachers and schools make huge financial profits from which they could be reimbursed as their salaries and bonuses?

-What are the qualifications of teachers and difficulties of getting in the field?

But of course, crunching numbers and talking data would not be as sexy and has as much headline-grabbing potential as simply shouting at the top of their voice that “Teacher’s salaries are low because of gender discrimination against predominantly female profession!”



http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/412

HELP!! - there are too few women rappers!!

Yes, of course, it is one of THE major issues facing UK, US and perhaps other western democratic countries, along with global warming and Darfur genocides and myriad of other problems – an APPALING DEARTH of female rappers. (British feminists like use the "appalled" whenever they discuss gender balances that are not in their favor - although they did not use the word this time) Even more troubling, according to this author, is that even when these endangered species that is female rappers do get rare media exposures, they often have to play up to stereotyped views of women, and appear sexy and adjust their lyrics to fit that stereotypes, rather than doing what they really want to do. There is nothing more that feminists hate than being stereotyped, maybe even more so than lack of gender balance.

TOO BAD that women aren’t given equal chance to yell “f..K” and ”ni...er” and other expletives as loud and as freely as men do.

But I’m sure that a small sub-section of radical feminists who work on women and media (or music or rap) issues are working around the clock to correct this "unacceptable" problem, carefully counting all the albums released and sold by men and women by all the record labels, do some “wage-gap” check on income of all male and female rappers, and keep all related statistics as they do when creating gender-discrimination hysteria in any other field, because that is what feminists is all about.

I guess this is also an area where "girl power" needs to be asserted. I remember one feminist very fondly reacted to a recent satistic on increasing violence by young women as a good sign that females are breaking stereotypes and asserting their own powers. Leaving aside the question of whether rappers are a good role model for young people or the kind of influence their music, lyrics and lifestyles bring on to young people, it is another area where MEN RULE, and according to feminist dicta, men's rule has to be challenged and destroyed anywhere, anytime. So much for a moral judgment but a pure display of hatred against men.

EMERGENCY ALERT!! Too few female court clerks!!

These days the New York Times is acting more and more like an operational arm of NOW or being co-opted by Ms. Magazine than a major newspaper. They now seem to be in the business of counting male/female ratios of every nooks and corners of society and whenever the ratio of women fell to the point that they cannot accept, issue a early warning or a wake up call to the world (or to the ideologue sisters among its readers) that something needs to be done… Gender ratio of “clerks”? even though they serve Supreme Court justices, they don’t deliver judgement, if association with or proximity to the important office such as Supreme Court is the issue, how about gender ratio of maintenance worker at the Supreme Court building? Oops, men dominate again? Sorry!

Game industry

Here is a good example of automatic, blind application of gender-feminist perspective in every spheres of life. You can put almost any industries, issues, areas or whatever conceivable in XXX in “XX failing women”, and articles with such scary headings (or supposed to at least) will almost assured of top page coverage and accompanying screaming calls by gender feminists and feminist-males for “urgent attention” or “increased public support”, or “eliminate gender stereotyping” or “gender balance” or “gender quota” or worse, “more women in top position”.

Exactly how women not immersing themselves in electronic games as much as male counterparts do are causing them or society at large big problem is not discussed at all, and neither the fact that many boys do suffer from low school grades or some form of social dysfunctionalities and other myriad of problems for the exact same behavior now being glorified by the respectable BBC is discussed. Instead, gender-feminists and feminists-wannabees are ironically taking “everything men do is good, therefore women should copy it”-mentality. Boys who play games 6 hours a day are usually derided as geeks, but girls who do the same are heralded as some kind of heroines, courageous people who are fighting the stereotypes that put females down.

Here a male-feminist, who may have thought that playing along with gender-feminists agenda will spare him from feminists’ purge to drive men out from all important public spheres, says that “(girls) don't want 'pink games”, but just a few sentences later but he too fell into gender-stereotyping (a crime that would be put on a same level as crime against humanity when women take charge of the world) by chivarlously stating for all womenkind that “(women) want relationships, they want to be able to chat.". Maybe to compensate for that mishap, he concluded that “Four of our 11 studios around the world are run by women” -probably the most important data for power and statistics (or genderbalance)-obsessed feminists.

In a related article published over a year ago, all the critical ingredients of feminists’ women-as-perpetual-victims article were displayed. In the article, women complains about “constant harassment, sexual stereotyping and abusive behaviour of male players”, so they called for “creating a safe gaming environment - while "kicking boy booty". Their efforts are heralded as “a haven for female gamers who want to break down misconceptions about female gamers.”

This mainstream media-sponsored feminist campaign in the gaming world, a “white paper” about women and games, and etc., would mean that there will be fewer and fewer areas where boys will be free from the consequences of feminists’ put-women-first / anti-male campaigns. The schools were completely run over by such feminist zealots which now resulted in boys’ problems at schools, and now games.

We absolutely need that 0.08% of people who play support roles

Uhhh, yes, and exactly how Indian army would not be able to do without females? 918 females in 1.1 million strong army is like what・0.08percent!! Is proportion like 0.08 percent absolutely indispensable, or would less than one-tenth of one percent, or less than one in one thousand would bring the rest of 99.92 percent to a grinding halt? And the roles carried out by women currently also cannot be taken over by men? Women were begun to be incorporated in the army in the early 1990's, meaning for more than 40 years of its existence since the country's independence after the Second World War, Indian army has done without the services of females. But all of a sudden, Indian army is also barraged with Western-States like political withchunt and the top brass there are forced to pay lip service to irate gender feminists. Is this a curse of western-style modernization?


Anger at Indian general's gender slur
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1801148,00.html
Maseeh Rahman in New Delhi
Monday June 19, 2006

Girl engineer and Google pandering to feminists

The diversity mantra is sounding more and more like a religious cult when you see it being repeated and repeated so often with near religious fervor, while giving absolutely no basis to support it. It is hard to believe that a guy smart enough to head Australian branch of the Google seriously believes in what he is saying. Does he seriously believes that a person with female genitalia fixing computer glitch as opposed to a person with male genitalia is going to benefit the company or the customer at large? What’s his Ph.D for? Must have gotten from Women’s study?

“ the lack of females in ICT - just 20 per cent of the workforce - means gender parity is a dream unless the company does something about it.”

--A dream for what? By who?

“Dr. Rasmussen is concerned that trying to fix the problem of a lack of women in ICT diverts resources from other ends and "could slow the recruitment process".

--Oops, Dr., watch your mouth, feminists don’t appreciate your slip of tongue

“But women still scrape the bottom of the food chain - both at Google and in the salary stakes. … women who earn more than $100,000 a year represent 0.25 per cent of ICT workers.”

-- What, you want to bring women from shoe sales department and install as a head of IT department and give her a top salary? All because no other reason than that she is a women?

“Companies might find it easier to identify skills sets out of non-technical backgrounds such as retail, utilities or commerce and then give them the (technical) knowledge,"”

--If you are so desperate as to consider bringing women from other field to IT sector just to improve gender balance statistics, why not just ask any woman walking on the street and hire as a IT head and give her the best salary. It will surely “give opportunity” for historically oppressed womin and “gender imbalance” as well as gender “pay gap” will be improved.

International feminists and hijakijing of post-conflict recovery

International journalists and media persons are having their field day after the election of Liberia`s female President. This event was truly a windfall for feminist journalist who were dying for a news that will carry their agenda. They are now racing each other to put bigger coverage in their respective media outlet about this Liberian President and the issue of women`s political participation in Africa.

Here, again, the increasingly finer line between objective reporting and advocacy reporting is blurred. The media insinuates that the entire African continent, or even the entire world, is buzzing with hope for the female president, but is it just progressive western journalists or militant feminist circles in Africa buzzing with expectations?

As the author pointed out, some countries in Africa has the highest proportion of women in parliament in the world. But this is mainly due to peculiar circumstances in such countries. According to the author again, much of the male populations were slaughtered in Rwanda, leaving much less men alive than women when the conflict was over and a time to form a new government.

While most people, who have at least a shred of humanity, would feel this as a tragedy of gigantic proportion, but not militant feminists. Many local feminist organizations, aided and abetted, or sometimes set up by their western sisters, saw this as an "opportunity" to increase their voice in politics and boy they did seized the "opportunity"

Inspired by western gender feminists and international organizations, most notably the United Nations, the concept of "gender quota" which remains a controversial concept to say the least in western democracies, was presented as though it is a "world standard" and before men, yet to recover from the atrocity of genocide which mainly targeted them, could see what`s really behind it, was sneakly written into constitutions.

This in tern gives western feminist new ammunition in their eternal fight to introduce gender quota in their home countries. Now they could say, "Look, even Rwanda of all countries has higher number of women in parliament than us. Aren`t you ashamed? Why are we behind them in women`s political participation? What can we do to redress the problem?" and, "Rwanda has seen a remarkable progress since the end of conflict...it`s all because of gender quota!...let`s do in our country too, whoa!" The second kind of argument would naturally be accompanied by phony, selective, and manipulated data that is supposed to back up their self-serving claims.

Not only Rwandan men were butchered in thousands during the conflict, their plight was sometimes regarded by feminists as "men`s problem", meaning, men are killing other men and each other and is thus just their own problem. Instead of men who are butchered in thousands, feminists have successfully shifted attention of international community to the plight of women, who are raped, beaten, or became widows and had to raise family by themselves.

Thus men in Rwanda or other African countries affected by conflicts are doubly victimized or discriminated. First, during the conflict, they are the one who bear the majority of the blunt. Second, when the conflict ends and the society heads to recovery, most of the attention would be placed on women; increase women in power, empowerment of female victim of conflict of widows, economical empowerment of women - at the expense of ignoring the plight of men.

Some links on this article...here

European vs. American feminists

There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between European and American feminists in which one claims that situation surrounding women in their country/region is worse than the other, through use of selective statistics and rhetoric, and end up benefiting feminists from both areas with more support for their causes and government-funded gender-specific empowerment programmes.

People in America have been long told that Europe, especially Scandinavian countries, is more progressive, liberal society in which women enjoy equality with men and all the benefits provided by progressive, socialist governments. The article lists very long maternity leave, etc, etc, as some of such benefits European women enjoy. However the feminists in Europe were still not satisfied with all the extensive benefits and decided to claim that their status is worse than America where women have only 12 weeks of maternity leave, etc.

The criteria for comparison that this kind of power-hungry gender feminists use of course are percentage of women in political power and in large corporations ・nothing else. Even here some facts that they usually self-congratulate in other fora, such as near 50 percent of women in cabinet and parliament in Sweden and other Nordic countries, are conveniently forgotten and focus is shifted to statistic provided by extremely-feminist-friendly ILO which provides that while women account for 45 percent of high-level decision makers in America・ in Sweden, only 29 percent hold high-power posts. If you show this to American feminists, I am sure they would counter-claim the far-far-worse women・status in America by screaming something like ・women hold less than 15 percent of Senate seats compared to Sweden's 40-some percent, uh, it takes another 500 years to reach parity!!! Damn patricarchy!!・

What's the solution to the dismal status of European women as a result of "cushy" welfare system? The most common-sensical and straightforward solution would be to eliminate all these extensive benefits and special entitlements for European women, such as up to 3 years (!) paid maternity leave, state-sponsored day-care centers, that European women seem to have too much of? Of course not! Instead they would push the envelope further, and call for forced paternity leave, and more flex time. They are also envy of American style guilty-until-proven, sue-as-you-go sexual harassment law and tax structure based on single working (lesbian) women. And of course, (who can miss this, it's such a staple), gender quota in corporate board room and MBA schools, strict enforcement of pay parity between sexes (I wonder what the number would be in Europe, as opposed to men's 1 dollar to women's 76 cents in US - whatever the number feminists want us to believe).

According to the authors, Europe's future depends on whether more women will be in the corporate ranks and all Europe will benefit from it. This is a good example of 努omen-think・ so self-centered and self-congratulatory and lacking in ability to see the big picture and distinguish yourself's interest from others. Of course it would be good for you, militant gender feminists and your comrades, and power-hungry women, because you will be having ecstasy looking at the pie chart showing parity between men and women in power, and getting a high-powered post with flex time, 3-year no-question-asked maternity leave, forced paternity leave for your husband and sue-and-forget sexual harassment lawsuit and just wait for the company to pay multi-million dollars (or Euros) settlement to your bank account. But for entire Europe? "Take heed, Europe"? It's good that Europe is still not overrun by such self-centered narcissistic feminists, but they will march on...



Myth & Reality

By Rana Foroohar
Newsweek International http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11435567/site/newsweek/