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).

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?

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.

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

Nissan's gender quota

Nissan's CEO Carlos Ghosn is a kind of superstar in an auto industry, as he had turned around a failing motor company into one of the most profiting ones, but hee too, as a Wester-educated CEO of this generation, is not immune from being contaminated by political correctness.

In a magazine interview he gave some years ago, he set a goal of having 5% of senior managers women.

Good. But it begs a lot of questions for this legendary guy whose life was portrayed in a popular comic book.

First, if having women as senior managers is so important, why this wasn't the first thing Mr. Ghosn did when he took over the job at Nissan? Instead, he waited until the company's performance turned around and got firmly on track for further growth. What does it mean? To me, it only means that "affirmative-actioning" women into senior positions is a luxury that only a few large companies could afford. You can make a political gesturing like this only when company is in good order.

Second, he seems to exhort other auto companies to do the same,but it strikes as odd, as if getting more women into senior positions is the success for suto company, you would rathr NOT other companies to do the same, since in this way, you can be rest assured that only Nissan will benefit from the supposed benefit derived from the increased female managers, while other companies do not. Why do you want to reveal key for success in trade, and ask that competitors follow suit?

Actually what is going on here is that Mr. Ghosn know that affirmative-actioning more female managers, and setting numerical target and gender quaota, will put his company in disadvantage, as 5% of the managers will be sub-standard ones, who are articifially promoted for their jobs. If its rivals pack their senior manager posts with 100% compitent people who won their posts on merit, guess which one has more compitent manager team as a whole? Nissan, with 95% managers chosen on merit and 5% filled in as quota, or Toyota, with 100% managers chosen on merit and 0% quota people?

In this sense, it might not be "fair", if other companies fo not set up the same 5% gender quota and fill it with sub-standard people. One analogy would be gender mixed sports that are a staple of intramural sports events. In these mixed sports, typically a ballgame like basketball or a volleyball, the number of men and women who can play in one team is strictly set. So, let's say, in volleyball, if the rule says one team should consist of 3 men and 3 women, then that raito has to be observed. You cannot field a team of 4 men and 2 women, because it will give an unfair advantage to such a team that have a higher ratio of men. In sports, obviously women's weaker physical fitness level is a liability, and therefore, to be fair, all teams must have equall number of women, not less. Similarly, in a corporate world, if one company wants to show chivalrish side and adopt a gender quota, in order not to be put in a disadvantegous position in a cut-throat competition in the market, that company will naturaly wish that other companies adopt similar measures.

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

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

MI5 calls for more woman applicants

Feminists are eager to cry discrimination and call for immediate remedies as soon as the women’s gender ratio in British intelligence agency drops to 44 %, - which wouldn’t be such a lopsided figure in the first place, but maybe quite a decrease from “more than half” that they were enjoying in the 1990s. Wait, let’s say that the “more than half” were, say, 55 or 56 percent, consequently men’s ratio would have been 45 or 44 percent respectively – that is same as the current percentage of women! Were there any outcry and remedial measures to correct the “gender imbalance”? Of course not! Gender-balance discussion is always only one-way street – how to increase ratio of women.

By the way, I think 44 percent, or above 40 percent is a range of gender balance that even Swedish feminists, who are in no way less militant than their British counterparts, view as acceptable, but evidently not British feminists.

Is there any correlation between the large percentage of women in the agency and the its recent intelligence failures, such as the London bombing? I know, it’s a question no one could ask without being held criminally responsible for bigotry and misogyny. If the intelligence agency’s central focus is on recruiting a kind of people who are most attracted by such socialism perks as two full year of maternity leave, then the prospect for winning the fight against terrorism and crimes are not really bright. It will only make the agency look more like a postal office or other sleepy bureaucratic office. And what if significant portion of its employees (don’t forget that women in their 40’s and 50’s get pregnant these days) take up to 2 years of consecutive leave – it will undoubtedly cripple the organization.

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

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