Showing posts with label intelligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intelligence. Show all posts
Friday, November 02, 2007
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.
Labels:
gender balance,
intelligence,
military,
security
Thursday, October 18, 2007
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.
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.
Labels:
gender quota,
guardian,
intelligence,
MI5,
military,
security
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Bourne Ultimatum - feminists' response
Somewhow there was a torrent of articles written by equal-opportunity feminists who attacks the movie "The Bourne Ultimatum". I know that there is a coterie of such feminists who demand every inch/space of movie review section in papers and on web to denounce all movies that feature men in positive or main roles, but I thought this one was a little over the top even by their standards.
Why does the author think that in all movies, women and men have to play EXACTLY equally important, equally meaningful roles (at least to feminists)? I hope the author will advocate giving more positive role for men in such classic man-hating movie as "Enough", in which men were only portrayed as abusers, and the general hatred against men were not only evident but the main theme of the movie.
The Bourne Ultimatum already gave a senior CIA officer's role to a woman - you can see that the screenwriter have already partially caved in to incessant feminists attack like the author to feature more women in politicaly correct roles-, this may be an accurate reflection of reality by the way as more and more women are affirmative-actioned into senior posts in real-life CIA. (points for the Talibans and islamic exremists!)
And exactly how not giving equal time or exposure or positive portray of women as men are labeled as "misogyny", then almost all the movies shot by women are examples of extreme anti-male, miandric flicks, but I guess the author don't care about those.
Why does the author think that in all movies, women and men have to play EXACTLY equally important, equally meaningful roles (at least to feminists)? I hope the author will advocate giving more positive role for men in such classic man-hating movie as "Enough", in which men were only portrayed as abusers, and the general hatred against men were not only evident but the main theme of the movie.
The Bourne Ultimatum already gave a senior CIA officer's role to a woman - you can see that the screenwriter have already partially caved in to incessant feminists attack like the author to feature more women in politicaly correct roles-, this may be an accurate reflection of reality by the way as more and more women are affirmative-actioned into senior posts in real-life CIA. (points for the Talibans and islamic exremists!)
And exactly how not giving equal time or exposure or positive portray of women as men are labeled as "misogyny", then almost all the movies shot by women are examples of extreme anti-male, miandric flicks, but I guess the author don't care about those.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)