Woman politician botching BIG, BIG time...

See what a female candidate can do… Liberal media is usually saturated with articles about how female politicians are such a wonderful creature, selfless, uncorrupted, efficient and capable. Now let's see one such female politician, who until a few weeks ago, was a presumptive next US Senator, the would-be trail-brazing first female Senator from Massachusetts, another prominent, strong, independent and highly capable female politicians who would embody women's superior ability in politics...Now let's see what she did.....she lost one of the easiest, surest election in the country!!

The result so shocking that Democrat's, NYTimes and other liberal media and groups are searching for an explanation of what had happened.

May explanations/excuses were offered. Many rightly pointed unbeleivable ineptitude of this woman candidiate, but feminists beg to differ. Read this.

Well, are you surprised at all that whenever women didn't get their wish, feminists are going to blame men?

Well, if Massachusetts’ old boy’s network existed, why did she win the Democratic primary anyway? (The author partly acknowledges this, but simply refers to this as “surprising… in the first place”. That’s it?) And usually network of influential and powerful people work only at the party primary level where party bosses and influential supporters could decide the fate of the candidates. Think, for example, in general election, what could the Democrat’s “old boys’ network” do to prevent Martha’s bid for Senate seat? Why would they even do that? Would they do something to derail her campaign just so that the State of Massachusetts doesn’t have to elect it first female Senator?

And what could the Republican’s “old boys’ network” do to prevent Martha? Everything!! Why? Is it because all Republicans are cavemen and think women only as a reproducing machine? No, because they are Republicans (surprise!) and that’s why that they are supposed to do.

Instead of discussing whether such old boys’ network still actually exists or what impact it had on the election, the rest of the article is simply a why-women-are-superior-politician piece often seen in feminist articles. By the way if we believe this Why-women-are-so-super-in-New England theory, it gives justification for dearth of women in larger national level elections - I like that.

Playing a "gender card" in Israel

You would think that playing a gender card in election to become a leader of a country is a luxury that only countries not in imminent danger of war or attacks by terrorists can enjoy. When Islamic terrorists armed with rocket right across the border are aiming at citizens, most people would think that it’s not really a good time to choose the leader of the country on the basis of gender just so that you can show off to the rest of the world how politically correct, progressive, and open-minded, tolerant, diverse and inclusive you are, and to please feminists that there are one less countries in the world led by another Neandelthaal males. There is a little bit more important thing at stake here than winning the politically-correctness sweepstake, like safety of you and your family’s lives.

But things are little bit different in Israel.

Livni, who have mostly stayed away from playing a gender card has in desperation resorted to one of the most efficient, battle-test methods to get some more votes as she trailed behind leading candidate Nethaniyahu. And this almost always works as there are always some elements that are going to blame ANYTHING on gender discrimination – questions or doubts about competency or experience of female candidates are automatically labelled as “sexist”, no matter how legitimate such concerns are. No one, especially men, are permitted to question; instead they are only allowed to “follow”.

Trying to silence opposition or even questioning of experience of female politician by hauling sexist label is fine, but it also has unintended consequences. It will make discussion or examination of female politicians experience and competency off-limit to the public. There will be no opportunity to judge female politicians’ merit or competency; you are only to decide for yourself whether the act of electing a female leader - a political gesture signalling a total submission to feminist ideology and political correctness - is worth foregoing more experienced and competent male leader for the country.

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.

Natural evolution of women

Those two articles that were published in the Times, are quite far apart in the subject matters they discuss and also chronologically (one of them was published two years ago, the other one just last month), but nonetheless I see some similarity, or a common thread, apart from the fact that both articles discuss women’s issues.

Would a (supposedly) natural evolution of women from submissive, multi-tasking mothers in the hunting ages into independent, strong political, economic and social leaders of the modern world, as happily and self-absorbedly described by power-hungry feminists at the one of the biggest feminists parties (a.k.a. Women's Forum for the Economy and Society) something akin to a theory discussed in the mid-1970’s by sports scientists?

Back in the 70’s people wondered, scientists examined, and feminists revelled at the idea that someday women may overtake men in (extreme) long-distance running (42km marathon or longer) because of the higher fat ratio in their bodies. Now, 30 years later, nobody in right mind seriously believes that. That 70’s extremely simplistic, linear thinking which held that simply because women have more fat than men, women can outrun men in the long distance, has yielded way to more rigorous analysis and studies, which found that that WILL NOT HAPPEN. (Unless we genetically engineer women into men, that is, and I guess there may be many feminists who might like that idea for the sake of no-excuse-allowed gender equality)

Much in the same way, the idea that simply women are better at empathy, communication and multitasking, and since modern world requires more and more of them, women will become natural leaders of the modern world, may be too linear and simplistic. (I am getting used to it, but sometimes still baffled by feminists who say that women and men are absolutely same in every way, and in the next breath say that women are genetically better at communication, empathy, multitasking and son on…) Wouldn’t modern world require more and more of scientific and mechanical knowledge, or more organizational and leadership skill, or more focused, in-depth knowledge on increasingly compartmentalized fields of expertise? Or will empathy such an important factor in getting ahead in the 21 st century career race? Or an ability to chat about boys and fashion and deserts for several hours straight a kind of communication style required in modern world? Is multitasking of feeding baby, washing dishes and cleaning floor same things as overseeing employees, preparing for important presentations, checking company’s balance sheet all at the same time?

Sexism in Israel, or so declared by feminists

It's apparent that since the prospect for Livni's taking over premiership is not as good as it originally appeared on paper, another woman writer tries to pre-empt any opposition or negative view of the woman as some sort of a "sexist" behavior. The data she cites, such as only 8 percent of Middle Eastern parliaments are women doesn't have anything to do with whether Israel is still a bastion of Neanderthaal macho men, since the figure include all Middle Eastern countries, including such feminists' paradise as Saudi Arabia and so on. And the fact that Meir is not so popular in Israel also have nothing to do with sexist attitude, it's her policy, as even the writer quotes, that make Israeli people not particularly fond of her. But to this author, any negative view of politicians, if they happened to be female, are automatically evidence of "sexism", end of discussion. Only criticism of male politicians are allowed. And since when calling other politician by a full name Tzipora become a sexist act? And what exactly Livni's advisor is whining about? Do they want to ban all meetings between two males in the country. As if they want to say, "from now on all meetings between more than two males are banned in this country as it is considered a subversive act against feminists utopia.". Don’t be surprised that when Livni failed to form a coalition government, the blame will be on sexism (even Israel had Meir and women heading parliament and supreme court), not on her dovish policies that are unacceptable to many Israelis.

Consolation prize for feminists

Katie, just like Hillary, is obviously trying to capitalize on the so-called sexism charges to her salvage her standing and her show which is stuck at the bottom. It seems now that drumming up the charges of sexsim is her only hope. Hopefully there is enough dummy people to believe it.

Feminists in media are just plain furious at Hillary’s loss, and since their worldview direct them to blame every misfortune and wished did not come true on men, Hillary’s loss could not be attributed to her bad campaigning or anything else, but only to the sexism in media and society.

Now, as the second consolation prize of prospect for veep spot for Hillary is also fading away, feminists are trying to drum up the charges of sexism and start national dialogue on sexism, as their third consolation prize. Now we know that it is not only Hillary, but the entire feminists in media, who are zombies.

Here goes Hirshman again

Yet another cookie-cutter article from Linda Hirshman. This is an article in which old white feminist come to rescue another old white feminist. It;'s quite symbolic and the most salient feature of the Hillary campaign. Of course to most feminist, any negative description or portrayal of women is a product of patriarchy.

Given this display of old-fahioned, man-hating feminism on full-frontal display everywhere, among Hillary's surrogates (mostly old white women), among her staffs(ditto), among her supporters(ditto), the question now is why blue-class white men are voting for her. That is the biggest mystery in this race. They should realize what die-hard feminists like Hillary, who so far did not ostensibly display that side of her during this campaign - as it ironically turned out that it was "white male" votes that count (much to the chigrin of feminists like Hirshman)-, really think of males. When is the last time she showed concern for men? When did she adressed issues specific to men? Equal pay? Health care reform? "The highest glass ceiling" non-sense? I don't think so. All are based on old, tired feminist dogma that put men as a culprit of all evils in the world. Neanderthall males fearful of modern, ambitious, capable women disriminates against them in wages in an effort to keep them as child-bearing machine. that's how Hirshman and Hillary think of men.

In her feminist utopia, men have no place to live or breathe except as servants of emanicipated femalekind or punching bags.

Obama boys' "sexism"

On the eve of big Pennsylvania primary, when it is becoming increasingly evident to everyone, including even the most ardent Hillary supporters, that Hillary’s (so-called) history-making run for President is coming to a close, younger generation of women are resorting to tactics now that have been preferred by their older sisters.


Those younger generation of women/feminists' tactics-as told by arche-type of older generation of feminist linda Hirshman is:

-Blame Obama-boys for sexism. It doesn’t matter whether you can point out evidence or not; as usual, women’s “gut” feeling, plus a simple fact that these Obama boys are not voting for a woman, is unmistakable sign of sexism. I thought women are better at describing their feelings, with all their superiority in language and literatures etc., but all these women can do is to say that they have this sort of “gut feeling” that sexism is alive and well, and this is the reason Hillary’s candidacy is now in the tank. And she keep repeating stories of those young women who have never heard their male colleagues or friends, families say anything explicitly "sexist", even by today's very low threshold for judging everything "sexist", all of them knew there's something about those men that tell them that they are closet "sexist" and try to make readers into believing that the sheer number of those "gut feeling", their collective weight, is somehow genuinely the evidence of "sexism". it shows that women are not good t logical thinking or have a sound reasoning; "gut feeling" will become a "fact" if it comes in large numbers; at some point there is no more a need for evidence or proof.

The articles (Hirshman's and the two articles mentioned in her article) also show that women, both old and young, are not accustomed to, or not mature enough, to distinguish between criticism and their imagined attacks by males based on (of course) sexism (what else?). They are simply not used to be on the receiving end of criticism or harsh words. they think that simply by throwing all-utility killer questions, "Is she being criticized because she is a woman?"(version 1), or "If she was a man, would they riticize in the same way?"(version 2), somehow men would be too scared to continue question/criticize women. It is a good, battle-tested tactic; nobody would be able to answer such purely hypothetical question definitively, and simply by not being able to answer definitively, the doubts were somehow substantiated; yes, "it is because she is a woman" that she is being criticized. The questions throw men off balance. The questions, once uttered, magically stops men from further questioning, women will have breathing space and time to recover.

In the lady-first western culture, women get used to having men do everything for them, give credit for them, and on top of that, take all the blames for them. before daydreaming that there will be vagina warriors in the oval office, femnists should first get used to women being question and criticized, becuase that's what's supposed to happen to people in power. The questioning of people in power is sfunction of healthy democracy. Feminists conveninently forget this very basic principel of democracy and think that all positions of power are to be offered to women just becuase they are women, and no question asked, and with no accompanying responsibilities. I think they will need 40 or 50 more Hillary-like politicians getting pummeled and scrutinized,and be mentall prepared for harsh but legitimate criticism.

The sad thing that become apparent from these three articles is that, with all the options and opportunities that were made available to them, women still decide which candidate to vote for on the basis for who their mothers vote for,(and will vote for opposing candidate as a way of saying "I hate yoou mommmeeee!!") and what their “gut feeling” tells them about the dark interior motive behind males voting pattern so that they can vote for the opposing candidate (again). And politicians are supposed to woo these voters. And media loves to portray women having decidedly big say in election, as a large voting bloc, swing voters, as a good, progressive thing.

The problem is not that consciously or unconscious sexism by Obama-boysm, as the author claims. The real problem is the mentality (unconscious) among those young women who simply can’t live with the fact that a woman politician could come with so much dirty political baggage. After all, they were taught all their lives in schools (especially in universities) that women are fair creatures, source of all goodness in the world while all the evil in the world are brought on by men, and that behind the sins of all the women who do bad things, there are men or male dominate society at large who caused women to do such bad things. They cannot stomach the fact that women politicians could be incompetent, or liar, or simply power-mongers. if they (are taught to) belive in the unbonded possibility of women, why are they so reluctant to belive in the women's possibility to be a horrible public figures?

Old white women's dying wish

It is quite interesting that quite a large number of very old white women innocently and almost pitifully say that they wish to see a woman President before they die.

We all want to help very old women, right? When we see them having trouble crossing a street, or carrying heavy stuffs, we stop whatever we are doing and help them first, right? And when these very old women, whose days on the earth are limited, have a wish that they want to see happen before they die, we want to do everything in our power to make it happen, right? And these old women want to see Hillary as president – what kind of a bastard would do anything that would remotely make that prospect smaller? We should be spend all our off-hours online-donating, volunteering, calling up voters, caucusing and voting for HER, right?

Maybe very old white men might have kissed their racist past goodbye and might have voted for Obama but many of them have died already. Most of the senior citizens are women. For them, they do not have to worry about race guilt, because they have another victimhood to hide under; women. It doesn’t matter that some of them might have been, or still is, very racist, and even might have been guilty of, especially in the South, accusing innocent black men of raping her (or just staring lusciously at her), and have white brothers beat them up back in the 50s and 60s when nobody questioned white women’s innocence and black men’s guilt.

But if you are very old citizen, and if you worry even a least bit about your grandkids or future generations, you should not be so selfish and impose Hillary on the rest of us. Allow me to be very blunt, (and impolite), but to put it directly, old people may die soon, even before HER inauguration, but all the rest of us, young and not so young and kids under voting age, would have to suffer the consequences of old people’s dyng wish for four / eight years. Is it fair? Is it the legacy that you want to leave for the succeeding generations? If you lived all your life being selfish, can’t you stop being selfish for a moment and think about your grandkids? If you lived all your life always being nice and fair, thinking about others, that is very great; can you do one more, final favour?

Another feminist orgy in Newsweek

What is all this feminist orgy going on in Newsweek? Obama could never had such a lopsided coverage in favour of him even after 11 consecutive wins, but Hillary does, even with one not-exactly-landslide win in predominantly white, old, blue-color State and barely holding onto a popular vote win (and possibly losing out on a delegate count) in what was once her firewall State. It looks like all the old, white female writers in the Newsweek came out from hiding from the long and disappointing February and chanting feminists roar. February must have felt like forever for these ladies who were frustrated by black men utterly clobbering old white woman in Presidential nomination race (it didn’t help that there was an additional day in the month). Gee, in old days, white women in the South could accuse innocent black men who they don’t like of rape and have their white brothers beat them up. That was only 40 years ago. What a difference time makes, now all they could do was their feminist heroin and her campaign fumbling. ( I wonder how many of those very old white women who innocently say “I want to see a woman President in my lifetime”, actually are guilty of accusation of false rape against black men in the 50’s and 60’s.)

Why is this feminist media orgy, and no party for Obama? Let’s see how many African-Americans are in Newsweek, as writers, staffers, etc. I don’t see many (in fact none of the opinion writers are black). Now let’s see how many women are there? Many. I don’t know how many more junior writers and staffers are women, but I suspect a lot of them. Those old white women in the Newsweek, just like in Ohio or Texas or almost all the States who had primaries and caucuses, are just expressing their preferences. As old feminist guards, they practice what they preach. They are writers and staffers in the Newsweek, one of the preeminent weekly magazines, and it is read by millions of people, Their articles and coverage have influence on what people talk and how people think. They use there position to advance their agenda. If their heroin sister finally got a moment to shine a little, blow it out of proportion. If it is for a good cause, such old and tired media principle as a balanced and objective reporting could wait a while. Plus, March is a women’s month, so what’s wrong with it? Plus, this is not the first time Newsweek’s women hijacked entire issue. It’s funny how Hillary whine about media bias, when in most of the media, Newsweek and others, you will see so many old white women type, well-educated, pant-suit wearing, shoulder-pat feminists.

Old white women's dying wish

Leading article from NY Times (on the web), a night after Obama’s another comprehensive win in overwhelmingly white and blue-collar state.

One woman’s response to often-repeated line by many old white women that justifies Hillary’s candidacy; ‘I want to see a woman president before I die,”

Her response; “But you know what? That’s a selfish reason to vote for a president just because you want to see a woman before you die,” she added. “What about the kids coming up? I feel we should vote for the young people.”

Good point. Right. Those old white ladies would die soon after Hilary became President, if their wish comes true. All the younger generations (probably anyone who are under 70?) will be stuck with old white ladies dying wishes for 4 years. Is it fair? They will leave the suffering and burden of Hillary presidency to all the rest of us and they will rest peacefully in the grave. Since when Presidential election became a means to grant old women’s dying wish?

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 . . .

Hillary's woman defence

So now it’s official that in the Democratic field for the Presidential race, we have six contenders, who discuss policy issues, trade questions and criticism at each other and could be and held responsible for one’s words and actions, and one who would only announce her policy and intentions but is above any criticism or question.

It portends what Hillary Presidency will look like, if it ever going to happen; she will only announce what she wants to do, or what her policy would be, and any criticism against her decisions or policies would be judged sexual discrimination and silenced by her cronies and liberal mainstream media. Maybe we should think again about whether America should elect someone only for the sake of achieving a diversity milestone and feel good about ourselves or if we want to elect someone who could be held accountable, who do not hide behind gender (or any other identity politic’s) victim card. U.S. Presidency is much, much more important than simply being a trophy for diversity movement. After all, isn’t it the cornerstone of democracy that citizens freely elect some one who is accountable to their constituents?

In a way Hillary is smart in letting her cronies do all the work of playing gender victim card, while she herself keep away from that kind of cheap trick. She could appear strong, statesmanlike, rising above the cheap gender card, all the while ensuring that her opponents and the media will think twice before leveling any criticism against her in the future. And it’s also a rare time that Ferraro could get a media spotlight, after her historic landslide defeat as a token woman candidate for Vice President of the U.S. She surely knows how to play the gender victim card very well because she was the foremost expert on this, in fact it is her only expertise in politics to this date, and her only qualification for VP candidacy was that she was a woman.

Nancy Peloci

Look what happens when you give too much power to women. They would savor it, abuse it, in a scale that would even eclipse the worst of male-kind.

It is even exacerbated by the fact that a gang of blind supporters who would respond with shrill cry of sex discrimination at the slightest hint of criticism on any actions, statement made by people born with XX genes.

YOU MUST VOTE for the Madame President

Here is a peice that goes "YOU HAVE TO VOTE HILLARY BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!!".

I amazed that the author of this article actually went so far as to say that guys (Obama and Edwards) cannot and should not be the President because they are “guys”. I think it’s OK for him to say these things without fear of repercussion because, first, he is are discriminating against men and it is sooooo OK in this country, and second, he is also a black, which means that he is not going to be fired since the management will be in trouble for diversity non-compliance for one less black face in the editorial room.

But one thing he may got right is that women can only vote for other women, because, well, they are women and do not have ability to weigh pros and cons of each candidacy and see deeply into policy alternatives offered by different candidates. Maybe those analytical traits, fair and balanced, belong only to men. Maybe women are a kind of species that could only see the sex of the candidates, could note only whether they speak in high tone, wear skirts, wear pink or red clothes, and have breasts and bigger hips. And if none of the candidates have breasts or large hips, then maybe, maybe look at policy issues. Maybe women are so myopic in their visions and entrapped in a feeling-based, analysis-free thinking that could only care about being in a very, very good mood on November 2008 over the fact that a woman finally become the President, but could not and do not care to think about the political, economic and social long-term consequences that the Hillary presidency might bring. And these people now comprise majority of American electorates – isn’t it a tragedy?

if you endorse the author's view, then you agree with the above statement.

What media is trying to do here is to frame the Clinton candidacy as a sort of referendum on women becoming the US President. Instead of asking what Hillary has done in the past and what she would do in the future, and whether it is good or bad for America, the questions are framed as "whether Americans are ready for Madame President?" or "Americans are sexist enough to not vote for Hillary?" This is a very shrewd tactics. Of course if questions are framed in these ways, most Americans, who do not want to be caught saying politicaly-incorrect thing, would answer that they are ready to elect a female president - but that does not necessarily mean that they want Hillary to be the one. But the media hastily treat this as people's endorsement of Hillary as the next President. I don't know how long this kind of CHEAP TRICK would work.

I would imagine that as Clinton's campaign starts to flounder, and trail behind Guilliani, she and her mediA allies would resort to usual "women" defence. A kind of defence that were in full display when French female presidential candidate Ms. Royal sank behind THE eventual and WELL-deserved winner Mr. Sarkozy in the polls right before the election. You know, "The media, the society are sexist, biased against women", "I was unfairly attacked for being a woman", or "Men are still afraid of women in power", that kind of usual emotional rhetoric favoured by feminists.

Newsweek's annual women & power orgy

It is a time for Newsweek’s annual (?) celebration of woman, an issue when all the female writers, editors, etc in the Newsweek come out to celebrate themselves, dance around, and feel good about themselves.

It is the “special” among “special reports” in the Newsweek, with unusually large spaces, or pages in the publication devoted to the issue. No other cover stories, or “special report” are given such huge coverage, because it is a topic of “super-special” or “extra-special” importance, and it is easy to see the reason why – why wouldn’t female editors devote just a few extra pages on a cause that make them feel better about themselves, make prospects of their future promotion bigger (women in power is the future of organization!), and advance their cause? A shortcut icon will be left for almost forever in its website to signify its uniquely special status of the topic.

It is also an opportunity for female writers and editors at the publication to mingle with so-called “women leaders” through interviews, etc; and exchange stories about the subtle or not-so-subtle discriminations they both face, whine about difficulty of achieving work-life balance (if female staffers at the Newsweek were ever married) and exchange tips on how to get ahead of men in a career race – I am sure women in the Newsweek are wishing that magazine's all 52 issues in a year could be devoted to the same topic! It is almost like a mass group therapy played out on a mass scale, on the pages of national news magazine.

You see what happens when “women take charge” - they came out to celebrate themselves to feel better.

With a considerable lead Hillary has gained over other Democratic contenders and possible Republican candidates in the polls, the Newsweek will no doubt notch up this kind of “women-leader” hype, to safeguard this lead and condition people into thinking that it is better to have a woman leader for the country and for your lives. Expect to see more special reports and articles that will portray Hillary positively, and her opponent, especially Guilliani, negatively. Expect to see a barrage of brainwashing articles that whispers you, or hypnotize you into thinking that women leaders are not only ok or good, but better than men. In fact the current issue took a small jab at this by suggesting that women governors are better at bi-partisan politics.

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

More on only WOMEN need apply

Here are the same article that gender feminist Jessica Neuwurth published in other newspapers in US and Canada, which I commented on 16 March in "Only WOMEN need apply"

Windsor Star, Canada 22 March


Houston Chronicle 3/17

Canton Repository Ohio, 19 March


Canton Repository Ohio, 16 March

Some cant take criticism

Female politicians always get away with anything they do or say by just uttering one of the following words; discrimination, harassment, gender-based, sexism, patriarchy.

Democratic frontrunner for the 2008 Presidential election, and a master of gender politics, Hillary Clinton is one of the most frequent user of this tactics. Of course when you make such deragatory comments about Republicans, you would draw a lot of criticism. But, girl, it was not a gender-based attack. It was rather mild, inhibited quips about such irresponsible and reckless comments uttered by such a high-office holder. If you were a man, you would get far harsher criticism from your opponents who do not have to worry about the consequences of looking to be criticizing women・ If you were a man, you could not sling completely baseless charge of gender-based・attack, because there is supposedly no such thing as gender-based attack against men, it goes in only one way, right? Well of course if you were a man, you couldnt marry Bill and became the First Lady, you political launching pad in the first place.

The only gender difference in this case is that, while male politicians would always have to face consequences of their words and actions and take responsibility in the end, female politicians can always get away with uttering the words, gender-based・and discrimination・ This is one of the biggest advantages that female politician have, and Hillary of course knows it best. She has mastered the art of accusation or insinuation of gender discrimination and employs it so tactfully and strategically, it could be now considered her biggest political asset.

Hillarys strategic use of gender victim card and medias willingness to make it into a big story creates two distinct categories of politicians; male politicians who are responsible and answerable to charges and female politicians, consequence / responsibility-free, and immune from criticism. American voters are presented with two such categories of politicians to choose from, and the current politically correct climate dictates that the politicians of the latter category (consequence-free females) be more represented in Senate and Congress.

Although male politicians have no chance of evading from the consequences of their actions by playing gender-victim card, the experiences of taking responsibility, facing consequences actually made male politicians tougher, more responsible, and better politicians, in their innate quality as well as to the eyes of public. By striving to be more responsible, cautious and Public also know that male politicians always have to answer to charges and critics as they have no gender-victim card to play with and thus would trust more on them.

On the other hand, paradoxically, female politicians, free from facing similar consequences that male politicians would otherwise have to face by simply uttering the word discrimination, havent had a chance to be trained in the same way as male politicians. Public would not trust politicians who do not take responsibility for what they say but would only scream gender discrimination, and whose questionable words and actions are not to be covered by mainstream media due to the prevailing politically correct atmosphere.

If feminists want to increase the number of women in politics, their often stated biggest goal in the movement (its not about equality anymore its about power grab) isnt it time for them to learn to take responsibility for what they say and do? It may hurt a bit, but it in the long run, it may help them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030700443.html