No Doubts: Women Are Better Managers -REALLY!!!???

It’s interesting even the majority of people who read liberal New York Times (and therefore presumably are very liberal) admonish Clark’s sexist view.

At least from this short interview we can identify a number of traits and characteristics that make Carol Smith (or women in general) a bad manager.

-Still holding onto a lesson from the 6th grade as the most important leadership lesson of her life. Remember, Carol, that running a large corporation is entirely different from the 6th grade assignment. And she seems have never encountered another leadership experience since that “important” project a few decades ago.

-inability to back up claims with sources and data.
“Hands down women are better (managers). There’s no contest.”
Because, according to her “Men love to hear themselves talk….” And men joins meeting late because they want to finish football talks or jokes first….??? I’m not sure if there were a couple of paragraphs missing from this article due to editing error or she really didn’t have any other supporting evidence.

-women take things personally
Carol Clark herself admits it.

-makes hiring decision based on gut instinct.
Her word “Don’t hire somebody you don’t like.” says it all.

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.

Best article on feminists' whining on Hllary's defeat

Wow. This is one of the best articles written by anyone in the media about the never-ending feminists whining. I am somehow relieved to learn that people could still voice their criticims of women and feminism -I thought it was criminalized years ago-oh that was in Sweden, feminists' paradise? Or was it in Spain which introduced law forcing men to do housework and the only political news from the country is that pregnant young woman becoming the defence minister, just for the diversity's sake? The next prime minister has to do even more acrobatic appointment, like appointing three-legged half-human, half-sheep as foreign minister to further elevate the country's record on "diversity"...Sorry, back to the point, Hitchenson rules!!!

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.

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.

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.

Gender-based appointment

Another example of “gender-based” appointment….Liberian female president picked a person who fled the country a decade ago and have no experience in policing since then, a teacher in New Jersey!, to assume the position of chief police in the country. This show the extent to which feminists would go to ensure that powerful and prominent post will not go to men. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031000557.html

Merkel and more discrimination

There seems to be a pattern that the more women achieve something, especially things that fit nicely into feminists’ plan of action to bring about matriarchy on the planet earth, such as winning elections or becoming the first women to this or do that, the more feminists will complain about gender discrimination. Quite expectedly, or even a bit belatedly if you consider feminists zealotry to exploit any opportunity to advance their agenda, European edition of the Time magazine carried a cover story about the sorry state of women in Germany. I guess this story could have been published whether Merkel captured the Chancellor post or not - if she lost it, after spectacularly losing almost all of the wide lead that her conservative party had over its main rivals – something that not many male politicians in Germany had done in the past (but somehow mysteriously was able to hold on the post of the party leader and then eventually become the Chancellor -again something that not many male politicians were able to do in the past), Time will claim gender bias for the her not being able to become the Chancellor. In the article, as in any other article of this sort, feminists do two things at once, trumpet women’s achievement in Germany (Merkel) and whine about the sorry state of women in general in Germany.

The kind of statistics used in the article are all too familiar to American readers (gender wage gap, relation between the number of child day care and women’s participation in politics, percentage of women in politics, business, etc, etc), and women who took up non-traditional, stereotype-shattering occupations are glorified. It is the cookie-cutter feminist advocacy article.

It’s a little confusing when feminists refer to Sweden and other Scandinavian countries as a model for gender equality, when many Swedish feminists are whining about gender discrimination in their country and how men are comparable to pigs and so on. Well, actually in Sweden, feminists whining will go much further and female politicians discuss seriously about what to do with Swedish men who take almost as much parental leaves as mommy do but spend far less time actually holding and caring babies – what’s the solution – passing a law that that requires if women hold babies for 5 minutes and smile at him for 10 minutes, men have to do the same or more? It’s a country where when men travel abroad, a secret police of sort would follow you so that they can arrest (arrest! a number of legal arrangements between Sweden and host countries to this effect have been made) any Swedes who try to make use of local brothels. Well, feminists may want to look up to this great country.

Feminists’ logic in this advocacy article is, as usual, shaky, to put it mildly. For example, if the German economy is doing so well and is so big (the third biggest in the world) and their science is so advanced compared to other countries, what exactly is the problem? Actually couldn’t you say that overrepresentation of men in these areas is responsible for strong economic growth and academic quality? Certainly the under-representation of women is not a problem in any way with regard to the economic growth and technological advancement, because presently women are under-represented and these two areas in question are doing great. Wouldn’t it be that if we were to artificially boost the women’s number in top business circles and academia by instating various social engineering schemes, it would actually hurt the economy and academia? Would anyone have ever given a thought that the absence of various social engineering schemes, such as affirmative action or positive discrimination, tapering or lowering of criteria and employing less qualified people over more qualified people actually hurt the competitive edge?

Liberia fiasco

Coupled with another gender feminist taking the highest office in a country in Latin America, this news from Liberia, Africa would mark January 16, 2006 as a very stark, grim day for all the men in the world. Bascially, this election in Liberia is completely a UN-international feminists coalition-staged election to steal the presidency from a former soccer star George Weah. The lopsided support to Johnson by UN officials, both formerly and informerly, while putting up fake pretense of neutrality, was so obvious during the entire election campaign during both general election and (even more so) run-off campaign. You can almost see grinning in the faces of UN officials when they talk about the prospect of Johnson winning before the election. No wonder George Weah's supporters are so pissed off. If Liberia relapsed into instability and turmoil, who is going to take responsibility? UN? Feminists? I'm sure they are going to blame on men.

Chilean President - It's a girl!

Quite shameful that Chile has elected a woman president - a woman who only know to say "I'm a woman, I'm woman, (hear me roar!) - according to BBC, her top priority after assuming the office will be to name half of her cabinet women - pretty much all of her priority and policy during her term, I suppose.

Expect loads of bandwagon reporting from BBC and other left-leaning feminists - worshipping media about how women are changing politics or Latin America or world politics or universe or whatever they wish they could change - or America should follow suit or how women needs to be mo respresented in politcs or women this and women that.......

So the Angela Merkel officially became a new leader of Germany. Major news media (BBC, New York Times) seizes this opportunity to emphasize the "first female" part of this event and with such strong action words as "takes charge", a poitically correct image for women. Merkel was able to survive the election debacle because she is a darling of western news media..OK, she may not be a gender-feminist type but at least she IS a woman. Expect many advocacy pieces being churned out by major news media in coming days. (in the tune of.. OK, there is a female leader in Germany, why not in the United States of A............or in a more subtle and curcuitous manner, such as perception of Americans towards female top leader is changing... ?)