This should rank quite high in the list of hyperbolic rhetoric by feminists – “sexual harassment is a terrorism”. To be sure, the Slate’s XX bloggers are not the first one to employ the term “terrorism” to describe sexual harassment - there are many precedents – after all, feminists are the ones who are particularly prone to this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric among other leftist activists (I think some in-depth study and comparison on this topic would be interesting- who is the most militant in their verbiage – black activists, environmentalists, gay activists, animal rights activists, etc.?).
I guess feminists equate Sexual Harassment (SH) with terrorism since;
1) the trauma inflicted by SH to the women are so horrific and is on par with horror of real terrorism (the kind you see in Iraq and Afghanistan)
2) or just want to grab media attention to promote their cause by using the “T” word
On 1), I wonder if feminists are actually perpetuating “fragile women myth” by saying that women are so fragile that they are just as frightened by a few unwanted sexual advances are as they are frightened by roadside IED, etc.
Or may be it is that the feminsits who heard the story of another women sexually harassed are so shocked and distressed by the story that they are in the same mental state of victims of real terrorism, - who had IED blown off 30 yard away and see torn heads and limb flying in their faces. In other words, they are in perpetual state of paranoia.
Intersting line from the blog post:
“They'(Sexual harassment)re designed to keep women in the lower-paying jobs on the ladder.”
It’s good that you have another excuses or someone else (i.e. men of course) to blame for your low performance and non-competence which is really holding you back. It is also clearly an expression of deranged feminists’ paranoia. Because I’m not sure if these men who made unwanted sexual advances are doing so with a clear intent of keeping those women on lower paying job. If they wish to do so, they are other ways to do that.
Showing posts with label sexual harassment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexual harassment. Show all posts
Monday, January 05, 2009
Monday, December 17, 2007
Sexual harassment between politicians in Canada
This is what happens when you have loads of, or to use feminists' favorite line, "critical mass" of female politicians. She is doing merely what her ideology tells her to do; reduce male politicians as much as possible, since, nothing is more important than increasing women's share in politics, or, in other words, again to use their catch phrase, "empowering women". In their eternal fight to reduce men's presence from any socially significant arena, the charges of sexual harassment only becomes yet another tool.
Thus, it doesn't matter whether the male politician was only looking at his private computer, or whether the female politician was in fact violating his privacy, or whether in fact the material he was looking at was sexually explicit or not. The only thing that matter in this case, at least to politically-correct mainstream media, ,was that the female politician "felt" that there was something wrong in his computer, and the fact that sexual harassment complaint was made. And they were looking only for one thing: to kick another male out from the Canadian legislature, and possibly replace him with ‘a woman”, to drive up female gender ratio a notch. And in the way, they might have figured that they would even be able to highlight the issue of sexual harassment again, focusing this time on sexual harassment by high-ranking men, and against high-ranking woman, as well as against women well past their prime age.
The definition of sexual harassment has been on the constant expansion; gone were the days when strict traditional “quid pro quo” type was the definition and now we are entering the time when vindictive women or women with agenda would go all the way, even sneaking into men’s private computer or correspondence to see the slightest hint of “sexism” and claim that they were victimized by it.
Thus, it doesn't matter whether the male politician was only looking at his private computer, or whether the female politician was in fact violating his privacy, or whether in fact the material he was looking at was sexually explicit or not. The only thing that matter in this case, at least to politically-correct mainstream media, ,was that the female politician "felt" that there was something wrong in his computer, and the fact that sexual harassment complaint was made. And they were looking only for one thing: to kick another male out from the Canadian legislature, and possibly replace him with ‘a woman”, to drive up female gender ratio a notch. And in the way, they might have figured that they would even be able to highlight the issue of sexual harassment again, focusing this time on sexual harassment by high-ranking men, and against high-ranking woman, as well as against women well past their prime age.
The definition of sexual harassment has been on the constant expansion; gone were the days when strict traditional “quid pro quo” type was the definition and now we are entering the time when vindictive women or women with agenda would go all the way, even sneaking into men’s private computer or correspondence to see the slightest hint of “sexism” and claim that they were victimized by it.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Cheap publicity stunt
Spokeswoman for the Bloomberg got it exactly right. IT IS a publicity stunt and the ploy to extort more money. Nothing else.
What kind of people would think that they are entitled to 486 million dollars for the some discrimination? That’s 162 million dollars each!! For some phychological stress that those women alleged to have experienced for the alleged sexual harassment!! They must be super-prestine people since a small psychological stress on their inflated by ultra-fragile feminine ego could take 162 million dollars to fix. If they suffer a genuine psychological stress that many men suffer, as a result of false domestic violence charges, or phony sexual harassment charges flung as a tactical ploy like in this case, they should be receiving 900 trillion dollars each! (I don’t know the unit above trillion)
I think the money amount sought by the 3 women is to a large extent determined by how much these women (and their lawyers of course) think that the Bloomberg corporation is capable of paying. They must have looked at the financial book of the corporation. Not the amount that the women think would be appropriate to compensate for their own alleged suffering caused by the alleged discrimination. In other words, IT IS A EXTORTION.
Note that there is no quote attributed to Mike Bloomberg in the plaintiff’s document. Instead, they blamed “culture” that "fostered, condoned and perpetuated” hostile working environment for women. Wow, sounds very evil, uh?
Like many other bogus sexual harassment lawsuits against large corporations, the suit simply refers to corporate “culture” as a culprit. This is a smart tactical move, as it achieves two things. First, it makes filing of SH lawsuits dramatically easier as it does not require corroboration by hard evidence. It is a convenient charge when there is no evidence at hand to present, or when there is actually no such discrimination, but it allows you go ahead and press charge anyway. The affected women’s perception that such culture exists is everything, and believe me, women after huge financial gain could feel anything under any circumstances. And of course their feeling is absolute and final, and no one, especially men, are supposed to question it.
Second, it allows women to blame not only the person who may or may not have undertaken such discriminatory acts, who tend to be their immediate bosses and not very high up in the rank, but senior management, the president or owner of a company as well and ultimately the entire company, because a one can assume that the “culture” would permeate throughout the company and partly or wholly reflect the culture or thinking of top management. Thus it drastically expands the scope of the discrimination and rev up the compensatory money their could expect, from a range of thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars (in this case, hundreds of millions)
This is a charge that could be thrown only against men. Just as people started talking about the possibility of Bloomberg running as an independent candidate for US President, a cheap political ploy like this was leveled against him. Guilliani should keep in mind that as his Presidential prospects grow, and if he is chosen as Republican candidate, he could expect to face a barrage of gender-ideology based lawsuits (sexual harassment, or violence) who were bent on sabotaging his campaign and on installing the first female President.
What kind of people would think that they are entitled to 486 million dollars for the some discrimination? That’s 162 million dollars each!! For some phychological stress that those women alleged to have experienced for the alleged sexual harassment!! They must be super-prestine people since a small psychological stress on their inflated by ultra-fragile feminine ego could take 162 million dollars to fix. If they suffer a genuine psychological stress that many men suffer, as a result of false domestic violence charges, or phony sexual harassment charges flung as a tactical ploy like in this case, they should be receiving 900 trillion dollars each! (I don’t know the unit above trillion)
I think the money amount sought by the 3 women is to a large extent determined by how much these women (and their lawyers of course) think that the Bloomberg corporation is capable of paying. They must have looked at the financial book of the corporation. Not the amount that the women think would be appropriate to compensate for their own alleged suffering caused by the alleged discrimination. In other words, IT IS A EXTORTION.
Note that there is no quote attributed to Mike Bloomberg in the plaintiff’s document. Instead, they blamed “culture” that "fostered, condoned and perpetuated” hostile working environment for women. Wow, sounds very evil, uh?
Like many other bogus sexual harassment lawsuits against large corporations, the suit simply refers to corporate “culture” as a culprit. This is a smart tactical move, as it achieves two things. First, it makes filing of SH lawsuits dramatically easier as it does not require corroboration by hard evidence. It is a convenient charge when there is no evidence at hand to present, or when there is actually no such discrimination, but it allows you go ahead and press charge anyway. The affected women’s perception that such culture exists is everything, and believe me, women after huge financial gain could feel anything under any circumstances. And of course their feeling is absolute and final, and no one, especially men, are supposed to question it.
Second, it allows women to blame not only the person who may or may not have undertaken such discriminatory acts, who tend to be their immediate bosses and not very high up in the rank, but senior management, the president or owner of a company as well and ultimately the entire company, because a one can assume that the “culture” would permeate throughout the company and partly or wholly reflect the culture or thinking of top management. Thus it drastically expands the scope of the discrimination and rev up the compensatory money their could expect, from a range of thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars (in this case, hundreds of millions)
This is a charge that could be thrown only against men. Just as people started talking about the possibility of Bloomberg running as an independent candidate for US President, a cheap political ploy like this was leveled against him. Guilliani should keep in mind that as his Presidential prospects grow, and if he is chosen as Republican candidate, he could expect to face a barrage of gender-ideology based lawsuits (sexual harassment, or violence) who were bent on sabotaging his campaign and on installing the first female President.
NY Knicks, MSG and sexual harassment lawsuit
Jurors' verdict was out on the famous sexual harassment (SH) lawsuit against New York Knicks coach.There are a few articles on NY Times, here, here and One more.
Well, actually the verdict was out when the moment the suit was filed as the plaintif was “black woman”, a demografic status that gives automatic win in laswuits in this politically corret society. From there the real focus was rather on how to trumpet this issue as evidence of enduring sexism in the workplace, how women are discriminated, and other usual feminism issues. The large payout to her is of course good for her (who doesn’t need money), but in grander scheme of things it facilitates redistribution of wealth from men (who owns and control MSG and NY Knicks) to a “woman”.
Why does supposedly strong, independent, and successful trail-brazing woman have to go so whiny and need more than 11 million dollars to heal her wounds (and 10 million more in the waiting), a dent on her super-inflated ego that is cultured as a result of being educated and living in this country which is filled with toxic influence of man-hating brand of feminism. The ego and self-importance of these so-called “strong, independent” women are so inflated, so much so that in their own fanatasy land, their own inability to live up to the requirement of senior positions that they were affirmative-actioned into are conveniently replaced with so-called gender-discrimination, and somehow become a rallying cry for more women in senior position.
Great financial bonanza for the plaintiff and her feminist lawyers. I guess they could use the money to set uo a fund or something to continue their moral crusade against men.
The large amount awarded to the woman plaintiff is to a large extent informed by feminist worldview that large corporations represnt maleness and therefore patriarhy, with all its hierarchy, structure, power and money, and therefore needs to be ripped of as extensively as possible as opportunity provides, and re-distribute to women, just to get little bit more “even” in financial terms in the ongoing gender war. I wonder how will they think if more and more women join large corporations as they do in recent days, would corporations still be targets of extortion through sexual discrmination charges or will their thinking change?
The charge of declining performace of the plaintiff will not stick in the court of course since in progressive liberal views, the criteria of evaluating perfomance would no longer be based on such male values as efficiency or productivity, but on more “women-centered” attributes, and ultimately, just being a woman and come to office.
That is already a super-achievement by itself because of the so-called “role-model” effect it will have on other women and girls. This should be valued above anything else, including such boring and worldly values as yielding more ptrofits or enhancing corporate productivity.
This is a truly remarkable, memorable day for gender-feminists. First, as a background, they have installed a black woman as a senior executive earning 260k per year in a large company just for born into right gender (and a race). Second they were able to rip over 10 million dollars off from MSG and thereby enriching the coffers of plaintiff and radical feminist law firms. (close to 10 millions more in sight). Third, they could play out the entire saga on public eye, and “raised awareness” on the issue of sexual harassment with most liberal mainstream media putting up op-ed and articles” regurgitating their righteous moral stance on the issue. The sexual harassment industry will no doubt welcome this publicity, and their list of clients (plaintiffs) and potential target companies for litigation/extortion will be miles long.
Well, actually the verdict was out when the moment the suit was filed as the plaintif was “black woman”, a demografic status that gives automatic win in laswuits in this politically corret society. From there the real focus was rather on how to trumpet this issue as evidence of enduring sexism in the workplace, how women are discriminated, and other usual feminism issues. The large payout to her is of course good for her (who doesn’t need money), but in grander scheme of things it facilitates redistribution of wealth from men (who owns and control MSG and NY Knicks) to a “woman”.
Why does supposedly strong, independent, and successful trail-brazing woman have to go so whiny and need more than 11 million dollars to heal her wounds (and 10 million more in the waiting), a dent on her super-inflated ego that is cultured as a result of being educated and living in this country which is filled with toxic influence of man-hating brand of feminism. The ego and self-importance of these so-called “strong, independent” women are so inflated, so much so that in their own fanatasy land, their own inability to live up to the requirement of senior positions that they were affirmative-actioned into are conveniently replaced with so-called gender-discrimination, and somehow become a rallying cry for more women in senior position.
Great financial bonanza for the plaintiff and her feminist lawyers. I guess they could use the money to set uo a fund or something to continue their moral crusade against men.
The large amount awarded to the woman plaintiff is to a large extent informed by feminist worldview that large corporations represnt maleness and therefore patriarhy, with all its hierarchy, structure, power and money, and therefore needs to be ripped of as extensively as possible as opportunity provides, and re-distribute to women, just to get little bit more “even” in financial terms in the ongoing gender war. I wonder how will they think if more and more women join large corporations as they do in recent days, would corporations still be targets of extortion through sexual discrmination charges or will their thinking change?
The charge of declining performace of the plaintiff will not stick in the court of course since in progressive liberal views, the criteria of evaluating perfomance would no longer be based on such male values as efficiency or productivity, but on more “women-centered” attributes, and ultimately, just being a woman and come to office.
That is already a super-achievement by itself because of the so-called “role-model” effect it will have on other women and girls. This should be valued above anything else, including such boring and worldly values as yielding more ptrofits or enhancing corporate productivity.
This is a truly remarkable, memorable day for gender-feminists. First, as a background, they have installed a black woman as a senior executive earning 260k per year in a large company just for born into right gender (and a race). Second they were able to rip over 10 million dollars off from MSG and thereby enriching the coffers of plaintiff and radical feminist law firms. (close to 10 millions more in sight). Third, they could play out the entire saga on public eye, and “raised awareness” on the issue of sexual harassment with most liberal mainstream media putting up op-ed and articles” regurgitating their righteous moral stance on the issue. The sexual harassment industry will no doubt welcome this publicity, and their list of clients (plaintiffs) and potential target companies for litigation/extortion will be miles long.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Sexual Harassment in Ohio State University
This story may sound extreme or simply bizarre to most people, and it is indeed so; putting in a recommended reading list a few of books written by conservative authors is sexual harassment (SH)? Just a little more of this absurdity would enable bringing SH lawsuits against listing of books written by Friedrich Hayek or Frances Fukuyama as they are also “conservatives” or whoever the bra-burning, tree-hugging, Trotzkyst professors that reside in today’s American universities hate.
It looks like SH is now being utilized as a cover for censorship or book-burning. It is just another function that seems to have been added to the omnipotent SH, in addition to its very useful and frequently-used functions as kicking powerful men out of job (and replace with - yes, women!), blackmailing, extortion of money and funding of the SH industry. In addition to these explicit (and horrible) consequences that charges or threat of charges of SH can bring about, it has more quiet, subtle and sometimes even unnoticed effects as well. It boosts women’s employment prospect as hiring managers would have second thoughts about hiring males - after all all males are very vulnerable to charges of SH, in which case companies have no choice to take the severest action for fear of feminists’ reprisal - company would rather hire female who would never been shot down by the same charges. It also put males under constant fear and pressure, as they feel that they are under constant scrutiny of feminist police, that staying clear of charges of SH that is being thrown at in more and more casual manner, would mean that you have to behave like either priest or hermit.
Although in this case the charge was brought about by gay male professor, the essence of SH is that it is a feminists’ choice of weapon to fight against patriarchy. Thus, it could be extended, interpreted and re-interpreted whenever and wherever feminists see fit in their fight against patriarchy.
It looks like SH is now being utilized as a cover for censorship or book-burning. It is just another function that seems to have been added to the omnipotent SH, in addition to its very useful and frequently-used functions as kicking powerful men out of job (and replace with - yes, women!), blackmailing, extortion of money and funding of the SH industry. In addition to these explicit (and horrible) consequences that charges or threat of charges of SH can bring about, it has more quiet, subtle and sometimes even unnoticed effects as well. It boosts women’s employment prospect as hiring managers would have second thoughts about hiring males - after all all males are very vulnerable to charges of SH, in which case companies have no choice to take the severest action for fear of feminists’ reprisal - company would rather hire female who would never been shot down by the same charges. It also put males under constant fear and pressure, as they feel that they are under constant scrutiny of feminist police, that staying clear of charges of SH that is being thrown at in more and more casual manner, would mean that you have to behave like either priest or hermit.
Although in this case the charge was brought about by gay male professor, the essence of SH is that it is a feminists’ choice of weapon to fight against patriarchy. Thus, it could be extended, interpreted and re-interpreted whenever and wherever feminists see fit in their fight against patriarchy.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
NBA coach troubled by ills of feminism
Another case of high-profile sexual harassment allegation, this time involving New York Knick’s President Isiah Thomas. Thomas and his lawyers are right on the mark – the allegations, just like many other high-profile sexual harassment cases – is “a blatant and cynical attempt …. to get a large sum of money”, by an individual “seeking a financial windfall”, who “use ..(Thomas) as a pawn for their financial gain,".
And looks like the accuser is not the first time offender of politically and financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits, but a repeat offender. It’s also interesting to note that the reason this women was fired a while ago was her “inability to fulfill professional responsibilities”. I told you that hiring of people, especially to senior positions, based on gender and race, is not good.
Sometimes I think filing of sexual harassment lawsuits by old, fat, or/and ugly women serves to fulfill hidden, subconscious desire of these women to be recognized sexually, as such cases, if substantiated, would underscore that the accusing women are attractive enough to get “unwanted”, random sexual advances by men despite their age, look or weight.
Anyway, this case all the ills brought about by modern feminism; an old, incomptent woman hired for a senior position based solely on her gender repeatedly filing financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits against high-profile person.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600279.html
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-nba-knicks-thomas.html
And looks like the accuser is not the first time offender of politically and financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits, but a repeat offender. It’s also interesting to note that the reason this women was fired a while ago was her “inability to fulfill professional responsibilities”. I told you that hiring of people, especially to senior positions, based on gender and race, is not good.
Sometimes I think filing of sexual harassment lawsuits by old, fat, or/and ugly women serves to fulfill hidden, subconscious desire of these women to be recognized sexually, as such cases, if substantiated, would underscore that the accusing women are attractive enough to get “unwanted”, random sexual advances by men despite their age, look or weight.
Anyway, this case all the ills brought about by modern feminism; an old, incomptent woman hired for a senior position based solely on her gender repeatedly filing financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits against high-profile person.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600279.html
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-nba-knicks-thomas.html
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Of sexual harassment and gender discrimination
It’s good to see that there is still a man with common sense, uninfected by politically correct virus, is writing pieces for Newsweek, a kind of news magazine which routinely put up advocacy articles and special cover stories to promote various feminists’ agenda (do anyone still remember “When women lead?” ?)
The author’s view on the recent spate of crackdowns by the Wall Street firms on the use of adult-entertainment facility by its employees is a result of PC hysteria. It is true. But there is more to it. Such allegations and lawsuits on sexual harassment and gender discrimination is not really about harassment or discrimination, it is about women getting back at big companies, which they see as a symbol of patriarchy and male power. The gender feminists ideology posits that such male dominated institution must be weakened, disbanded and replaced by female-dominated institution, to achieve true gender “equality” (yeah, of course). In their eternal quest for power, control and money, lawsuits, or threat to bring lawsuits, are the quickest, easiest and most effective way to redistribute millions or billions of money from company (male domain) to women employee and female lawyers who specialize in this area, and any foundation or NGO or whatever they set up with the payoff money to promote agenda (female domain), and oust male execs from their position and fill in the position with one of their cohorts (how difficult it would be for companies to replace the man just fired for sexual harassment with yet another man?). This is the quickest way to correct the so-called “gender wage gap” and increase the percentage of women in executive positions, the two top priorities for feminists and women executives, far more important than creating profits for company they work for or for the US economy as a whole. Of course it is the fastest way because you don’t need to actually work hard and produce results which they seem to be most reluctant to do or largely incapable of doing, but you just need to whine in the court or to the media and who are more than willing to take up your case. This is why they just can’t stop bringing lawsuits and no matter how much companies bend over backward to create PC workplace, feminists will keep inventing new kind of discrimination, new kinds of harassment, so that they can continue this cycle of redistribution of power and money through litigation. They will keep honing their sensitivity so that their sexual harassment/discrimination antenna can pick up the most subtle hint of sexual connotation and turn it into multi million/billon dollar sexual harassment/discrimination lawsuit.
I hope that the author can continue to write articles like this one for Newsweek. That is, I hope that he can withstand the avalanche of e-mails (hate-mail) and other more direct or subtle organized harassment campaign by gender feminists this author will most likely face as a result of publishing this article.
The author’s view on the recent spate of crackdowns by the Wall Street firms on the use of adult-entertainment facility by its employees is a result of PC hysteria. It is true. But there is more to it. Such allegations and lawsuits on sexual harassment and gender discrimination is not really about harassment or discrimination, it is about women getting back at big companies, which they see as a symbol of patriarchy and male power. The gender feminists ideology posits that such male dominated institution must be weakened, disbanded and replaced by female-dominated institution, to achieve true gender “equality” (yeah, of course). In their eternal quest for power, control and money, lawsuits, or threat to bring lawsuits, are the quickest, easiest and most effective way to redistribute millions or billions of money from company (male domain) to women employee and female lawyers who specialize in this area, and any foundation or NGO or whatever they set up with the payoff money to promote agenda (female domain), and oust male execs from their position and fill in the position with one of their cohorts (how difficult it would be for companies to replace the man just fired for sexual harassment with yet another man?). This is the quickest way to correct the so-called “gender wage gap” and increase the percentage of women in executive positions, the two top priorities for feminists and women executives, far more important than creating profits for company they work for or for the US economy as a whole. Of course it is the fastest way because you don’t need to actually work hard and produce results which they seem to be most reluctant to do or largely incapable of doing, but you just need to whine in the court or to the media and who are more than willing to take up your case. This is why they just can’t stop bringing lawsuits and no matter how much companies bend over backward to create PC workplace, feminists will keep inventing new kind of discrimination, new kinds of harassment, so that they can continue this cycle of redistribution of power and money through litigation. They will keep honing their sensitivity so that their sexual harassment/discrimination antenna can pick up the most subtle hint of sexual connotation and turn it into multi million/billon dollar sexual harassment/discrimination lawsuit.
I hope that the author can continue to write articles like this one for Newsweek. That is, I hope that he can withstand the avalanche of e-mails (hate-mail) and other more direct or subtle organized harassment campaign by gender feminists this author will most likely face as a result of publishing this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)