Problem with women taking charge

Is a woman taking a helm at the nightly news broadcast a sign of diminishing importance and quality of the nightly news broadcast, or does it simply accelerate it? Probably both.

In other words, to put it more generally, is women taking a helm at any organization or event, a sign that that organization or event is diminishing in its importance and its quality, or does it merely start such decline, or accelerate?

I believe that one unmistakable sign that a particular organization is losing its competitive edge and importance on a way to become being inconsequential is when you see women taking charge there.

Because women taking charge could mean in general one of two things:

- That organization has become too politically-correct that it started to value historical, newsworthy value of appointing women than getting top-notch talent.

- That the organization has become too unattractive for truly able males and only women and second-rate males would want to jump in.

Either way, there is little prospect for that organization in the future.

Once women take the top post, it would set in motion a vicious cycle. Once people (and people I mean both men and women) see a woman at the top of that organization, they start to take it lightly. In most cases it is difficult to see the direct evidence of this (since it could be easily labeled as sexist), but it happens nonetheless. People vote with their feet, i.e. in this case, stop watching the programme, buying stuffs from them, etc.

This happens as humans are biologically not programmed to see women as leaders- during long evolutionary process that humans have had to go through from the age of primitive to modern times, men have almost always been leaders and with a good reason. It is thus imprinted in humans’ DNA to see men as leaders – leaders of tribes, clans, groups, in the old times to leaders of countries and corporations in modern time.

As such, seeing women as leaders is counterintuitive, goes against something coded in human’s DNA, and no amount of political indoctrination based on feminist mythology – that men and women are exactly the same, (or women are even better) – could change that. Sure, you can have men (and women) go through gender sensitivity training and at the end of training have (or force) them to say “women and men are the same”, or “women make better leaders”, but they know that that is not the case. (but of course saying that openly is something like saying Kim Il-Sung is a dickhead in North Korea). Even if some naïve men believe that feminists dogma, they should be feeling some unease, since deep down at sub-conscious level their DNA is telling them that there is something wrong.

The NY Times is of course aware of this declining importance of nightly news

“Women anchors may turn out to be what women doctors once were in the Soviet Union, a majority without status or financial advantage.

Nowadays, viewers tend to treat network evening news shows less as a source of information than as a weather vane.”

At the same time, she does not miss opportunity to do some chest thumping

"And Mr. Williams, who ascended to the position of NBC anchor on the shoulders of an old boys’ club, now has to reposition himself as a member of a persecuted minority, the white male anchorman."

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.

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.

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?

Women bosses cause mor stress - and society needs to change!?

I’m sure there must have been a tremendous pressure (and temptation) to manipulate this experiments outcome to fit the current PC agenda, such as

-women feel much better and empowered and motivated and encouraged under female boss;

-women feel threatened and harassed under male boss (and actually were in many cases);

-men started to sexually harass female boss;

-men started to conspire with male boss on how best to preserve male privilidge, etc.

I give kudos for the researchers for at least not giving into those societal pressure or temptations.

But still it seems that they couldn’t resist the inner liberal-progressive urge to somehow attribute the results to discrimination again.

So according to them, women feel more stress under female boss than male boss, because-
Stereotype hold women to be more caring and women workers are surprised and stressed to find out that their female bosses are not like their stereotype-image of caring women and instead conforming to male archetype, or that female bosses themselves are under stress working in male-dominated business world and that stress trick down to female subordinates.

Good work. Very good imagination - they can be a card-carrying feminists from today. Only one explanation provided. No call to increase more male bosses who seem to cause less stress for both female and male workers, but only some pondering on how to change society so that these hated stress-causing female bosses could be more acceptable to both male and female workers. I’m sure if the results have been reverese, i.e. male bosses are found out to be more stress-causing for workers, feminists would be ecstatic (to the point of almost reaching orgasm!) and triumphant that this is the final and indisputable evidence why there should be less male bosses and more female bosses.

Fussy feminists...

Feminists are just so good at inventing a new kind of "ceiling" one after another; originally there was a glass ceiling, and then "this" ceiling, then "that" ceiling and now a "mirror" ceiling...

And it is so hard to please feminists!! I mean there are so many variations of feminists that there are always one or two tiny factions of them left not 100% satisfied and who would start hauling "sexism" charges randomly.

I think at least recent (over) exposure of Palin in media must have satisfied feminsts who are; 1) hell-bent on counting the number of times women appear in the news, or more preceisly, a number of times women in leadership roles are portrayed positively by the media, and 2) whose only hobby in life is beancounting, countng the number of men and women in senior political positions. But Gosh there are more complicated, or spophisticated, die-hard feminists like Judith who are not happy until they see "their" kind of woman (meaning ultra-liberal) assuming the Office of the U.S. President (not number two and deputy to a man) while all the media (from liberal to conservative to major national media to local media to everything else) paint the woman in completely positive tone without the slightest hint of sexism (almost impossible feat given the astronomically high threshold for judging sexism).

Now look at Palin. Yes she is a WOMAN. She passed the first and the most important litmus test, but don't forget that there are hundreds of other litmus tests that the woman must pass... and let's see how she fares... She is conservative! a Republican! married! with kids! owns a gun! and cheered by men, especialy conservative, Republican, gun-toting men! for the reason JUDITH DISAPPROVES!!!

Palin failed all tests other than the first one and no wonder Judith is going bananas...

If Judith or feminists don’t like Palin to be on a Republican ticket, then I’m all for replacing her with a man, any man, but feminists out there don’t whine about Republican not giving woman a fair chance, blah, blah blah,

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!!!

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

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 . . .

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.

World Tourism Day is a day to....

Just like any other governmental agencies in any Western developed countries, this international organization called the United Nations is completely and thoroughly brainwashed by ideologies of gender feminism. You would think that the World Tourism Day is a day to promote more tourism, or raise awareness about the eco-tourism, if we were to follow the trend in the industry.

NO.

Once it come under the purview of UN and its affiliate agencies, of which the World tourism Organization (WTO) is one, it cannot escape the feminists dogma; it needs to be reinterpreted in the liking of gender feminists. So the day has been transformed (or hijacked) into a day when people are forced to celebrate “on-line photo contest to show women in leadership roles in the tourism sector.” - in the familiar vein of power-hungry UN feminists number –one obsession; taking more leadership positions.

Note that there is not even a call for, for example, more women-friendly travel accommodation, transportation, etc., which is more modest but still a “feminist” enough argument, but they went straight to demand more leadership position in tourism sector, as if they don’t even have a patience to hide their true intent.

And empowerment of women and education for girls? What exactly do these two have to do with tourism? Again, not much with the tourism itself. But they help the aim of women trying to attain more senior position in business industry, I guess.

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

Only WOMAN need apply

Massive campaign to choose the next Secretary-General of the United Nations based on gender, not capacity nor qualification, has been in full swing with active and willing cooperation of liberal media. While governments and people around the world are marveling about, in a more serious manner, what kind of person should be leading the United Nations in the coming years and who would be most qualified to take up the job after Kofi Annan, current Secretary-General, leaves the office in December, feminist organizations are trying to put forward their candidates for the post, - the ones with female organs. The short list that Jessica Neuwirth, president of the Equality Now, has presented in her article is impressive indeed, (a judge on the International Criminal Court ?), the most impressive about her short list is that all the candidates possess one MUST-HAVE ITEM for future leaders in this increasingly politically correct world – female organs. Sorry to repeat these rather untasteful words, but there is really no other words that are common to these candidates, - uh wait, how about irrelevant or inconsequential?

While their assertion that the Secretary-General has to have female organs is not likely to come to fruition this time, as we are already seeing some strong candidates emerging from Asia - unfortunately for feminists none of these candidates were born with female organ - feminists are covertly trying to introduce and mainstream the idea of “gender-rotation” in the appointment of the Secretary-General and other senior officials, in the hope that even they do not get their choice this time, they have a better shot next time 5 or 10 years from now when the next SG’s term expires, or increase the percentage of women in senior position in United Nations. This new and emerging concept of gender-rotation is feminists’ new arsenal in their Orwellian scheme of enforcing statistical gender parity in senior positions. If the post of Secretary-General or other senior positions are to be rotated based on gender, it would ensure automatic 100% compliance to statistical gender parity – feminists’ biggest goal in their social engineering scheme. While this notion is already bizarre by itself, it would look even more so in the light of feminists’ often-repeated assertion that men and women are exactly the same in their capacity, disposition, character, etc. If they are identical, why do you have to rotate by gender?


It is profoundly ironic (or was predicted?) that feminists, who were supposed to be championing “gender-blind” society (although they still do when it fits their purpose) are the ones most aggressively pushing for the appointment solely and strictly based on gender. We also know that these are the people who, after getting jobs, say, “gender has never played any role in my selection as the chief of ……”. - Whatever.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401126.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.