Edward's wife in the limelight (because NY times wanted so)

Why is this article appearing in NY Times? Because feminists in NY Times needed to boost their self-confidence by featuring women in the main in a positive light. If men start to dominate the news, those male-hating type would feel depressed. If there aren't any other women to feature in Presidential race other than Hillary, then you just invent one. That's why sometimes Obama's wife needed to be pulled out of closet and be cast as if she is the one who counts just as much as, if not more, as her husband.

Lesbian family superior?

I wonder why do these lesbian people want their "mariage" or "family" be seen as normal. I thought in their worldview, family are the souce of all evil = patriarchy in the world. Family in traditional form is all evil but lesbian family is just as normal as traditional family??? Not just normal, but sometimes superior (when raising boys), and the whole society needs to promote lesbian "family"??

It looks like first these lesbians wanted to be left alone, and then treated as normal, then demands recognition of being superior in some aspects, then what next?

Emergency! We do not have enough black females in ballet!!!help! Help!!

Affirmative action mentality in every nook of the world series... this time astounding shortage of black females in ballet!!!

"Man tax", America style

I remember that there was a same kind of tax, simply labeled differently, proposed in Sweden but shot down by immediate public outcry. In Sweden it was named “man tax” ( I am not sure if this is exact translation from Swedish but this was the name I saw). A tax that was to be levied only against men because of their sin for born into a wrong gender that is guilty of oppression of the other gender until the latter half of last century. You might imagine that in a country where men are increasingly legislated into pee like women, there would be enthusiastic support for such a tax, both from women and men (with feminists` guns behind their back). But instead their was immediate public denunciation of such a sexist legislation. Seems like even Sweden still retains a bit of sanity. But not in America. Even this kind of blatantly discriminatory bill could be phrased and couched in benign terms by the hands of (or the tongues of, or the pens of ) gender feminists.

What a surprising article!

Is the author of this feminists-dogma shattering article still not banished? Is the editor of the Slate still not sentenced to mandatory gender-sensitivity training? If not, good for them. Hope it will continue to be so but I am not so optimistic.

Why diversity training does not work? Ask the right question

Of course it doesn`t. and it should not work. But the bigger, underlying issue is, why care? Diversity advocates would say all the nice, feel-good stuffs about promoting diversity in corporations, and will conclude that it would boost companies` profits. Really? Is there any statistics to prove that? Any statistics that is controlled for all the external variables that would affect companies performance and that can point to the pure economic benefits of promoting diversity? I`ve never seen that.

Most of the articles on this topic simply tout the virtue of having more women in senior jobs and praise how it boost companies` performance, but almost always without hard statistic to prove that. Even if they show the stats and they seem to support the claim, you need to be careful and need to consider a few points;

Did the performance gain occur after the gender affirmative action proramme was instituted or did it take place before?

Is the performance gain a direct result of gender quota or was it brought about by different factors, e.g. improved management, cost cutting, etc. and that gender quota programme simply coincided with the period of performance gain?

These kinds of hard questions may not really be amenable to feminists-inspired advocacy articles.

The most interesting thing about this kind of article for me is not that nobody really ask this kind of hard-nose question. It is rather that the initial question (why diversity training does not work) is not considered at all in the article, but quickly transformed into brainstorming session on how to increase women and minority at senior levels. The diversity training and gander/race balance are not the same; the latter is only one of several benefits that the former is supposed to bring, according to official party line of diversity advocates. But now you know what they care about the most (or the onky thing they care about) when advocates tout virtue of diversity.

Feminist terrorists

I found an interesting article on a feminist guerilla group…yes, of course, if guys can do it, gals can do it too, …only better! Maybe we should also mention feminist groups that raided Miss USA pageant and forced the event to be cancelled way back in the 1960’s or 70’s? Or maybe they should be called a feminist mob?, as the terrorist label for them would be a bit too much. Anyway, they too showed that physical violence is well within domains of newly liberated, empowered women.

Note how this second article treats Rote Zora in sympathetic light. I have to mention that this article was originally posted on website for anarchists (no, really!). Forget the anarchists’ website for a while, and maybe part of the reason why the group is cast in such a positive light and their physical violence aspect is downplayed is because the group was composed of women…? Wait, does it means that feminist terrorists have to even fight against sexism in anarchists’ writings?

Gender pay gap

Here goes again a periodic (maybe annual) ritual for this gender-feminist organization called AAUW to publish this self-serving report about gender wage-gap, and politically-correct media is more than happy again to become a mouthpiece for AAUW every time this cookie-cutter report is released.


There are a few ways to look at the issue.
1. Society is fair in paying less for people who feel no qualm about comparing apples and oranges and paint them as scientific study.

2. Society is fair in paying less for people who have little analytical capacity as to believe this kind of propaganda-filled, objective-analysis-free report is true.


Well, by now we should already know that this is a propaganda piece routinely put up by feminist organizations and being paraded as truth by liberal media. That is a FACT. We now have to move beyond that. Move beyond simply pointing out that this is a propaganda, etc, etc, and think about what we can do about this feminist-PC media collaboration.....

Katie Couric is almost out

The end of the "first solo-female anchor of major network's nightly news" seems to be just around a corner....

But some women prefer to still stick their heads in the sand...

Connie Chung says, "Katie should be given as much time as it takes. . . . I'm flabbergasted that anyone would sound some sort of death knell now."


Yes, Connie, right, let Katie Couric keep her job and five years from now we'll be hearing a good news; in addition to attracting more women between age of 18-49 as she does now, Kate has attracted 99.9% of self-identfied gender feminists. Oh, another news, CBS nightly news rate has further dropped to mere 50,000. That's approximately equal to number of women belonging to NOW, AAUW, Feminist Majority, etc....

I could understand the reluctance of people at CBS talking about the issue, espeially if you are men in CBS and being heard complaining about Katie, feminists will have no hesitation in branding them as "enemy of women" or "Neandethaal males who want to keep women in kitchen"...

Despite these overwhelming negative views about Katie's stint at nightly news, my guess is that unfortunately CBS will be stuck with Katie for some time still. You could expect the powerful intervention from women's interest group to keep her on the job just because she is a "woman", and feminist censorors and thought-police would soon be in a full swing to hunt down any negative views on Katie...

She is such a geek

National Public Radio from Leonart Lopate show 18 Januray 2007.
“She’s such a geek”

Nothing tells you more clearly that gender feminists have lost their own sense of worth and based women’s worth on how well they could imitate men – than feminists’ rather misguided drive to seek recognition for girl geeks. According to their value-system, anything men do is good and therefore girls have to do it, and not just do it but do it with the exact same intensity and vigor as men do, and exact same proportion of girls should be doing that any given activity as the proportion of men.

It’s ironic that feminists movement that began with one of its founding intention to define women and femininity in a way that is free from the prevailing male-dominated perspective, and who have institutionalized throughout society politically-correct easy vilification of men, ended up imitating whatever men do, without any of its own judgment.

The fact of the matter is that, although many guy geeks tend to be smarter, have higher IQ, better in science and math, and may end up with more high-paying job, (not all of them necessarily though), even male geeks are not, and never have been, subject of admiration or looked up to by other boys. They are rather subject of ridicule or harassment by other guys, particularly jock type.

This is such a common-sensical things to most guys and also to many girls, unless she is male-hating feminists type who spend most of their free time in library reading works of the late Andrea Dworkin or attending V-day (of course not Valentine’s Day but Violence against women day) poetry smash. Well, actually there could one type of geek that only girls can be; a feminist geek, a geek who find ecstasy in putting up posters of Andrea Dworkin or Mary Daly in her room and who collect all literally works by such great feminist writers.

Women's war (since they are very special, but same and idential yet different and superior to men)

This kind of article confuses me….. What do feminists want? On the one hand, they obviously want special treatment, focus, and privilege for female soldiers. On the other hand, if you treat them too differently from male soldiers, focusing on softer, gentler, feminine side of female soldiers, wouldn’t it actually weaken the case for the full integration of women in military, assigning women (officially and publicly, not in a current, tricky and sneaky way) into combat role and ultimately G.I.Janes?

It looks like women soldiers have found one convenient way to get away from of combat – just claim that you were sexually harassed or attacked. This is the easiest way out from tour of duty and of course, this privilege is for by definition female soldiers only. Not only this claim will provide them easy way out from combat, but also bolster gender-feminists case for creation of more gender-sensitivity programe and eventually overhauling of testosterone-filled alpha male culture in the military.

Furthermore, if you combine women’s one-sided story of current abuse or attack with even more one-sided and obscure “The specter of childhood abuse” it becomes nearly impossible to reject any women’s claim.

In a desperate attempt to establish case for rape where no statute exists to cover, feminists come up with a new version of rape – called “command rape”. If feminists could keep up with this pace of inventing new category of rape or sexual crime by men, sooner or later any sexual (heterosexual of course) acts will be duly covered.

This article is filled with other standard gender-feminists agendas. It tacitly calls for more gender-balanced military when it says “where the sex ratios tended to be more even. Several women credited their commanders for establishing and enforcing a more egalitarian climate, the women tended to feel more at ease among men.

It does not forget to reinforce PC image that vets are batterers when it describe vets in VA hospital as “some of whom were trying to work through sex crimes they committed during military service. Others came home from war and beat their wives”

Even an outright liar and fabricator of victimhood story Ms. Randall was given moral comfort when it says “It was difficult to know what had traumatized Randall: whether she had in fact been in combat or whether she was reacting to some more generalized recollection of powerlessness. If female soldiers who excel in playing gender-victim card can get a pass as seen simply as reacting to “some more generalized recollection of powerlessness”, no one can hold these female deserters accountable.

Girls victimized into online stripping

If bad news about girls behaving badly is going to go out of control (just imagine Britney Spears, girls gone wild videos and girls striping online) and begin to tarnish the image of entire girls, some kind of spin control is in order. And as you know the spin control by feminists is always to find a new type of victimization.

So a Canadian researcher has “found” that girls are bullied into stripping in front of webcam. So the culprit in this newly found phenomenon is…drum rolling….BOYS (again!!) and of course the conclusion is that girls are totally innocent victim, as always and in any circumstances. The only thing that seems to be missing from this standard feminist victimization story is a call for federal funding to stop on-line bullying or some kind of new government programme that will give more money, power and create more jobs for gender feminists.

knee-jerk militant feminism

If you read the comments by the Columbia Journalism Review in response to harsh, near-unanimous criticism leveled against Katie Couric after her interview with John Edward on his wife's returning cancer, you know that knee-jerk militant feminism is alive and kicking....

Any criticism of whatever morally-questionable or dispicable acts by a high-powered woman is considered to be a product of sexism according to the Columbia Journalism Review who said, "Why is Couric taking so much heat? Are people threatened by a woman?..." Because women in power or in so-called untraditional occupation is so sacrosanct, untouchable, and inviolable, you are NOT supposed to criticize her, or hold her to normal standard, but need to treat her with kid glove・

Clinton giving proof that feminists are mathematically- and logically- challenged

Here go again the Marxist feminist・

So Hillary Clinton again devotes her taxpayer-funded working hours (although she is paid only 77% of what Obama is paid, of course) in proposing to create a matriarchal totalitarian state that checks every paycheck of its citizens with a view to achieving complete statistical parity of earnings between men and women. I always wonder, if she could expend even only one tenth of those times and energy to check and give some serious thoughts about the pay statistics she proudly cites as evidence of sexism in the society, would she be still saying the same thing....?

Just consider these simple questions...

If companies could get away with paying to women only 77% of what it pays to men, then wouldn't all companies be rushing to hire only women...?

Do you (Hillary) seriously believe that you are getting paid 77 % of fellow male Senators?

If so, I give up (you are hopeless - maybe your obsession with gender pay equity and paranoia of living in patriarchal society has taken away from you any common sense)

If not, think the following;

Let's say that if public sector do not discriminate (even the most militant feminist would not believe that public sector discriminates sexes on pay - or would they believe?), then all the pay gaps must be coming from private sectors, which means that pay gap in that sector should be wider that the alleged 77 % - should be 66%, after adjustment. (According to data from the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey show, 14 percent of the country's workforce reported that they were government employees at the local, state, or federal level (about 18 million people).) Do you still believe in the so-called "pay gap"?

Well if you look back a little in history, the fake, cooked-up "pay gap" controversy has been around for decades - those mathematically-challenged feminists believed in the past such make-belief figure as 57 %... No wonder there are not enough mathematicians and engineer PhDs at Harvard and other top universities!

Water is women's issue

Part 2 of the UN gender bureaucrats' blind application of gender mainstreaming concept...

Providing safe water and instituting effective water management system in poor community sounds like an a-political, fairly non-controversial issue. After all, no one can survive without water, for drinking, eating and myriad of other purposes. It is like air. No one can live without it for a long time. But once the omnipresent UN gender bureaucrats got their hands in it, as they do in every single issues that entrusted to the United Nations by government, civil societies, etc., it took less than nanoseconds for them to turn the issue of water resource management into yet another tool to advance their radical social-engineering scheme...

The United Nations Development Programme, in collaboration with the Gender and Water Alliance, (what?) has developed a "Gender and Water Resource Management Guide" in which it discusses such feminist gobblydooks as;

"The gender-differentiated systems for access to resources, labor, water uses, water rights, and the distribution of benefits and production, sex-disaggregated data and the documentation of unpaid labor,"
"Gender dimensions of institutions at all levels in society (within the household, community-based organisations, water users associations, local governments, national civil services, etc.)."

"Gender-sensitive monitoring and evaluation indicators"

"targeted actions to increase women's contribution to decision-making; opening up new opportunities for women/men in non-traditional skill areas"

And, gender dimension on flood control, and women's influence in decision making on the flood-control. (yes, of course only women are affected by flood)

Apparently every water-related issues are re-framed with singular focus on gender power relation, with musing over the patriarchal society that brought such power relation, and ends in recommending action-oriented plans to reverse such gender power relation. Looks like with gender-bureaucrats multiplying like rats in the UN headquarters and applying Marxist-gender feminists theories to every social issues, prospect for poor African man getting access to safe water has gone down, although the prospect for increase in the number of women in "decision-making level" on water management and ultimately subverting the gender power relation has risen. And that's A-OK because that's all gender feminists care about.

International Women's Day - newspapers' opinion section hijakced by feminists

Today is 8 March, International Women's Day, meaning that ever-noisy shrieking of gender-feminists will get even shriekier. Today thousands of op-ed articles fill major newspapers around the country and the world; below are some examples (tiny, tiny tip of the iceberg, really);

Some mourned the fact that there is only one women's day in a year (what, you want all 365 days to be women's day?) , while others want to build upon on the already lop-sided health imbalance between me and women by spreading that imbalance from developed countries to the developing countries, one socialist feminists wailed over (allegedly) declining support for feminists' social engineering schemes in Australia.

Most articles wine and gripe about today's so-called "pathetic" state of women and a lack of progress in achieving gender equality. But these professional complainers' complaints look silly when you think about the following facts;

-A woman can considered to be a front-runner for one of the major parties in the Presidential election of world's biggest country, just by marrying a right man, and play up a gender card in garnering support through media,

-One of the two-top contenders for Presidential election in another developed country can thwart any criticism or negative comments by threatening to label them as "sexists' and get away with not answering tough questions,

-Fat, old, ugly female politicians can now take revenge on the beauty standard that consistently eluded them by imposing restriction on the size of fashion model.

-In many countries, being born into women mean that you have guaranteed spots in political party's nomination list, or even reserved seats in local and national parliaments. In some countries, you will have automatically invited to nations' largest corporations' boardroom, and if you think you aren't up for the responsibilities, then don't worry, the government will have a crash-course on how to be (or to behave like) boardroom officers.

-In some countries you will have special mentors/teachers assigned to you if you are in schools and like to pursue math or engineering (or even if you don't want to they'll persuade you to pursue those fields)

I don't know how in the face of these lopsided benefits and entitlements those gender feminists could continue to churn out those cookie-cutter "women-oppressed" op-ed pieces.

Predictably most of the feminists' op-ed articles were identical in their contents; call for more women in politics and corporate boardroom - what else could today's power-obsessed gender-feminists can think about? In the end, every problem in the world that are related to women, be it violence or excessive diet or sports or whatever, would be connected to these two issues by the fluent tongue of gender-feminists, because after all, only those two are going to directly benefit those professional complainers and data/logic distorters, a.k.a. gender feminists - power and money.

"me, me, me"-ism gone wild in the United Nations

One thing that the United Nations is obsessed about in recent years, the biggest buzz among its bureaucrats, government officials, and far-left NGOs walking on the corridors of the United Nations is a concept called "gender mainstreaming". This concept literally tries to "mainstream" gender perspective on every single issues that enters portfolio of the United Nations, no exceptions. In a nutshell, "me, me, me" -ism by power-hungry feminists. Some issues seem justifiable or legitimate to include such perspective, such as conflict or human rights, while others are harder to understand or downright hilarious.

Here is one of the good examples of "me, me, MEEE!!"-ism gone wild in the United Nations.

Forest and women (United Nations Forum on Forest)

While originally established by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) in October 2000 to pursue such benign and legitimate objective as to promote "...the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests and to strengthen long-term political commitment.", in just a few years, with gender-feminists' takeover of United Nations in all areas, the United Nations Forum on Forest devolved into a forum where unhappy middle-aged women discuss such things as;

"..ensure that gender analysis and gender-disaggregated data are used in country reporting on achieving poor women's access to forests and forest resources."

"...develop guidelines for the participation of indigenous peoples, particularly indigenous women, in environmental policy development and implementation."

"Establish a separate unit, with expertise in forestry and gender and development, to assist countries and other partners to provide technical assistance and training to develop policies, skills and knowledge for gender mainstreaming within their forest-related agencies."

"...enable their experts to understand the impact and implications of forest degradation on women's human rights."

"Formal and non-formal educational curricula be reviewed and revised and guidelines developed at all levels to promote gender equality values and practices, ...to act for personal, community and social change."

"Women's political empowerment, leadership and capacity-building,as well as information dissemination among indigenous women, be guaranteedin order to enable their effective participation in the decision-making processrelated to the environment and sustainable development at all levels."

"...roster of experts, both men and women, with expertise in gendermainstreaming in the forest and related sectors, must be established, and equal representation of women and men as consultants and in all expert groups of the Forum must be pursued."

"National networks must be developed comprising women professionals in the forestry and related sectors... to promote gender equality and environmental sustainability."

(from Discussion paper contributed by the Women major group (E/CN.18/2005/3/Add.3), February 2005)

Feminists' field day at UN continues....

The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) continues its annual rite of self-congratulation, women-worshiping, and male-bashing at the United Nations.

Many governments took the podium in the conference room of the United Nations to spew out their totalitarian feminist agenda, which are in many instances controversial in their own countries, but are presented as proud achievements or well-intentioned plan to solve the plight of women, especially "girl-child (this year's main topic).

Here some excerpts (taken from UN official press release on 27 February);

First, let's start off with some weird stuffs・

Rachel n. Mayanja, UN's Special Adviser on Gender Issues and the Advancement of Women "The Commission should also review women's access to information and communication technology, as the gender digital divide remained wide.・

INSTRAW (note: UN institution that study gender issues)- INSTRAW's groundbreaking research on the gender dimensions of migration and remittances had revealed that, when women migrated as the main economic providers for their households, the money sent home was used to keep their daughters in school, including in university.

Indranee Seebun, Minister of Women's Rights, Child Development, Family Welfare and Consumer Protection of Mauritius, said "An empowerment fund" had been included in the 2006-2007 budget to promote entrepreneurship among vulnerable groups".

Then the triumphant...

Trevor Prescod, Minister of Social Transformation of Barbados, said that "currently, about 16 per cent of those graduating from the secondary level pursued tertiary level education and, of those 16 per cent, 70 per cent were girls."

Jang Hajin, Minister for Gender Equality and Family, Republic of Korea, "High school enrolment rates were higher for girls"

This is for girl only, no boy need apply...

Alima Mahama, Minister of Women and Children's Affairs of Ghana, said "Measures were also being taken ... to increase their (girls) enrolment in schools -- by providing bicycles to girls in rural areas..."

Traditional legal principle doesn't matter...

Maina Kamanda, Minister for Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services of Kenya, said "The Criminal Amendment Act of 2003, removed the burden of corroboration as a requirement to prosecute and prove a sexual offence."

Now let's see what happened when a country is governed by gender-feminist...

First Liberia,

Annie Jones-Demen, Deputy Minister for Gender and Development of Liberia, said "To encourage higher enrolment of girls in schools, the Government had ....begun providing hot meals and food rations to female students. "(boys?)

While feeling ecstatic about the election of a women President (itself the biggest achievement for gender feminists), the gender bureaucrats inadvertently spilled the top secret when she said, "the Ministry for Gender and Development and its partners had played a pivotal role in the 2005 general and presidential elections. (hello~?, you are supposed to at least maintain the pretense of fairness, however farce it is, and even though many people know that the government, UN and NGOs conspired to let the woman win, since she is a woman)

Then Chile,

Andrea Reyes (Chile) "All women were guaranteed a pension, including women who had been employed sporadically, in precarious situations or who had not been paid."(-Uhh, how about men?)

Ultimate entitlement...

Rocio Garcia Gaytan (Mexico) referred to President's "commitment to end discrimination and violence through the federal "Women's Access to a Life Free of Violence" law. (How about a new law titled "Men's Access to Life Full of Fun"? - if only government can guarantee that!)

And of course, all gender feminists' all time favorite - gender quota

Greece "..set quotas mandating that women comprised one third of people on local election lists and collective bodies of all Government agencies." (gender feminists' inadvertent admission of defeatism or reaffirmation of men's superiority - they admit that there is no way that women could get elected to public office if they were subjected to such "discriminatory system" of election/selection based on merits)

Armenia - "The new Electoral Code had raised the quota of women in political parties from 5 to 15 per cent. Ten per cent of all candidates on political party lists must be women." But she continued "...still, few women had reached high-level political posts. Only one woman held a cabinet position." (What a loser!!! You get quota for yourselves and still you can't cut it - I'm sorry, but it seems that nothing could help some women's utter lack of competencies - although gender feminists will no doubt blame deep-rooted patriarchy that even transcends gender quota.)

Others...
Ana Paula Sacramento, Vice-Minister for Family and the Promotion of Women, Angola, said that "Enrolment rates of girls and boys were not equal, and it was estimated that, of the 65 per cent of illiterate citizens, half were women." (It's not equal unless majority of illiterate are men)

Festival of man-haters at the United Nations

Finally the cold and bitter days that affected the American East Coast seem to be over (wasn't that cold weather inconvenient to the movie "Inconvenient Truth"?)- yes, it is already March. And March is not just a month when spring officially starts, but it is also a women's month! And at the United Nations, it means an annual festival (or orgies) by man-hating gender feminists!

Thousands of unhappy, young (grungy type) and old (business suits with three-inch shoulder pat type) women packed the UN building to attend the 51 st session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW 51), disrupting the normal business there by packing the cafeteria and occupying many tables with mini lunch-session on how to kick men out of political office, and guerilla-posting of posters and flyers everywhere they could.

This is a formal UN conference attended by all UN Member States- meaning representatives of the governments-bureaucrats whose salary come from taxpayers, discussing seriously at an international forum, feminists' traditional issues such as promoting gender quota in parliament and political party, or more innovative or unique issues as gender-sensitive national budget, or mentoring programme for women scientists and female engineering students.
In addition to formal discussions, there are numerous side events that are organized by UN agencies, governments and NGOs. Let me pick up some bizarre side event topics, first by NGOs;

Violence of the girlchild in work situations: challenges and responses.
Media exploitation of girls as a form of violence against girls.
How to organize a social and psychological first aid for child girls?
Women farmers & Conflicts. (???)
Improving Human Rights for Incarcerated Girls. (aren't they way better than for incarcerated boys already?)
Girls At Risk: The Importance of Quality Standards for Children in Out-Of-Home Care, with special Focus on Girls, etc., etc.

Not to be outdone, feminist-infested UN agencies and governments also organize such strange side events as;

Health Disparities that Discriminate against the girl child (yeah, you're right)
The Nordic Father: Role Model for a Caring Male? (that's the only tolerated future model for male)
How to reach the most marginalized & invisible girls? (there GOT TO be victimized girls somewhere - go find them!)
Violence against Indigenous Women (I'm glad I just found another new victim group!)

CSW 51 has set up a special tent only for young women attending the conference, presumably so that young women could feel safe and comfortable in a male-free environment.The whole international conference started to look like a group therapy on the grandest scale....

The CSW, which discusses same topic three years in succession, selected issue of girl child for its topic starting this year. Is this a reflection of UN feminists' new strategy to link issues of women and child, with a primary aim to put on a more benign face to the militant feminists movement and make it difficult for critics to oppose (you can see more detailed discussion on this here and here) or simply they felt that is felt the need to try new approach? Whatever the reason, thousands of girls ( and of course only girls, no boys) are invited to attend the Commission and participate -quite an entitlement and experience for girl teenagers!

Movie review - "Children of men"

Movie review "Children of men"

I went to see this movie with expectations that this movie will give us a glimpse of how future in which women no longer conceive babies and the fertility rate dramatically drops will be like, a kind of society that man industrialized western countries are heading into. Well, the movie's storyline was based on such a plot, but it was, as far as I am concerned, a horrible movie. The movie was too gory and dark and depressing. Too much gun fighting and so on. The movie also did not explain why all the women in the world, I mean every single one of them on earth, suddenly stopped giving birth on 2009 (which is only 3 years from now!). There was no explanation as to why all of a sudden this one black woman (immigrant?) suddenly conceived after more than 18 years of total global baby draught.

I wished that the movie depicted in more detail how less and less women came to conceive babies, and wider social implications of it. How the rise of women in power and of rigid feminist ideology will reduce fertility rate and very wide and deep consequences of low fertility rate for the society. But the movie didn't venture into any of that, and instead it only showed that in 2009, suddenly no more babies were born ・throughout the world! ・and the only visible consequences of this radical change is large number of illegal immigrants rounded up in cages everywhere -just didn't make sense to me.

Rise of women in power and low fertility rate have much, much wider and deeper consequences than just illegal immigrants rounded up in cage. It means that welfare system will be bankrupt, schools will be closed, teachers and everyone in education industries will be out of work, nursery and toy company and toy shops ・rather than counting all professions that will be unnecessary, let's just say that in less than a few generations, the human race will be extinct. (congrats for extreme environmentalist who want to reduce human population to save environment)