Given their record, should men really be running the world?”
Ummm. At the risk of other arm meeting blender, I have to say YES, or emphatic yes, given that;
-Men are responsible for all modern inventions (think computers, lights, telephones, cars)
-Men are responsible for all the social and economic development.
-Men are responsible for all the great liberal (if you are liberal) and conservative ideas (if you are conservative), such as freedom, liberty, etc.
Maybe the better way to approach this issue is what would today’s world look like if risk-aversing, over-emphasizing women are in charge of the world since circa 2,000B.C.
We would still think that the world is flat- no, not that Freedman’s World is Flat but the earth (given women’s poor special recognition capacity), we mostly live on subsistent farming (women are good at nurturing-including plants), no electric lights, telephones, cars (Mr. Edison, Bell, Ford had to help housework and rear child as dictated by matriarchs-scientific experiment and inventions are uniquely male concepts and in fact a male privilege that were made possible by sacrifice of female labour).
We don’t fight and go to wars, in fact there is no such thing as weapons – remember women don’t fight with other people (????), nor do they hunt animals, as they have too much empathy to kill animals – and therefore no army or military. By the way, no military means there would be NO inventions that originated in military and later turned to wide public use, such as internet, etc.
And yes, there would be no huge oil spilling in the Ocean (as Michael Moore lampooned men in his book aptly titled “Stupid white men) –because women will not (or are not able to) build a large ship (women are not good engineers), nor operate a ship (not a good operator-again it requires special recognition ability), nor travel across ocean (no risk-taking please, that’s’ for Neandelthaal men), nor make use of oil, build internal combustion engine, build a oil drilling, and so on.
So far it sounds good, no? especially for those who like to hug trees. But wait, in a world ruled by women, there would be no consumer shopping, only barter trade - there will be no Walmart (that megalomaniac retail giant hellbent on conquering, in a typical alpha male fashion, small family-owned business) . Oh, sorry feminist-type are too high-browed to shop at Walmart - but I'm sure feminists will be disappointed that there won't be Bloomingdale or Zara either - because there will be no department building to house those retailers, no trucks, highway and paved roads to transport goods, no factory to manufacture, no computer and CAD softwarre to design goods. etc.
Well some of you may say there are a plenty of women who work in such fields as construction, manfacture, transportation, auto industry, etc., etc., and are capable of doing it, and even some assume senior positions in the field. First of all, yes there are plenty of them, but they only studied in these disciplines - that were developed by men and taught by men. This is entirely different story than finding, inventing and developing from these from the scratch. (and tell me who did all of them) And second, yes, there are some women who has senior position in these fields. Has anyone ever heard of “affirmative action? Anyone?
So , in a world ruled by women since 2,000BC, you are basically living in a world that looked exactly like 2,00 0years ago. no lights, no internet, no supermarket, or department store, etc.
Monday, July 20, 2009
The death of macho....?
NOT SO FAST!!! All you communists and feminists who gloat over the “he-session” and the plight of thousands (or millions) of white-collar and blue collar men losing jobs and being hectored by now bread-earner wives, and dream about the coming so-called women-ruled world! You celebration is a bit premature.
Of all the articles that made fun of former-bank-exec alpha males and exhorted out-of-work men to do more housework (what does it have to do with recession?) and declared without much supporting evidence that more women in power is the only way out of this recession, that continued to appear in the liberal press in recent months, this lengthy article on the Foreign Policy magazine may be the most virulent, vitriolic, male-hating article that you can find.
One thing I found it that, although this is common to all the poke-fun-at-alpha-male articles, how come if men are losing jobs, or on the receiving end of misery, there is no outcry to help these men, and target the help and assistance specifically to them, but instead what they all do is to make fun, and call for the end of alpha-male culture? Imagine, if 80% of all the job losses are on women, do we make fun of their excessively emphatic nature of these women. NO. The are either still poor, vulnerable victims of this recession (oh, I though this was ‘he-session”?) or the demographic group next in line to take control of the world as Reihan Salam seem already so firmly convinced of.
In the face of all the facts, some extreme feminists and the United Nations (itself taken over by extreme feminists) even assert that “The economic and financial crisis puts a disproportionate burden on women…”
….Unbelievable…with this kind of logic and one-sidedness, maybe you can say that white Aryan German suffered disproportionately under Nazi rule for whatever reason you can make up….(for example, being made to look a corroborator of Nazi or did not take action against Nazi, etc…)
Brad Barber and Terrance Odean memorably demonstrated in 2001, of all the factors that might correlate with overconfident investment in financial markets—age, marital status, and the like—the most obvious culprit was having a Y chromosome.
Risky or over confident investment is called risky and overconfident when it failed, but would have other names when it succeeds. (like wise, prescient, visionary, etc.) Of course not all risky behaviour succeeds -by definition they won’t, and they are more likely to fail than to succeed, but it is precisely those risky or overconfident investment, or business entrepreneurship that build the foundation of today’s developed society and business –imagine if all the world is dominated by risk-averting, empathy/estrogen-plenty women in the late-19 th and early 20h century for example -then we’d still be writing our mails with pen under candlelight, and bartering goods at roadside (unpaved) makeshift small market. (note: this may be green’s ideal world)
Soon after, tiny, debt-ridden Lithuania took a similar course, electing its first woman president: an experienced economist with a black belt in karate named Dalia Grybauskaite. On the day she won, Vilnius’s leading newspaper bannered this headline: “Lithuania has decided: The country is to be saved by a woman.”
An economist experienced in “penis competition” of male-dominated investment banking? A black-belt in karate? What does this additional, seemingly irrelevant information supposed to convey? That she is also a macho? Then shouldn’t she be “banished” also? Well, we can let women handle countries like Iceland and Latvia whose economic catastrophe will have minimal impact on global economy. Their economy is in such shambles (hit the rock bottom already and couldn’t be worse) that you can probably install chimps as their heads of state and still see their economies recover after a while. Although I’m sure that if their economy recover even a tiny bit (of course it will), feminists will attribute all the success to women’s unique style of governing and innate superiority in politics and economy.
Then, however, there’s the other choice: resistance. Men may decide to fight the death of macho, sacrificing their own prospects in an effort to disrupt and delay a powerful historical trend.
WHAT? Which historical trend? Where is it?
Much of the second half of the article is not so much about an analysis of current economic crisis, or how males allegedly contributed to it, but simply a blueprint for bringing about their fantasized version of women-controlled world.
In the end, the author notches up ante, this is not only about current economic crisis, and introduce a new paradigm for the coming conflict.
According to her, the Clash of civilization was wrong - author was male-, no, “The axis of global conflict in this century will not be warring ideologies, or competing geopolitics, or clashing civilizations. It won’t be race or ethnicity. It will be gender.
It may sound funny, but on this last point, I agree with her. Gender will be the axis of global conflict. Western gender feminists, who based their Marxist’s class conflict, in which there is an inherent conflict between two classes until one conquer the other, will continue to vilify, blame, poke fun at, and attack males, and current political, social, economic and cultural institutions as based on patriarchy. Their battle will unfold at homefront, where feminists would push (and even legislate as you can see in Spain) that men do more housework, and use domestic violence and divorce laws to drive men out of work, home, and children and cast them out of society by locking men up and impoverish them with ridiculously high child support; and at politics and business with a push for gender quota for female politicians and CEOs.
And this battle is going to continue for good. Feminists are not going to call it a day and say their struglle is over when, say a woman become the President or when women make up a half of all politicians. Don't believe when feminists say, "If there is equality between men and women now, I wouldn't have to be doing thsese things" or "If women achive equality with men, feminism will become obsolete and will cease to exist." NO. Feminism is not that benign. Just as the proletariat dictatorship has to be maintained and its grip be even tightened over the mass after the fall of boureoisee to guard the revolution from imagined or real sabotage by anti-revolutionary forces, feminists' struggle also takes on characteristics of the Marxist's permanent revolution. Just see how feminists in New Zealand, Sweden and Norway are doing; in New Zealand, alarmed feminists warned women in the country not be content with “seemingly satisfactory” situation where President, Prime Minster and other major high offices of the country are all occupied by women, but to continue fight against patriarchy; in Sweden, feminists tried to institute “man tax”, an unique scheme (to say the least) under which people are taxed just because they are men; and Norway, another feminists haven, where large companies were given ultimatum to give at least 40% of board membership to women or face extinction.
Of all the articles that made fun of former-bank-exec alpha males and exhorted out-of-work men to do more housework (what does it have to do with recession?) and declared without much supporting evidence that more women in power is the only way out of this recession, that continued to appear in the liberal press in recent months, this lengthy article on the Foreign Policy magazine may be the most virulent, vitriolic, male-hating article that you can find.
One thing I found it that, although this is common to all the poke-fun-at-alpha-male articles, how come if men are losing jobs, or on the receiving end of misery, there is no outcry to help these men, and target the help and assistance specifically to them, but instead what they all do is to make fun, and call for the end of alpha-male culture? Imagine, if 80% of all the job losses are on women, do we make fun of their excessively emphatic nature of these women. NO. The are either still poor, vulnerable victims of this recession (oh, I though this was ‘he-session”?) or the demographic group next in line to take control of the world as Reihan Salam seem already so firmly convinced of.
In the face of all the facts, some extreme feminists and the United Nations (itself taken over by extreme feminists) even assert that “The economic and financial crisis puts a disproportionate burden on women…”
….Unbelievable…with this kind of logic and one-sidedness, maybe you can say that white Aryan German suffered disproportionately under Nazi rule for whatever reason you can make up….(for example, being made to look a corroborator of Nazi or did not take action against Nazi, etc…)
Brad Barber and Terrance Odean memorably demonstrated in 2001, of all the factors that might correlate with overconfident investment in financial markets—age, marital status, and the like—the most obvious culprit was having a Y chromosome.
Risky or over confident investment is called risky and overconfident when it failed, but would have other names when it succeeds. (like wise, prescient, visionary, etc.) Of course not all risky behaviour succeeds -by definition they won’t, and they are more likely to fail than to succeed, but it is precisely those risky or overconfident investment, or business entrepreneurship that build the foundation of today’s developed society and business –imagine if all the world is dominated by risk-averting, empathy/estrogen-plenty women in the late-19 th and early 20h century for example -then we’d still be writing our mails with pen under candlelight, and bartering goods at roadside (unpaved) makeshift small market. (note: this may be green’s ideal world)
Soon after, tiny, debt-ridden Lithuania took a similar course, electing its first woman president: an experienced economist with a black belt in karate named Dalia Grybauskaite. On the day she won, Vilnius’s leading newspaper bannered this headline: “Lithuania has decided: The country is to be saved by a woman.”
An economist experienced in “penis competition” of male-dominated investment banking? A black-belt in karate? What does this additional, seemingly irrelevant information supposed to convey? That she is also a macho? Then shouldn’t she be “banished” also? Well, we can let women handle countries like Iceland and Latvia whose economic catastrophe will have minimal impact on global economy. Their economy is in such shambles (hit the rock bottom already and couldn’t be worse) that you can probably install chimps as their heads of state and still see their economies recover after a while. Although I’m sure that if their economy recover even a tiny bit (of course it will), feminists will attribute all the success to women’s unique style of governing and innate superiority in politics and economy.
Then, however, there’s the other choice: resistance. Men may decide to fight the death of macho, sacrificing their own prospects in an effort to disrupt and delay a powerful historical trend.
WHAT? Which historical trend? Where is it?
Much of the second half of the article is not so much about an analysis of current economic crisis, or how males allegedly contributed to it, but simply a blueprint for bringing about their fantasized version of women-controlled world.
In the end, the author notches up ante, this is not only about current economic crisis, and introduce a new paradigm for the coming conflict.
According to her, the Clash of civilization was wrong - author was male-, no, “The axis of global conflict in this century will not be warring ideologies, or competing geopolitics, or clashing civilizations. It won’t be race or ethnicity. It will be gender.
It may sound funny, but on this last point, I agree with her. Gender will be the axis of global conflict. Western gender feminists, who based their Marxist’s class conflict, in which there is an inherent conflict between two classes until one conquer the other, will continue to vilify, blame, poke fun at, and attack males, and current political, social, economic and cultural institutions as based on patriarchy. Their battle will unfold at homefront, where feminists would push (and even legislate as you can see in Spain) that men do more housework, and use domestic violence and divorce laws to drive men out of work, home, and children and cast them out of society by locking men up and impoverish them with ridiculously high child support; and at politics and business with a push for gender quota for female politicians and CEOs.
And this battle is going to continue for good. Feminists are not going to call it a day and say their struglle is over when, say a woman become the President or when women make up a half of all politicians. Don't believe when feminists say, "If there is equality between men and women now, I wouldn't have to be doing thsese things" or "If women achive equality with men, feminism will become obsolete and will cease to exist." NO. Feminism is not that benign. Just as the proletariat dictatorship has to be maintained and its grip be even tightened over the mass after the fall of boureoisee to guard the revolution from imagined or real sabotage by anti-revolutionary forces, feminists' struggle also takes on characteristics of the Marxist's permanent revolution. Just see how feminists in New Zealand, Sweden and Norway are doing; in New Zealand, alarmed feminists warned women in the country not be content with “seemingly satisfactory” situation where President, Prime Minster and other major high offices of the country are all occupied by women, but to continue fight against patriarchy; in Sweden, feminists tried to institute “man tax”, an unique scheme (to say the least) under which people are taxed just because they are men; and Norway, another feminists haven, where large companies were given ultimatum to give at least 40% of board membership to women or face extinction.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Another victim of feminism....
So what’s now left of the then 66-year old woman’s (in 2006) quest to satisfy her personal fulfillment – by having her own baby- are hapless 3 year-old twins, whose mother (who was older than many of the grandmothers of same three-year olds) has died, and who have to grow up without both parents from now on. They are another victim of feminism, which posited women's independence and women's choice, which include their choice to have babies in their 50's or even in 60's, as a paramount value to be pursued.
Women’s rights now includes the right of women to have babies “at the right time for them” as the now deceased mother told when she was alive, or whenever it fit their life plan, say, after getting MA and Ph. D degrees and having accomplished some professional achievements, attained high-paying position with lots of responsibilities. Little attention is paid to how children of those old mothers will feel, when their mothers die when they are still little. Or when they find out that their mothers are as old as their friends' grandmother! Feminists have long pushed for this women’s right to have babies when it is the right time for them, but are they going to take care of these two small kids? I guess it’s a silly question since most of them don’t even know how to change diapers!
……Hmmmm, now that I got that corner office and 6-figure income, and outearned most of my male colleagues, and dining in chic restaurants and partying at clubs at night are getting a little boring…. I need something to enrich my life…something that gives me personal pleasure and sense of satisfaction and fulfillment…...hmmm… oh yes, BABY, baby is what I need. Conceiving and raising a baby will fill the one remaining gap in my otherwise perfect life….
Women’s rights now includes the right of women to have babies “at the right time for them” as the now deceased mother told when she was alive, or whenever it fit their life plan, say, after getting MA and Ph. D degrees and having accomplished some professional achievements, attained high-paying position with lots of responsibilities. Little attention is paid to how children of those old mothers will feel, when their mothers die when they are still little. Or when they find out that their mothers are as old as their friends' grandmother! Feminists have long pushed for this women’s right to have babies when it is the right time for them, but are they going to take care of these two small kids? I guess it’s a silly question since most of them don’t even know how to change diapers!
……Hmmmm, now that I got that corner office and 6-figure income, and outearned most of my male colleagues, and dining in chic restaurants and partying at clubs at night are getting a little boring…. I need something to enrich my life…something that gives me personal pleasure and sense of satisfaction and fulfillment…...hmmm… oh yes, BABY, baby is what I need. Conceiving and raising a baby will fill the one remaining gap in my otherwise perfect life….
Friday, June 05, 2009
Women in science
It’s always difficult to understand why more women going into the science field is better for the future of science.
For a start, we can more or less agree that today we have pretty advanced state of science, at least compared to hundreds (or thousands) years ago, or even compared to an animal kingdom. And ALL these scientific and technological advances have been made by MEN, without a single EXCEPTION. In other words, women haven’t contributed to a single bit to today’s complex science. And now some people want to make us believe that increasing women in the ranks of scientists is the single most urgent issue for the future of science. Remind you, women has 0% track record in the science field, but we want to do whatever we could do to increase their number, and reduce the number of men in the field who are responsible for all the advances made in this field in the first place. Is there something wrong here? How we could arrive at such twisted conclusion?
“More female science professor/teacher are needed if women are to get better grades in science.” What a self-serving non-sense.
The fact that female teacher/professor have a tendency to be show more ‘empathy” (as we all know women genetically have plenty of it) towards the student who belong to the same sex, is actually an argument against affirmative action programme for female science teacher/professor. It is abundantly clear that female professors are not capable of evaluating students' grades impartially, it's just that hormones intereferring with objective judgement.
And oh, yes, female students (or female cadets) are too timid and shy to show their true talent in science if their professor were men, ar at least not feminist men. And we want these young female cadets to be the future leader of US armed forces. Joke never ends.
And please, please, for the love of God, don’t tell me that the one of the criteria (or the ONLY criteria) for the outgoing female Xerox CEO in choosing her successor wasn’t a gender. It is the most blatant case of appointing people to senior position based solely on gender. I've never seen a more explicit case of affirmative action at the top level of Fortune 500 companies, and for that reason, I agree with the author that this one os for the record book
For a start, we can more or less agree that today we have pretty advanced state of science, at least compared to hundreds (or thousands) years ago, or even compared to an animal kingdom. And ALL these scientific and technological advances have been made by MEN, without a single EXCEPTION. In other words, women haven’t contributed to a single bit to today’s complex science. And now some people want to make us believe that increasing women in the ranks of scientists is the single most urgent issue for the future of science. Remind you, women has 0% track record in the science field, but we want to do whatever we could do to increase their number, and reduce the number of men in the field who are responsible for all the advances made in this field in the first place. Is there something wrong here? How we could arrive at such twisted conclusion?
“More female science professor/teacher are needed if women are to get better grades in science.” What a self-serving non-sense.
The fact that female teacher/professor have a tendency to be show more ‘empathy” (as we all know women genetically have plenty of it) towards the student who belong to the same sex, is actually an argument against affirmative action programme for female science teacher/professor. It is abundantly clear that female professors are not capable of evaluating students' grades impartially, it's just that hormones intereferring with objective judgement.
And oh, yes, female students (or female cadets) are too timid and shy to show their true talent in science if their professor were men, ar at least not feminist men. And we want these young female cadets to be the future leader of US armed forces. Joke never ends.
And please, please, for the love of God, don’t tell me that the one of the criteria (or the ONLY criteria) for the outgoing female Xerox CEO in choosing her successor wasn’t a gender. It is the most blatant case of appointing people to senior position based solely on gender. I've never seen a more explicit case of affirmative action at the top level of Fortune 500 companies, and for that reason, I agree with the author that this one os for the record book
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Girl valedictorian Part III
People can never worry about girls too much, it seems. People worry that young girls don't eat enough (anorexia), eat too much (obesity), care about weight and appearances too much, do not play sports enough, watch TV too much, spend too much money on clothes, and show too much interest in English literature and social sciences, don not show enough interest in math and science.
Even valedictorians, but only the girl valedictorians, seems to suffer from too-low-ambition sydrome, and in need of immediate help.
Oh, the girls, the frail, always in need of help...
Even valedictorians, but only the girl valedictorians, seems to suffer from too-low-ambition sydrome, and in need of immediate help.
Oh, the girls, the frail, always in need of help...
Girl valedictorian Part II
Talk of twisted priorities....
People spend countless hours and pages and inks wondering how a small number of girl valedictorians, who were virtually assured of success in future one way ro another, could increase earning potential by another thouands of dollars, just so that they catch up with men.
I think it is more beneficial and practial for feminists to view the problem of boys failing schools more seriously. Those boys are far more likely to become criminals, and engage in criminal activities such as theft, burglary and oh yes, sexual assault. If feminists want (or want other women and girls-I know the welfare of men and boys are not in their radar screen in the slightest) to live in a safer society, and reduce sexual assault, etc., then it is also in their best interest to tackle the problem more seriously, not just looking at the problem with a gleeful smile.
This is much more practical measures if feminists really wish to reduce crimes against women. It is much more practical than attacking culture, mass media, TV and movie as inciting men and boys to be violent against women, or even social and (alleged) patriarchal struture as root cause of violence against women. But in reality of course I know they won't, because they need certain number of violent men and victim women if they were to keep portraying society as oppressing, victimizing women.
People spend countless hours and pages and inks wondering how a small number of girl valedictorians, who were virtually assured of success in future one way ro another, could increase earning potential by another thouands of dollars, just so that they catch up with men.
I think it is more beneficial and practial for feminists to view the problem of boys failing schools more seriously. Those boys are far more likely to become criminals, and engage in criminal activities such as theft, burglary and oh yes, sexual assault. If feminists want (or want other women and girls-I know the welfare of men and boys are not in their radar screen in the slightest) to live in a safer society, and reduce sexual assault, etc., then it is also in their best interest to tackle the problem more seriously, not just looking at the problem with a gleeful smile.
This is much more practical measures if feminists really wish to reduce crimes against women. It is much more practical than attacking culture, mass media, TV and movie as inciting men and boys to be violent against women, or even social and (alleged) patriarchal struture as root cause of violence against women. But in reality of course I know they won't, because they need certain number of violent men and victim women if they were to keep portraying society as oppressing, victimizing women.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Urgent help needed in elevating career ambitions of girl valedictorians
Why we care about valedictorians? First of all, there are so many more girl valedictorians than boy valedictorians. Second of all, they are smart enough (-if they have enough brain to be the number one in the class) to see what jobs/career/major suits them best, without people like Ms. Steinberg telling them what suits best for them (or what suits best for Ms. Steinberg and other fellow feminists' grand strategy for social engineering - to statistically equalize wages between men and women), that they should be majoring not in English literature nor social sciences but in engineering and computer sciences. .
What about boys who were dropping out from high schools at a far higher rate than girls? Shouldn't this be a much more important issue than wondering the ambition level of girl valedictorians, who have bright fututre anyway, no matter what career they choose? What NY Times is spending so much space and readers' time for is whether girls with bright future could beat out equally bright boys in future earning power - I guess there are many more things in the world deserving more immediate attention. This clearly shows that prioroties and concerns of NY Times is so twisted and could only care about beating out males.
For feminists, boys falling in school system isn't a problem that needs to be addressed, it is a triumphant sign for girls, it is simply a proof that girls are smarter, that males are dumber, that more girls should be in higher positions and outearning males as a whole.
What about boys who were dropping out from high schools at a far higher rate than girls? Shouldn't this be a much more important issue than wondering the ambition level of girl valedictorians, who have bright fututre anyway, no matter what career they choose? What NY Times is spending so much space and readers' time for is whether girls with bright future could beat out equally bright boys in future earning power - I guess there are many more things in the world deserving more immediate attention. This clearly shows that prioroties and concerns of NY Times is so twisted and could only care about beating out males.
For feminists, boys falling in school system isn't a problem that needs to be addressed, it is a triumphant sign for girls, it is simply a proof that girls are smarter, that males are dumber, that more girls should be in higher positions and outearning males as a whole.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Belfort Bax
I have come across this long article written in 1910’s, when women suffragists were campaigning hard for women’s right to vote, in the era of the so-called first wave of feminism, which many people, including people who normally take an anti-feminist stand, view somehow favorably as a more benevolent kind of feminism, a classical, original, or “good” feminism before it devolve into a virulent anti-man movement in the 60’s and the 70’s with the advent of the second and the third wave of feminism.
Well, it seems it is not so simple – as in old days of original, true feminism was good, only modern incarnation of it is bad.
By glancing through this classic article written by Belfort Bax, a noted Socialist but also known for his ardent anti-feminism views at the time, you would immediately see that even early feminism is fundamentally the same as the modern gender feminism. Both are based on the principles of equality (or sometimes superiority) of women under law as well as preservation of women’s special privileges that ironically have roots in old times when women were regarded and treated as second class citizens.
Entire article could be accessed here;
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism
This is truly a classis anti-feminist article. I have rarely seen an article this long, written by a prominent figure, devoted exclusively on the subject of problems of feminism. Though in the article the author express his disdain for giving voting rights for women (even I cannot agree with him on this point), the article shows that double standards, special privileges for women, unequal law (criminal, matrimonial, etc.) and its enforcement, execution for men and women, male sympathizers (“femi-nabler” to use a word suggested in one of the comments to this blog) in government, judiciary, press, in other words, all the ingredients of modern-day anti-male gender feminists movement are all there as early as in the 1910’s.
Now does this give us a hope? Nope. To know that those problems associated with gender feminists are actually not unique to them, that they have history of nearly a century and deeply rooted in the original feminist movement, led me to think that anti-male characters of feminist movement will not simply go away, just because some courageous people (mostly women) voice their skepticism against them.
Some quotes from the article;
“Personal violence on the part of the husband is severely punished; on the part of wife she will be let off with impunity.”
Hmmm. Looks like the same charade has been going on for a century now.
“…should be legally compelled to pay a certain sum to his wife, ostensibly as wages for her housekeeping services, no matter whether she performs the services well, or ill, or not at all.."
Did Hillary and other feminists get their idea that government (who else?) should pay for the work for housewives here?
“..demand that in the case of the murder by a woman of her illegitimate child, the putative father should be placed in the dock as an accessory! In other words, a man should be punished for a crime of which he is wholly innocent,”Purely absurd, but this is feminism.“This sex hatred, so often vindictive in its character, of men for men, which has for its results that: "man-made" laws invariably favor the opposite sex, and that "man-administered justice" follows the same course, is a psychological problem which is well worth the earnest attention of students of sociology and thinkers generally.”
“I must confess to being unequal to the task of accurately fathoming the psychological condition of the average man who hates man in general and loves woman in general to the extent of going contrary to..”
I completely agree. I think that some (men) needs to take a comprehensive look into the minds of feminist male, to see what motivates them into this “sex-hatred’ phenomena. (my personal view is that those feminist male are motivated by the expectation that they, as ardent male feminists from early on, will be rewarded handsomely in the coming (or so they think) “feminist-run utopia”)
“A man murdered by a woman is always the horrid brute, while the woman murdered by the man is just as surely the angelic victim.”
Sounds familiar….
"The mere physical fact of sex was never for a moment regarded as of itself sufficient to entitle the woman to any special homage, consideration, or immunity, over and above the man.."
In the Medieval period, the word “chivalry” did not mean what it generally means today.
"Sir Walter Besant, entitled "The Revolt of Man," depicting the oppression of man under a Feminist regime, an oppression which ended in a revolt and the re-establishment of male supremacy."
This must be also a “must-read”
“…that woman is, as Herbert Spencer and others have pointed out, simply "undeveloped man"--in other words, that Woman represents a lower stage of evolution than Man.”
“Take the instance of Madame Curie. When radium was first discovered in the laboratory of the late Professor Curie we were told that the latter had made the discovery, it being at the same time mentioned that he possessed in his wife a valuable aid in his laboratory work. We were afterwards told that the discovery of radium was the joint work of both, the implication being that the honors were equally divided. Now, Feminist influence has succeeded in getting Madame Curie spoken of as herself the discoverer of radium!”
Well, it seems it is not so simple – as in old days of original, true feminism was good, only modern incarnation of it is bad.
By glancing through this classic article written by Belfort Bax, a noted Socialist but also known for his ardent anti-feminism views at the time, you would immediately see that even early feminism is fundamentally the same as the modern gender feminism. Both are based on the principles of equality (or sometimes superiority) of women under law as well as preservation of women’s special privileges that ironically have roots in old times when women were regarded and treated as second class citizens.
Entire article could be accessed here;
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism
This is truly a classis anti-feminist article. I have rarely seen an article this long, written by a prominent figure, devoted exclusively on the subject of problems of feminism. Though in the article the author express his disdain for giving voting rights for women (even I cannot agree with him on this point), the article shows that double standards, special privileges for women, unequal law (criminal, matrimonial, etc.) and its enforcement, execution for men and women, male sympathizers (“femi-nabler” to use a word suggested in one of the comments to this blog) in government, judiciary, press, in other words, all the ingredients of modern-day anti-male gender feminists movement are all there as early as in the 1910’s.
Now does this give us a hope? Nope. To know that those problems associated with gender feminists are actually not unique to them, that they have history of nearly a century and deeply rooted in the original feminist movement, led me to think that anti-male characters of feminist movement will not simply go away, just because some courageous people (mostly women) voice their skepticism against them.
Some quotes from the article;
“Personal violence on the part of the husband is severely punished; on the part of wife she will be let off with impunity.”
Hmmm. Looks like the same charade has been going on for a century now.
“…should be legally compelled to pay a certain sum to his wife, ostensibly as wages for her housekeeping services, no matter whether she performs the services well, or ill, or not at all.."
Did Hillary and other feminists get their idea that government (who else?) should pay for the work for housewives here?
“..demand that in the case of the murder by a woman of her illegitimate child, the putative father should be placed in the dock as an accessory! In other words, a man should be punished for a crime of which he is wholly innocent,”Purely absurd, but this is feminism.“This sex hatred, so often vindictive in its character, of men for men, which has for its results that: "man-made" laws invariably favor the opposite sex, and that "man-administered justice" follows the same course, is a psychological problem which is well worth the earnest attention of students of sociology and thinkers generally.”
“I must confess to being unequal to the task of accurately fathoming the psychological condition of the average man who hates man in general and loves woman in general to the extent of going contrary to..”
I completely agree. I think that some (men) needs to take a comprehensive look into the minds of feminist male, to see what motivates them into this “sex-hatred’ phenomena. (my personal view is that those feminist male are motivated by the expectation that they, as ardent male feminists from early on, will be rewarded handsomely in the coming (or so they think) “feminist-run utopia”)
“A man murdered by a woman is always the horrid brute, while the woman murdered by the man is just as surely the angelic victim.”
Sounds familiar….
"The mere physical fact of sex was never for a moment regarded as of itself sufficient to entitle the woman to any special homage, consideration, or immunity, over and above the man.."
In the Medieval period, the word “chivalry” did not mean what it generally means today.
"Sir Walter Besant, entitled "The Revolt of Man," depicting the oppression of man under a Feminist regime, an oppression which ended in a revolt and the re-establishment of male supremacy."
This must be also a “must-read”
“…that woman is, as Herbert Spencer and others have pointed out, simply "undeveloped man"--in other words, that Woman represents a lower stage of evolution than Man.”
“Take the instance of Madame Curie. When radium was first discovered in the laboratory of the late Professor Curie we were told that the latter had made the discovery, it being at the same time mentioned that he possessed in his wife a valuable aid in his laboratory work. We were afterwards told that the discovery of radium was the joint work of both, the implication being that the honors were equally divided. Now, Feminist influence has succeeded in getting Madame Curie spoken of as herself the discoverer of radium!”
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Do female judges use sex appeal to influence male judges?
There are a quite a lot of points to make on this article;
Obama owes his victory to whom? Women? Weren’t women (especially, white old ones) firmly behind Hillary to realize their dream of “a woman President in their lifetime” at the expense of the first black President? Wasn’t it actually white men, who weren’t caught in either race or gender identity politics that shaped the democratic nominee process who tipped the whole election in favour of Obama? Shouldn’t Obama owe his victory to white men and therefore give another seat to one of them in case someone retires from the Supreme Court bench?
And whose “article of faith” is it that the next vacancy (and the next one too – yes, keep wishing) will be filled by a woman? Isn’t it just Ms. Dahlia Lithwick and other small group of fellow feminist comrades who want to promote as an article of faith that not only the next vacancy in the Supreme Court but any high-profile public (and private) positions be filled by women? This advocacy article conveniently comes with a list of possible female candidates to fill the vacancy if it indeed comes up. Again, keep wishing.
Now let’s turn on to the arguments made in the article.
"The male judges were 10 percent more likely to rule against alleged sex-discrimination victims. And male judges were "significantly more likely" to rule in their favor if a woman judge served on their panel"
First of all, who decided that it is better for judges to rule in favour of alleged sex discrimination victim? Isn’t it precisely judges’ job to decide whether there are merits in the cases brought about by the suitors (and by the way who are sex discrimination “victim”?) Doesn’t author know that “significant” percentage of sex discrimination cases do not have case or filed for profit or personal (such as retaliation) reasons. And if female judges rule in favour for alleged sex discrimination victims just because they are women and their ovary or breasts whatever female things interfere with their legal reasoning and analysis of the cases, then there should be fewer female judges, not more. Remember, whenever there are women (so-called “victims”) and her feminists attorneys profiting from baseless sex discrimination cases, there are plenty of male supervisors/co-workers/management suffering unjust legal and financial consequences. And ultimately it is consumers and public at large who have to bear the cost.
"It may suggest female moral reasoning—if such a thing exists—might be contagious."
Or is it because male judges were afraid that not rendering judgments along with the feminist party line (that all women are discriminated against and women never lie) would make their own positions vulnerable? That female judges sitting on the same bench would report to some “gender committee” about her male colleagues “resistance” to rule in favour of “victims”? Or are these female judges using their “sex appeal” or some “feminine attributes” to coax fellow male judges into thinking that they should rule in favour of women?
"It's why liberal lion William Brennan could write so expansively about equality and fairness and justice while still refusing to hire female law clerks."
Doesn’t he have a right “not to hire”, as opposed to “refuse to hire” underqualified female law clerks or does Ms. Lithwick think gender quota should apply in every judges’ offices?
Obama owes his victory to whom? Women? Weren’t women (especially, white old ones) firmly behind Hillary to realize their dream of “a woman President in their lifetime” at the expense of the first black President? Wasn’t it actually white men, who weren’t caught in either race or gender identity politics that shaped the democratic nominee process who tipped the whole election in favour of Obama? Shouldn’t Obama owe his victory to white men and therefore give another seat to one of them in case someone retires from the Supreme Court bench?
And whose “article of faith” is it that the next vacancy (and the next one too – yes, keep wishing) will be filled by a woman? Isn’t it just Ms. Dahlia Lithwick and other small group of fellow feminist comrades who want to promote as an article of faith that not only the next vacancy in the Supreme Court but any high-profile public (and private) positions be filled by women? This advocacy article conveniently comes with a list of possible female candidates to fill the vacancy if it indeed comes up. Again, keep wishing.
Now let’s turn on to the arguments made in the article.
"The male judges were 10 percent more likely to rule against alleged sex-discrimination victims. And male judges were "significantly more likely" to rule in their favor if a woman judge served on their panel"
First of all, who decided that it is better for judges to rule in favour of alleged sex discrimination victim? Isn’t it precisely judges’ job to decide whether there are merits in the cases brought about by the suitors (and by the way who are sex discrimination “victim”?) Doesn’t author know that “significant” percentage of sex discrimination cases do not have case or filed for profit or personal (such as retaliation) reasons. And if female judges rule in favour for alleged sex discrimination victims just because they are women and their ovary or breasts whatever female things interfere with their legal reasoning and analysis of the cases, then there should be fewer female judges, not more. Remember, whenever there are women (so-called “victims”) and her feminists attorneys profiting from baseless sex discrimination cases, there are plenty of male supervisors/co-workers/management suffering unjust legal and financial consequences. And ultimately it is consumers and public at large who have to bear the cost.
"It may suggest female moral reasoning—if such a thing exists—might be contagious."
Or is it because male judges were afraid that not rendering judgments along with the feminist party line (that all women are discriminated against and women never lie) would make their own positions vulnerable? That female judges sitting on the same bench would report to some “gender committee” about her male colleagues “resistance” to rule in favour of “victims”? Or are these female judges using their “sex appeal” or some “feminine attributes” to coax fellow male judges into thinking that they should rule in favour of women?
"It's why liberal lion William Brennan could write so expansively about equality and fairness and justice while still refusing to hire female law clerks."
Doesn’t he have a right “not to hire”, as opposed to “refuse to hire” underqualified female law clerks or does Ms. Lithwick think gender quota should apply in every judges’ offices?
Equal opportunity abortion?
Normally staunchly pro-abortion leftist people would turn into temporary pro-lifers only on one occasion - when the abortion is targeted towards female babies, as it has been allegedly practiced in China. On the other side of the coin of this temporary suspension of one of the leftist most celebrated caueses is, do these leftist people support abortion here in US because aborted babies include boys? In other words, is it because abortions in US is equall opportunity - male and female babaies are aborted at the same proportion? I don't have a strong stand on abortion issue, but this is interesting to think.
One has to think two possibilities when there are far fewer women than men in any given societies. One possibility is that women will be treated as objects, commodities, they will become target of sexual exploitation, etc. This is the (only) possibility that has been talked about in western liberal media. This is their preferred narrative since it perfectly fits their agenda and worldview - that women are oppressed, are treated as objects, and are discriminated against, and therefore actions for social justice and social engineering is needed.
However there is other possibility, a possibility that has never been discussed hitherto in liberal western media, and that is the possibility that women’s status will actually become higher. If there are fewer young women than young men, it is far more likely that those young men will bend over backwards to grab attention of women and please them, in order to get themselves girlfriends or wives, rather than abducting them or paying money to get the bride, as some media tried to portray. It is much easier and less riskier for those young men to put on some nice jackets, flowers in hands and take women to some fancy restaurants if they want girlfriends or wives than to engage in criminal acts or pay huge amount of money.
Others think that too many men, or overabundance of them in society itself will create a problem, as too much energy, testosterone and frustration of young men are pent up in society. This is nothing but an extremely misandryst view, by people who think that maleness or male virtue is essentially evil and harmful to society and women. Nobody talk about extreme gender imbalance in favour of women at senior age in any country, but if male to female ration exceeds just 1.20, then this is an emergency in need of corrective actions.
One has to think two possibilities when there are far fewer women than men in any given societies. One possibility is that women will be treated as objects, commodities, they will become target of sexual exploitation, etc. This is the (only) possibility that has been talked about in western liberal media. This is their preferred narrative since it perfectly fits their agenda and worldview - that women are oppressed, are treated as objects, and are discriminated against, and therefore actions for social justice and social engineering is needed.
However there is other possibility, a possibility that has never been discussed hitherto in liberal western media, and that is the possibility that women’s status will actually become higher. If there are fewer young women than young men, it is far more likely that those young men will bend over backwards to grab attention of women and please them, in order to get themselves girlfriends or wives, rather than abducting them or paying money to get the bride, as some media tried to portray. It is much easier and less riskier for those young men to put on some nice jackets, flowers in hands and take women to some fancy restaurants if they want girlfriends or wives than to engage in criminal acts or pay huge amount of money.
Others think that too many men, or overabundance of them in society itself will create a problem, as too much energy, testosterone and frustration of young men are pent up in society. This is nothing but an extremely misandryst view, by people who think that maleness or male virtue is essentially evil and harmful to society and women. Nobody talk about extreme gender imbalance in favour of women at senior age in any country, but if male to female ration exceeds just 1.20, then this is an emergency in need of corrective actions.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Male post-partum depression
Interesting story about male (!!) post-partum depression. I guess part of the depression stems from the gap that society (modern, politically correct) expects of new dads and what men are actually equipped and capable of doing from evolutionary perspective. Modern politically-correct society pretends that men and women are exactly the same, yet when it comes to parenting, traditional nurturing mother model is a gold standard and the society judges both new moms and new dads on that basis.
This puts men in distinct disadvantage, of course, as men are men after all, whether they take paternity leaves that are as long as wives’ maternity leaves, bottle feed or change diapers as often as their wives. For thousands and millions of years men’s primary tasks were to protect family from outside threats, provide food, etc., not feeding baby or taking care of crying babies. Men who are brain-washed by feminists think that men OUGHT to behave like moms, and SHOULD be able to perform like moms, yet evolutionary psychology tells us that men are not equipped as well as women in these departments.
At the same time, traditional roles played by fathers, such as teaching and enforcing rules, and strict, solemn father type is becoming obsolete. New dads are simply expected to be the “second” mom, a substitute mom who can take over feeding, diaper-changing and other baby and home-related chores for moms, so that the “real” moms will be freed from baby-related chores and return to work and office where they are expected to take over men.
This gap between what men are actually capable of doing from evolutionary perspective and what society expects the “substitute” mom to do, as well as the feeling being belittled by society of their traditional male role, fatherhood and general societal disregard of males, are contributing to the increasing number of depression among new dads.
This puts men in distinct disadvantage, of course, as men are men after all, whether they take paternity leaves that are as long as wives’ maternity leaves, bottle feed or change diapers as often as their wives. For thousands and millions of years men’s primary tasks were to protect family from outside threats, provide food, etc., not feeding baby or taking care of crying babies. Men who are brain-washed by feminists think that men OUGHT to behave like moms, and SHOULD be able to perform like moms, yet evolutionary psychology tells us that men are not equipped as well as women in these departments.
At the same time, traditional roles played by fathers, such as teaching and enforcing rules, and strict, solemn father type is becoming obsolete. New dads are simply expected to be the “second” mom, a substitute mom who can take over feeding, diaper-changing and other baby and home-related chores for moms, so that the “real” moms will be freed from baby-related chores and return to work and office where they are expected to take over men.
This gap between what men are actually capable of doing from evolutionary perspective and what society expects the “substitute” mom to do, as well as the feeling being belittled by society of their traditional male role, fatherhood and general societal disregard of males, are contributing to the increasing number of depression among new dads.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
UN Secretary-General speaks out (too much)
This piece of quote, from usually laconic and low-key Korean UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is a little bit old, but worth quoting;
“Violence against women is thus an attack on all of us, on the foundation of our civilization.”
Wow. It’s a heinous crime (UNLESS it’s a story made up by a vengeful woman), but is it an attack on the foundation of our civilization? This English-challenged Secretary-General may wish to consult his English-Korean dictionary before making some stupefying comments that is way out of proportion. This guy is usually so low key that nobody usually notices and below the radar screen of most people, when he goes berserk, he really goes berserk.
This kind of hyperboly is almost on par with some nutty feminists who claimed that domestic violence is sexual terrorism.
He also delivered another line in the same statement which must have been directly fed by some western (Anglo-Saxon) feminists;
“Violence against women is an abomination.” I don’t think such big words like “abomination” is within this Korean’s usual vocabulary. Well, to tell the truth, English is not my mother tongue either, so I won’t make too much of a fun of him, but at least I'd suggest that he or his aides who drafted his speech has to be a little bit more careful in the choice of words.
Well I guess that he doesn't really believe all these stuff seriously, but as the chief of the United Nations, which has been so thoroughly co-opted by international feminists (which is like American gender feminists on steroid), he had to represent the "interest" of the organization and had to read out the statement prepared by junior feminist speechwriter approved by a more senior feminist aid to SG.
“Violence against women is thus an attack on all of us, on the foundation of our civilization.”
Wow. It’s a heinous crime (UNLESS it’s a story made up by a vengeful woman), but is it an attack on the foundation of our civilization? This English-challenged Secretary-General may wish to consult his English-Korean dictionary before making some stupefying comments that is way out of proportion. This guy is usually so low key that nobody usually notices and below the radar screen of most people, when he goes berserk, he really goes berserk.
This kind of hyperboly is almost on par with some nutty feminists who claimed that domestic violence is sexual terrorism.
He also delivered another line in the same statement which must have been directly fed by some western (Anglo-Saxon) feminists;
“Violence against women is an abomination.” I don’t think such big words like “abomination” is within this Korean’s usual vocabulary. Well, to tell the truth, English is not my mother tongue either, so I won’t make too much of a fun of him, but at least I'd suggest that he or his aides who drafted his speech has to be a little bit more careful in the choice of words.
Well I guess that he doesn't really believe all these stuff seriously, but as the chief of the United Nations, which has been so thoroughly co-opted by international feminists (which is like American gender feminists on steroid), he had to represent the "interest" of the organization and had to read out the statement prepared by junior feminist speechwriter approved by a more senior feminist aid to SG.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
How to create a "controversy"
Just saw a movie “Slumdog millionaire”. It’s a fun movie, fast-paced, good soundtrack..etc. After getting home, I did some research on the movie (my favourite wikipedia) I found out that the movie is not without a co-director” of the movie who missed out on the Oscar nomination. Actually it is not really a “controversy”, or should not be called so, but in the sense that as long as there is someone out there who is determined to stir up one in order to push their agenda, yes, it may be a “controversy”.
(Ms. Jan Lisa Huttner-Champion of women filmmakers, or one-woman controversy protagonist)Feminists, as we all know, never miss a chance to claim credit even when it’s not due. So when sympathetic and (a bit patronizing as well in my view) “real” director Danny Boyle decided to give his “casting director” an unusual title of “co-director”, and that casting director happened to be a female (a rare kind in the industry we’re told), and with the film’s huge success, the stage was set for a “controversy”, at least in one feminist’s view.
A feminist who is used to entitlements, handouts and to getting pampered by males seemed to have had a hard time understanding why (male-dominated) Oscar nominated only the (male) director and not the (female) co-director. And gender imbalance is a bad thing- except in prison population or suicide rate, or high school drop out rate or unemployment in recent economic crisis - , so the on-line campaign to flood (and intimidate) Oscar board members with petition letters is one good way to rectify that imbalance.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Feminists' animation
Congratulations to all gender-feminists, now finally your dream come true - children watching animation movie featuring a female who conforms to gender-feminists ideology (minus big boobs and ultra-skinny thing) I understand that's what you've all been fighting for since the 60's when your elder sisters were burning bras and storming beauty contests.
You guys can continue discusing how the movie could have been even better, (or have better influence for girls and boys) by analyzing why the heroine has to have big boobs and be skinny and young and has a pretty face, rather than be a middle-aged, "curvy", cosmetically challenged women, or in other words, a "real" women. if you don't have appetite for this, then go back to home and wash dishes!!
You guys can continue discusing how the movie could have been even better, (or have better influence for girls and boys) by analyzing why the heroine has to have big boobs and be skinny and young and has a pretty face, rather than be a middle-aged, "curvy", cosmetically challenged women, or in other words, a "real" women. if you don't have appetite for this, then go back to home and wash dishes!!
Friday, March 20, 2009
More on Chris-Rihana saga...
In fact the Chris-Rihana saga is truly a god-sent for feminists who are always on the lookout for opportunity to advance their agenda. As lately the national attention is on economic crisis, unemployment and large scale lay-offs (though somehow feminists succeeded in reframing the issue as the need for laid-off men to stop looking for jobs, settle at home and be a he-mom); Duke’s case is long gone and it’s already exposed as a hoax…
And then all of a sudden you got a photo of a beaten woman plastered all over tabloid news. And the alleged batterer is Chris Brown (of all people)!! and the battered woman is Rihana!! It had perfect ingredients… celebrities, photos – feminists couldn’t have hoped for a better opportunity and thus they want all over the media on full salvo denouncing not just Chris in question but all males in general as well as a rap culture for allegedly encouraging misogynistic views and encouraging violence against females. There were two tiny feckles in this otherwise perfect story…the one was the fact that Rihana returned to Chris and the other being young girls not lining up behind old feminists’ patriarchy-made-him-batter-her claim. But these are small problems after all, the important thing for them is that their agenda is back on the frontpage again and their sisters and viewpoints monopolized coverage and opinion pages of mainstream media… Mission accomplished.
Nice job, feminists.
But beware of a story too good to be true, feminists. Remember Duke lacross players? That case also had perfect ingredients; white privileged males, jocks at frat party, low-income black working (here we don’t bother what her “work” was) mom, and sexual assault…
It’s also amazing to see how standards / criteria to decide who are the guilty ones in domestic violence cases have been switched, changed and invented to ensure that women are victims all the time and men are culprits all the time. First feminists conceived “first strike” theory in which the person who initiated assault was supposed to be the guilty one, no matter what the outcome (who ended up injured more) was. A small inconvenient fact was that it turned out women initiate physical assault more often than men. Thus feminists wasted no time in conjuring up the “primary aggressor” theory which holds that the person who are bigger and stronger would be held guilty. This seems to be working well since in most couples, men are bigger and stronger. (I wonder what feminists are going to say if a woman happened to be bigger and stronger than a man in a given case and injured him? – I bet they’d sneer at small, weak man, and triumphantly chest-thump and declare women are new men) This is already an ART in itself, an ART of ensnarling males as always guilty party in domestic disturbance cases while maintaining a semblance of gender-neutral languages in domestic violence laws so as not to violate Constitutional clause which prohibits discrimination based on gender.
And then all of a sudden you got a photo of a beaten woman plastered all over tabloid news. And the alleged batterer is Chris Brown (of all people)!! and the battered woman is Rihana!! It had perfect ingredients… celebrities, photos – feminists couldn’t have hoped for a better opportunity and thus they want all over the media on full salvo denouncing not just Chris in question but all males in general as well as a rap culture for allegedly encouraging misogynistic views and encouraging violence against females. There were two tiny feckles in this otherwise perfect story…the one was the fact that Rihana returned to Chris and the other being young girls not lining up behind old feminists’ patriarchy-made-him-batter-her claim. But these are small problems after all, the important thing for them is that their agenda is back on the frontpage again and their sisters and viewpoints monopolized coverage and opinion pages of mainstream media… Mission accomplished.
Nice job, feminists.
But beware of a story too good to be true, feminists. Remember Duke lacross players? That case also had perfect ingredients; white privileged males, jocks at frat party, low-income black working (here we don’t bother what her “work” was) mom, and sexual assault…
It’s also amazing to see how standards / criteria to decide who are the guilty ones in domestic violence cases have been switched, changed and invented to ensure that women are victims all the time and men are culprits all the time. First feminists conceived “first strike” theory in which the person who initiated assault was supposed to be the guilty one, no matter what the outcome (who ended up injured more) was. A small inconvenient fact was that it turned out women initiate physical assault more often than men. Thus feminists wasted no time in conjuring up the “primary aggressor” theory which holds that the person who are bigger and stronger would be held guilty. This seems to be working well since in most couples, men are bigger and stronger. (I wonder what feminists are going to say if a woman happened to be bigger and stronger than a man in a given case and injured him? – I bet they’d sneer at small, weak man, and triumphantly chest-thump and declare women are new men) This is already an ART in itself, an ART of ensnarling males as always guilty party in domestic disturbance cases while maintaining a semblance of gender-neutral languages in domestic violence laws so as not to violate Constitutional clause which prohibits discrimination based on gender.
On laid-off (high income) males
No so subtle attempt to further stigmatize the stay-at-home-moms.... To feminists like her, current economic crisis is just another opporunity to advance their agenda of gender role reversal and social engineering. All the stuff about pretending to show concern for middle to low income families are just so bogus, and beneath its thin veneer you can see her gleeful smile....
In her continuing vilification of laid-off males, Judith Warner is narrowing down her target to top 5 (or 1%) of (previously) high income males, whose family are more likely to adopt (or stuck) in traditional sex roles in terms of division of family labour and who are less likely to help doing dishes than middle- to low-income males.
What’s her motives here?
Obviously it is a bigger victory for feminists if high-income males change their mind and totally give up their career and be stay-at-home-dads than middle- to low-income dads doing so, because;
-Ratio of males in those high-income industries will decrease, and that of women will increase. Also the income ratio of men and women will shift (albeit slightly) in women’s favour.
-Wives of high-income males tend to be more educated and more likely to have previously held high-income jobs than wives of middle- to low-income males, and when these women go back to workforce, they are more likely to work in high-paying jobs than, say, 11$/hour telemarketers which is one of typical jobs that wives of middle- to low-income males get. Again this will serve to increase ration of women in high paying jobs or senior positions, and shift the income ratio in women’s favour.
So again, it’s all about power and money, the two things gender feminists love most (and the money IS power, according to gender feminists)
By the way, I wonder how the Judith Warner and other feminists would react if the 82% of all laid offs were on women; I’m sure she won’t be too obsessed about pesking women to stop looking for other jobs and instead wash dishes and coffee mugs…
In her continuing vilification of laid-off males, Judith Warner is narrowing down her target to top 5 (or 1%) of (previously) high income males, whose family are more likely to adopt (or stuck) in traditional sex roles in terms of division of family labour and who are less likely to help doing dishes than middle- to low-income males.
What’s her motives here?
Obviously it is a bigger victory for feminists if high-income males change their mind and totally give up their career and be stay-at-home-dads than middle- to low-income dads doing so, because;
-Ratio of males in those high-income industries will decrease, and that of women will increase. Also the income ratio of men and women will shift (albeit slightly) in women’s favour.
-Wives of high-income males tend to be more educated and more likely to have previously held high-income jobs than wives of middle- to low-income males, and when these women go back to workforce, they are more likely to work in high-paying jobs than, say, 11$/hour telemarketers which is one of typical jobs that wives of middle- to low-income males get. Again this will serve to increase ration of women in high paying jobs or senior positions, and shift the income ratio in women’s favour.
So again, it’s all about power and money, the two things gender feminists love most (and the money IS power, according to gender feminists)
By the way, I wonder how the Judith Warner and other feminists would react if the 82% of all laid offs were on women; I’m sure she won’t be too obsessed about pesking women to stop looking for other jobs and instead wash dishes and coffee mugs…
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Re-educate those young girls - Part 2
The article exemplifies old radical feminists thinking style:
"perhaps the first time their generation has been compelled to think aloud about dating violence."
This is interesting since feminists always scream about the national scourge of young women getting beaten by their boyfriends, yet for many girls, this incident seem to be their first encounter with such dating violence! How could they have missed all the violence that were allegedly going around everywhere according to feminists?
"On a Facebook discussion, one girl wrote, “she probly ran into a door and was too embarrassed so blamed it on chris.”"
Even some girls (non-New York Times reading type), seem to know that in real life, many women conjure up stories of violence by men as an excuse for their fault or mishaps.
"don’t shock Marcyliena Morgan, executive director of Harvard’s hip-hop archive. “But it’s the girls!” she said. “Where have we gone wrong here?”"
Where’s the sisterhood here? All the females are supposed to line up behind other fellow females under any circumstances!! Girls are not supposed to use their own judgment or think independently, just follow suit of older women, who knows better than them that all men are enemy and all the evils in this world have been created by men!
"Acknowledging his attack would make them feel vulnerable: How could they have a crush on someone who could do that? It was less terrifying to blame Rihanna."
Good job trying to psycho-analyze psyche of young girls who uncomprehendingly don’t stand behind feminists. But is it the young girls or actually the old feminists who are really feeling "vulnerable" or "terrified" about this? Who are feeling vulnerable that their feminist old guards' torch has not been properly passed on to younger generation?
“What really matters is that we don’t destroy boys.”
Oh, really? It rather seems that there is a huge social drive not to destroy the lives of girls, or to make life easier for girls at any expense. As if excelling in school over boys on most areas is simply not enough, pushing bright young girls into studying physical science rather than English literature is getting so much more attention and public money than helping underachiveing boys. Boys’ lives, especially those of black, Latinos in inner city are so routinely destroyed that it’s not going to be even a news in this world.
"In the last few years, efforts to educate teenagers about abusive relationships have begun."
Looks like young girls have been let loose, and there has not been enough indoctrination of young girls in feminists ideology, so now we march on!
“Rewrite the ending of ‘Othello,’ ” they were told, “where there’s an intervention before Othello comes in with the pillow.”
Here’s a good old example of radical feminists' effort to re-write history, re-write great literature, and to alter the great cultural heritage of western civilization so that it fits their agenda and worldview. Remember, these so-called great literature is written by a man after all...reflecting ethos of the time that is extremely misogynistic by today's feminists' standard. How can we teach "his"tory when it is all writen by men... We need to teach "her"story..
"perhaps the first time their generation has been compelled to think aloud about dating violence."
This is interesting since feminists always scream about the national scourge of young women getting beaten by their boyfriends, yet for many girls, this incident seem to be their first encounter with such dating violence! How could they have missed all the violence that were allegedly going around everywhere according to feminists?
"On a Facebook discussion, one girl wrote, “she probly ran into a door and was too embarrassed so blamed it on chris.”"
Even some girls (non-New York Times reading type), seem to know that in real life, many women conjure up stories of violence by men as an excuse for their fault or mishaps.
"don’t shock Marcyliena Morgan, executive director of Harvard’s hip-hop archive. “But it’s the girls!” she said. “Where have we gone wrong here?”"
Where’s the sisterhood here? All the females are supposed to line up behind other fellow females under any circumstances!! Girls are not supposed to use their own judgment or think independently, just follow suit of older women, who knows better than them that all men are enemy and all the evils in this world have been created by men!
"Acknowledging his attack would make them feel vulnerable: How could they have a crush on someone who could do that? It was less terrifying to blame Rihanna."
Good job trying to psycho-analyze psyche of young girls who uncomprehendingly don’t stand behind feminists. But is it the young girls or actually the old feminists who are really feeling "vulnerable" or "terrified" about this? Who are feeling vulnerable that their feminist old guards' torch has not been properly passed on to younger generation?
“What really matters is that we don’t destroy boys.”
Oh, really? It rather seems that there is a huge social drive not to destroy the lives of girls, or to make life easier for girls at any expense. As if excelling in school over boys on most areas is simply not enough, pushing bright young girls into studying physical science rather than English literature is getting so much more attention and public money than helping underachiveing boys. Boys’ lives, especially those of black, Latinos in inner city are so routinely destroyed that it’s not going to be even a news in this world.
"In the last few years, efforts to educate teenagers about abusive relationships have begun."
Looks like young girls have been let loose, and there has not been enough indoctrination of young girls in feminists ideology, so now we march on!
“Rewrite the ending of ‘Othello,’ ” they were told, “where there’s an intervention before Othello comes in with the pillow.”
Here’s a good old example of radical feminists' effort to re-write history, re-write great literature, and to alter the great cultural heritage of western civilization so that it fits their agenda and worldview. Remember, these so-called great literature is written by a man after all...reflecting ethos of the time that is extremely misogynistic by today's feminists' standard. How can we teach "his"tory when it is all writen by men... We need to teach "her"story..
Re-educate those young girls
It looks like young girls are living in a more gender-free world where you don't have see every single events through tired old doctrinaire gender-feminist lense.
Understandably it poses a trouble for traditional feminists type. While they pretend that they've fought for a gender-free world where peopel do not have to be judged on the basis of gender, they are doing the exact opposite : re-educate those free-minded young girls into the mold of old radical feminsts type, by re-interpreting the entire Chris-Rohana event for them. I understand this motive, because, if this confrontation was simply reduced to physical altercation between a couple, as more common-sensical young girls of today do, then the whole feminists ideology which posits that males uses violence to perpetuate patriarchy would totally collapse. Such a prospect would really, to use the author's words, make these arch-feminists "feel vulnerable" and "terrifying".
Understandably it poses a trouble for traditional feminists type. While they pretend that they've fought for a gender-free world where peopel do not have to be judged on the basis of gender, they are doing the exact opposite : re-educate those free-minded young girls into the mold of old radical feminsts type, by re-interpreting the entire Chris-Rohana event for them. I understand this motive, because, if this confrontation was simply reduced to physical altercation between a couple, as more common-sensical young girls of today do, then the whole feminists ideology which posits that males uses violence to perpetuate patriarchy would totally collapse. Such a prospect would really, to use the author's words, make these arch-feminists "feel vulnerable" and "terrifying".
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
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.
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.
Male-bashing in the era of recession
Liberal news media these days simply cannot stop belittling men and hounding them into doing more housework, or to be more like “housewives”. In addition to a piece by New York Times, the Newsweeks also jumped on the use-economic-downturn-as-means-to-realize-feminist-utopia bandwagon. I don’t know exactly what kind of benefits it will bring to national economy as a whole if laid-off men do more housework rather than watch TV (do they?) or look for the next job, but it doesn’t matter to feminists. They would rather have more men permanently stay at home to be stay-at-home-dads than seeing economic recovery. It’s in a way understandable since the economic recession seems to be taking toll much more on men (and especially high-paid men in financial sector, etc.) than on women, so feminists would lose nothing by seeing this recessions going even deeper. Just wait to see more men, especially in high-paid position, get pink slips, and see the proportion of women in workforce rise higher (and to break the historic 50% mark). They know they are inching towards a feminist utopia. Now that’s a “silver lining” or what?
Feminists don’t need to worry much about recession anyway because as they can thrive on government entitlements and giveaways. So when most people are worried about how to pay the next mortgage or rent, instead feminists’ minds are preoccupied with how to make more men to do more housework, how to change people’s perception of men from breadwinner to stay at home caretaker!
Continuing economic downturn is a cause of great concern for all of us except feminists, but it is even worse to see the degree to which this country is poisened with man-hating brand of feminism - which can only see current economic downturn as "opportunity" to further their social engineering agenda.
Feminists don’t need to worry much about recession anyway because as they can thrive on government entitlements and giveaways. So when most people are worried about how to pay the next mortgage or rent, instead feminists’ minds are preoccupied with how to make more men to do more housework, how to change people’s perception of men from breadwinner to stay at home caretaker!
Continuing economic downturn is a cause of great concern for all of us except feminists, but it is even worse to see the degree to which this country is poisened with man-hating brand of feminism - which can only see current economic downturn as "opportunity" to further their social engineering agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)