Haven't blog lately....been busy and stuff, but anyway, I decided to stat a new blog - http://menrule.wordpress.com
In the new blog, I will focus more on my own thoughts and ideas about feminists and related issues, and less on my reaction and commentaries on current news, as I did in this blog. I do not inend to entirely end this blog, from time to time, I may blog here with my views and commentaries on events, but will certainly be less often...in the meantime, do check out my new blog!!!
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Outrage at dearth of minority third-base coaches in MLB
No, This is not a parody written by some right wing nutheads to poke fun at politically-correct diversity culture, but it is indeed a real article that was deemed newsworthy by the New Yorkt Times. SIMPLY AMAZING. And there are experts at university, etc., who take these things seriously and in a straight face say that “Sometimes you do have to intervene.”
Friday, May 28, 2010
"Repressed memories" and feminists
This is a story of a truly courageous woman, and I used this word “courageous” not in a the sense feminists use it often (such as the so-called “courageous” women suing corporations for sexual discrimination, etc. – no, that’s just being opportunistic, hungry after money, and riding the politically-correct bandwagon), but in a true sense of the word. Ms. Loftus should be in the same league with Suan Hoff Summers, and others who courageously fight against politically-correct feminist orthodoxy.
Repressed memories, which were quite a rage in the 1990’s, was one of the feminists’ weapons of choice in their battle against men. Most of the memories supposedly repressed were those of rape/molestation by father/male members of family against very young girls who were either too young or too traumatized (or both) to recount the alleged events. It naturally followed that promoting the concept, and pressuring courts and judges to adopt it as a valid evidence in judicial proceeding, was important for feminists in their quest to put as many innocent men behind bars as possible, to raise awareness of child abuse by men, and to paint all men as actual or potential child abusers. It was no wonder why feminists had such hysteric and hostile reactions against Ms. Loftus when she methodically and steadfastly debunked tricks behind the concept of repressed memories so welcomed by feminists.
“For her courage in confronting this menace, Loftus was ostracized by clinical psychologists, denounced as an enemy of women, and accused of molesting her own children, though she had none. Armed guards accompanied her at lectures. And when she dared to reinvestigate a particularly compelling allegation of sexual abuse—the "Jane Doe" case—her university seized her files and barred her from publishing or discussing her findings. (Read Memory and Truth: The Mystery of Jane Doe.) She persisted in the face of these ordeals because she refused to live in a world of lies.”
It seems the tactics feminists' use to silence their opponents are same in the 1990's. While it is true that Ms. Loftus was subjected to feminists attack, she persisted. Still, I cannot help but think, what if Ms. Loftus was Mr. Loftus? Would “he” be able to survive such politically-correct attacks? Probably not.
Repressed memories, which were quite a rage in the 1990’s, was one of the feminists’ weapons of choice in their battle against men. Most of the memories supposedly repressed were those of rape/molestation by father/male members of family against very young girls who were either too young or too traumatized (or both) to recount the alleged events. It naturally followed that promoting the concept, and pressuring courts and judges to adopt it as a valid evidence in judicial proceeding, was important for feminists in their quest to put as many innocent men behind bars as possible, to raise awareness of child abuse by men, and to paint all men as actual or potential child abusers. It was no wonder why feminists had such hysteric and hostile reactions against Ms. Loftus when she methodically and steadfastly debunked tricks behind the concept of repressed memories so welcomed by feminists.
“For her courage in confronting this menace, Loftus was ostracized by clinical psychologists, denounced as an enemy of women, and accused of molesting her own children, though she had none. Armed guards accompanied her at lectures. And when she dared to reinvestigate a particularly compelling allegation of sexual abuse—the "Jane Doe" case—her university seized her files and barred her from publishing or discussing her findings. (Read Memory and Truth: The Mystery of Jane Doe.) She persisted in the face of these ordeals because she refused to live in a world of lies.”
It seems the tactics feminists' use to silence their opponents are same in the 1990's. While it is true that Ms. Loftus was subjected to feminists attack, she persisted. Still, I cannot help but think, what if Ms. Loftus was Mr. Loftus? Would “he” be able to survive such politically-correct attacks? Probably not.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Climate change - women disproportionately affected!
Looks like some people took the old joke “The world to end tomorrow – women affected disproportionately”* seriously.
Feminists seriously believe that climate change will negatively impact women more so than it does for men. With their feminine and soft grasp of science and mathmatics (which explains why there aren't as many female scientists as feminists would like) and an extremely self-centric (or oval-centric as some feminists put it) view of the world, an issue that looks to affect the entire planet, not just human beings but also polar bears, among other countless animals and plants, is now defined as a problem that affects women disproportionately, and taken up only in that perspectives as if that is the only perspective that MATTERS.
And though some sane commentors to the article in the website politely expressed their suspicion as to whether this is really a gender issue, the doctrinaire feminist stuck to their bizarre view.
Discussion on climate change, now at the hands of feminists, have been relegated to another rounds of endless bean-counting - on how many males and females are in imporant positions - by feminists… Well, if the most important issue in climate change debate is about increasing women in high-level positions in organizations/institutions dealing with the issue, then it is not so important after all…ISNT'T IT? Feminists will have you believe, put some people with breasts in these important positions, and alas, the planet will start to cool down from tomorrow…. Himalayan glacier will stop melting, and polar bears are so happy that they won't have to drown in Arctic sea anymore….
*If you want to take a bit serious, statistical look at this, you will find out that it is not correct. If the world is really to end tomorrow, and all the people on earth are to perish, then 56 million more males than females would die (world population in 2009: male 3,442 million, female 3,386 million).
Feminists seriously believe that climate change will negatively impact women more so than it does for men. With their feminine and soft grasp of science and mathmatics (which explains why there aren't as many female scientists as feminists would like) and an extremely self-centric (or oval-centric as some feminists put it) view of the world, an issue that looks to affect the entire planet, not just human beings but also polar bears, among other countless animals and plants, is now defined as a problem that affects women disproportionately, and taken up only in that perspectives as if that is the only perspective that MATTERS.
And though some sane commentors to the article in the website politely expressed their suspicion as to whether this is really a gender issue, the doctrinaire feminist stuck to their bizarre view.
Discussion on climate change, now at the hands of feminists, have been relegated to another rounds of endless bean-counting - on how many males and females are in imporant positions - by feminists… Well, if the most important issue in climate change debate is about increasing women in high-level positions in organizations/institutions dealing with the issue, then it is not so important after all…ISNT'T IT? Feminists will have you believe, put some people with breasts in these important positions, and alas, the planet will start to cool down from tomorrow…. Himalayan glacier will stop melting, and polar bears are so happy that they won't have to drown in Arctic sea anymore….
*If you want to take a bit serious, statistical look at this, you will find out that it is not correct. If the world is really to end tomorrow, and all the people on earth are to perish, then 56 million more males than females would die (world population in 2009: male 3,442 million, female 3,386 million).
Glass Ceiling for Female Terrorists
A very interesting article…if you are a “true feminist”, then you need to pursue gender parity in leadership position whether it is in a government, large corporations or…..terrorist organizations. It almost sounds like too crazy to be true that this article was penned by a mainstream (and therefore liberal)author(and some comments to this article suspected conservatives parodying PC cause), but I guess this is very logical consequence of pursuing what is the most important goal for feminists and liberals. Feminists always say that they want to see gender parity in all facets of life (-including criminal and terrorist world, now I know).
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Woman politician botching BIG, BIG time...
See what a female candidate can do… Liberal media is usually saturated with articles about how female politicians are such a wonderful creature, selfless, uncorrupted, efficient and capable. Now let's see one such female politician, who until a few weeks ago, was a presumptive next US Senator, the would-be trail-brazing first female Senator from Massachusetts, another prominent, strong, independent and highly capable female politicians who would embody women's superior ability in politics...Now let's see what she did.....she lost one of the easiest, surest election in the country!!
The result so shocking that Democrat's, NYTimes and other liberal media and groups are searching for an explanation of what had happened.
May explanations/excuses were offered. Many rightly pointed unbeleivable ineptitude of this woman candidiate, but feminists beg to differ. Read this.
Well, are you surprised at all that whenever women didn't get their wish, feminists are going to blame men?
Well, if Massachusetts’ old boy’s network existed, why did she win the Democratic primary anyway? (The author partly acknowledges this, but simply refers to this as “surprising… in the first place”. That’s it?) And usually network of influential and powerful people work only at the party primary level where party bosses and influential supporters could decide the fate of the candidates. Think, for example, in general election, what could the Democrat’s “old boys’ network” do to prevent Martha’s bid for Senate seat? Why would they even do that? Would they do something to derail her campaign just so that the State of Massachusetts doesn’t have to elect it first female Senator?
And what could the Republican’s “old boys’ network” do to prevent Martha? Everything!! Why? Is it because all Republicans are cavemen and think women only as a reproducing machine? No, because they are Republicans (surprise!) and that’s why that they are supposed to do.
Instead of discussing whether such old boys’ network still actually exists or what impact it had on the election, the rest of the article is simply a why-women-are-superior-politician piece often seen in feminist articles. By the way if we believe this Why-women-are-so-super-in-New England theory, it gives justification for dearth of women in larger national level elections - I like that.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Feminists and climate change
So a big meeting on climate change is in full swing in Copenhagen, Denmark. Since this blog is primarily about poisonous effects of feminism, I won’t go into details about the issue. But as you can imagine, as in every large, high-profile international conferences, feminist will not pass up an opportunity to promote themselves and their issues, and if possible steal the show and hijack the conference. As I mentioned before, feminisists are a creature that needs to be in the center of attention all the time. So if the world’s eyes are on Copenhagen, that’s where they are going to be. That’s why they’ve sent a large number of (self-appointed) “delegates” to Copenhagen.
Why women and climate change, you ask? After all, if world is to perish from too much greenhouse gas, aren’t both men and women going to suffer equally?
(This reminds me of the joke - Breaking news: the world to end tomorrow. Women disproportionately affected!)
NO, according to feminists. Climate change is not an equal opportunity menace that affects both men and women at the same rate, but is indeed a very gendered issue that requires approach and actions approved by feminist authority.
Why is it a gendered issue? Because…(according to feminists)
-Climate change affects world’s poor regions and poorest people most severely, and 70% of the world’s poorest are women.
-Women and girls are often responsible for collecting firewood and cooking in developing countries, who will be more affected by climate change.
-Women are responsible for growing the bulk of the food staples in developing countries
-Women, as farmers, need better climate and weather information
-Women in rural regions could benefit from agricultural waste to energy projects.
-Women are four times more likely to die in natural disasters, which is happening at greater frequency as a result of global warming.
Wmmm, sounds serious enough, to make you believe that the global warming is actually a women’s issue, rather than an issue that affects all human beings, or small islands in the Pacific, or polar bears in the South Pole. Or is it?
Many of the arguments listed above look like a dramatic scaling down of the problem that was supposed to affect everybody, not just all human beings currently residing on planet earth but future generations, and polar bears and other animals and eco-system as a whole, and ultimately the entire planet earth. But according to feminists' logic, everyone in the developed countries need to fundamentally change their lifestyles, lower carbon emission, develop new source of energy, and undertake millions of other things that were recommended by green activists, so that, so that - some poor little girls in rural Africa don’t need to spend time to collect firewoods but attend school instead (presumably so that girls rather than boys could get higher education and eventually land a better, more powerful and high-paying jobs than boys).
This is obviously absurd. For one thing, girls (or boys) in rural Africa must have been collecting firewoods for centuries, long before Western countries started emitting too much CO2. Their problems is not created by some greedy western countries who pursue only their economic self-interests, but by poverty and underdevelopment. And poverty and underdevelopment could only be by countered by industrialization and economic development which, whether greens like it or not, is going to mean more coal and fossil fuel burning, among other things.
And obviously it doesn’t make sense that, for example, western governments and multinational corporations need to spend billions (or trillions) of dollors to research and develop new clean energy just to save some sorry girls in rural Africa.
Many of the above points were taken from a website by the Government of Finland, whose only “achievement” in the world political stage is to have elected a woman to it’s national leader, thereby nothing up a percentage of world female leaders by a bit and making power-hungry feminists feel better..
So what’s the Finnish government, now led by a wise female leader, recommends? Exactly the kind of things you would expect from power-hungry feminists;
● nominate female and male delegates to climate meetings, with developed countries supporting financially the participation of developing country representatives, both men and women, in these meetings;
● include climate change and gender as an item on the agendas of relevant high-level meetings,
● draw active attention to the gender-related impacts of climate change and to the positive role women could play in influencing climate change in the negotiations on the new climate agreement and incorporate gender considerations in the new agreement;
● allocate funds and encourage the financing institutions and UN and other international organisations to support women and men in influencing climate change and to contribute effectively at local levels, e.g. through sustainable agriculture, forest and water management, and increasing the use of renewable energy;
● invite developed countries to pay active attention to women's role in climate change in their bilateral cooperation with the developing countries and to provide financial support for gender-specific programmes.
Above recommendations (demands) are hardly surprising given that power-feminists’ utmost concern is in grabbing as much power as possible from men. But having more under-qualified women in decision making bodies, just to satisfy some quota-obsessed feminists, is not going to solve climate change problem. Or adding a purely political gender-perspective (a.k.a “gender-mainstreaming”) in what is already extremely politically-charged and controversial issue is going to do nothing to help solve it. If anything, a real solution (if there is really such a thing as man-made climate change) is going to in giving MORE SUPPORT TO MEN. If people are serious about tackling global warming, more support to men who make up majority of the scientists, engineers and who ACTUALLY DO THE HARD WORK OF developing and inventing new technologies is crucial. This men’s role is in stark contrast to that of women in this climate change debate, which mostly consisted of BLAMING men and DEMANDING more from men, and more gender quota.
Why women and climate change, you ask? After all, if world is to perish from too much greenhouse gas, aren’t both men and women going to suffer equally?
(This reminds me of the joke - Breaking news: the world to end tomorrow. Women disproportionately affected!)
NO, according to feminists. Climate change is not an equal opportunity menace that affects both men and women at the same rate, but is indeed a very gendered issue that requires approach and actions approved by feminist authority.
Why is it a gendered issue? Because…(according to feminists)
-Climate change affects world’s poor regions and poorest people most severely, and 70% of the world’s poorest are women.
-Women and girls are often responsible for collecting firewood and cooking in developing countries, who will be more affected by climate change.
-Women are responsible for growing the bulk of the food staples in developing countries
-Women, as farmers, need better climate and weather information
-Women in rural regions could benefit from agricultural waste to energy projects.
-Women are four times more likely to die in natural disasters, which is happening at greater frequency as a result of global warming.
Wmmm, sounds serious enough, to make you believe that the global warming is actually a women’s issue, rather than an issue that affects all human beings, or small islands in the Pacific, or polar bears in the South Pole. Or is it?
Many of the arguments listed above look like a dramatic scaling down of the problem that was supposed to affect everybody, not just all human beings currently residing on planet earth but future generations, and polar bears and other animals and eco-system as a whole, and ultimately the entire planet earth. But according to feminists' logic, everyone in the developed countries need to fundamentally change their lifestyles, lower carbon emission, develop new source of energy, and undertake millions of other things that were recommended by green activists, so that, so that - some poor little girls in rural Africa don’t need to spend time to collect firewoods but attend school instead (presumably so that girls rather than boys could get higher education and eventually land a better, more powerful and high-paying jobs than boys).
This is obviously absurd. For one thing, girls (or boys) in rural Africa must have been collecting firewoods for centuries, long before Western countries started emitting too much CO2. Their problems is not created by some greedy western countries who pursue only their economic self-interests, but by poverty and underdevelopment. And poverty and underdevelopment could only be by countered by industrialization and economic development which, whether greens like it or not, is going to mean more coal and fossil fuel burning, among other things.
And obviously it doesn’t make sense that, for example, western governments and multinational corporations need to spend billions (or trillions) of dollors to research and develop new clean energy just to save some sorry girls in rural Africa.
Many of the above points were taken from a website by the Government of Finland, whose only “achievement” in the world political stage is to have elected a woman to it’s national leader, thereby nothing up a percentage of world female leaders by a bit and making power-hungry feminists feel better..
So what’s the Finnish government, now led by a wise female leader, recommends? Exactly the kind of things you would expect from power-hungry feminists;
● nominate female and male delegates to climate meetings, with developed countries supporting financially the participation of developing country representatives, both men and women, in these meetings;
● include climate change and gender as an item on the agendas of relevant high-level meetings,
● draw active attention to the gender-related impacts of climate change and to the positive role women could play in influencing climate change in the negotiations on the new climate agreement and incorporate gender considerations in the new agreement;
● allocate funds and encourage the financing institutions and UN and other international organisations to support women and men in influencing climate change and to contribute effectively at local levels, e.g. through sustainable agriculture, forest and water management, and increasing the use of renewable energy;
● invite developed countries to pay active attention to women's role in climate change in their bilateral cooperation with the developing countries and to provide financial support for gender-specific programmes.
Above recommendations (demands) are hardly surprising given that power-feminists’ utmost concern is in grabbing as much power as possible from men. But having more under-qualified women in decision making bodies, just to satisfy some quota-obsessed feminists, is not going to solve climate change problem. Or adding a purely political gender-perspective (a.k.a “gender-mainstreaming”) in what is already extremely politically-charged and controversial issue is going to do nothing to help solve it. If anything, a real solution (if there is really such a thing as man-made climate change) is going to in giving MORE SUPPORT TO MEN. If people are serious about tackling global warming, more support to men who make up majority of the scientists, engineers and who ACTUALLY DO THE HARD WORK OF developing and inventing new technologies is crucial. This men’s role is in stark contrast to that of women in this climate change debate, which mostly consisted of BLAMING men and DEMANDING more from men, and more gender quota.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Saturday Night Live on Tiger Woods
Another sequel to a never-ending Tiger Woods DV/cheating saga..
The article says Saturday Night Live (SNL) was criticized for its skit satiring apparent DV against Tiger Woods by his wife Erin.
But exactly what the SNL is being criticized for ?
a) For making light of the issue of domestic violence (of women against men)
b) For airing it when Rihanna was a guest (the one who initiated a domestic violence but now lionized as a symbol of domestic violence victim, or
c) Suggesting that a woman can be an abuser in domestic violence case.
I think it’s the combination of all three. DV to a feminist man-hating industry is a sacrosanct issue that nobody should make an even the a slightest fun of (especially men should not), and that one of the core tenets of feminist DV theory is that it is only perpetrated by men against women, and therefore suggesting that a wife could beat up a husband is simply not acceptable. And showing this skit in front of Rihanna would remind her of bitter consequences of initiating violence against Chris Brown, I guess that’s a too bitter memory for someone who is indulging in DV victim status granted to her by society and DV industry.
By the way, it’s interesting to see one of the reaction;
"Had the tables been turned and a man was suspected of beating up his wife, there definitely wouldn't be a lighthearted sketch like this. But since it's female-on-male domestic violence, our current culture deems it kind of, sort of okay to make fun of and the scandal had to be addressed before it lost heat."
This is same kind of logic and expression Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) use to draw attention of DV against men. But in this case, I’m not sure if the writer really meant it, because it’s so hard to think that a regular mainstream reporter is even a bit concerned about DV against men. I guess what he really meant was that DV (by men against women in his mind) should not be treated lightly and in the process he inadvertently ended up drawing attention to the issue of DV by women against men.
The article says Saturday Night Live (SNL) was criticized for its skit satiring apparent DV against Tiger Woods by his wife Erin.
But exactly what the SNL is being criticized for ?
a) For making light of the issue of domestic violence (of women against men)
b) For airing it when Rihanna was a guest (the one who initiated a domestic violence but now lionized as a symbol of domestic violence victim, or
c) Suggesting that a woman can be an abuser in domestic violence case.
I think it’s the combination of all three. DV to a feminist man-hating industry is a sacrosanct issue that nobody should make an even the a slightest fun of (especially men should not), and that one of the core tenets of feminist DV theory is that it is only perpetrated by men against women, and therefore suggesting that a wife could beat up a husband is simply not acceptable. And showing this skit in front of Rihanna would remind her of bitter consequences of initiating violence against Chris Brown, I guess that’s a too bitter memory for someone who is indulging in DV victim status granted to her by society and DV industry.
By the way, it’s interesting to see one of the reaction;
"Had the tables been turned and a man was suspected of beating up his wife, there definitely wouldn't be a lighthearted sketch like this. But since it's female-on-male domestic violence, our current culture deems it kind of, sort of okay to make fun of and the scandal had to be addressed before it lost heat."
This is same kind of logic and expression Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) use to draw attention of DV against men. But in this case, I’m not sure if the writer really meant it, because it’s so hard to think that a regular mainstream reporter is even a bit concerned about DV against men. I guess what he really meant was that DV (by men against women in his mind) should not be treated lightly and in the process he inadvertently ended up drawing attention to the issue of DV by women against men.
Battered Tiger a victory for feminism
Slightly old article, but it’s worth mentioning. This one should go down in the history of media as an article that most explicitly supported violence against men by women. She legitimizes use of violence, including the use of potentially lethal weapons such as an iron golf club, as a means by the wronged wives to get even on cheating husbands. In her view, the year 2009 was historic, since now women can wield a golf club to go after cheating husband. (I remember that according to feminists’ logic, wives cheating on husband is husbands fault since the husbands failed to take care of wives or were not attractive and attentive enough that wives needed to look elsewhere for satisfaction, etc, but of course that logic flew out of the window when wives are cheated – NOW it’s a serious matter). This truly shows that the benefit of empowering women; before they were too disempowered to think of beating up cheating husbands, but not anymore! Now a woman can swing a heavy golf iron, run fast enough to chase after a big SUV, and smash down windows! A frail woman from a foreign country intimidating a world-class professional athlete! Feminism has come a long way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)