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.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Feminist DV law backfires
It’s a pretty bad time for feminists, they are on the ropes now with the story of Tiger Woods all over the news. What to do? Ignore? Or spin?
Let’s see some master work on spin.
There are so many lies and spins in this short article that I don’t want to even bother discussing it. Except to say that there are many good comments in the “Fray” section for this article.
“Primary aggressor” theory is basically a feminist invention and its main purpose was to make men the guilty party in any domestic dispute and enable police to arrest men, without actually referring to “men” or “women”, as the law’s language needs to be gender-neutral. Including criteria such as physical size in determining a primary aggressor is a clever and pretty sure way to ensure that fingers are almost always at men, and if in rare case a woman happens to be bigger than man, then other criteria apply. It’s ironic (and very, very amusing to be honest) that this automatic DV arrest policy is becoming problematic for women. I hope women will now realize what men have been subjugated for many, many years. They shouldn't be suffering like this (nor men should), but blame your feminists sisters.
And my guess is that finally this problematic policy would soon be reviewed now that women is on the receiving end. There is a famous saying, “The best way to eliminate child support is to make women pay it”. So I guess in this case, we can say “The best way to change unfair DV law is to make women suffer from it”.
Though I'm sure feminists will waist no time in inventing even cleverer, seemingly gender-neutral ways to make men guilty ones in all domestic disputes.
Let’s see some master work on spin.
There are so many lies and spins in this short article that I don’t want to even bother discussing it. Except to say that there are many good comments in the “Fray” section for this article.
“Primary aggressor” theory is basically a feminist invention and its main purpose was to make men the guilty party in any domestic dispute and enable police to arrest men, without actually referring to “men” or “women”, as the law’s language needs to be gender-neutral. Including criteria such as physical size in determining a primary aggressor is a clever and pretty sure way to ensure that fingers are almost always at men, and if in rare case a woman happens to be bigger than man, then other criteria apply. It’s ironic (and very, very amusing to be honest) that this automatic DV arrest policy is becoming problematic for women. I hope women will now realize what men have been subjugated for many, many years. They shouldn't be suffering like this (nor men should), but blame your feminists sisters.
And my guess is that finally this problematic policy would soon be reviewed now that women is on the receiving end. There is a famous saying, “The best way to eliminate child support is to make women pay it”. So I guess in this case, we can say “The best way to change unfair DV law is to make women suffer from it”.
Though I'm sure feminists will waist no time in inventing even cleverer, seemingly gender-neutral ways to make men guilty ones in all domestic disputes.
Feminists' attention deficit disorder
Remember Super-bowl-DV study that was proved to be an ideology-driven propaganda? This new article gives you a reminder that feminists won't give up after just one failed attempt. They will keep coming back with new lies and hoaxes that each time look a bit truthy-ier than the last. And so here comes the newest, fanciest football-DV “study”. This one even nicely try to link women's high earnings with lower occurence of DV (against women of course), as if to create a false impression that if women's earning power is raised (by another feminist inspired law on gender paycheck “audit” or some other wealth re-distribution scheme), DV(against women) could be prevented. Nice try. Keep wishing.
This happens ("this" means this study, not the so-called uptick in DV) because feminists are jealous of all the attention that football games get at after Thanksgiving dinner - and women are not in it! Again, "men" (football stars) are the center of all the attention, and "men" (fans) are having pretty good time watching the games. Where are women in this equation? People need to pay attention to women, because this century belongs to women!! (me doing a little feminist talk) Focusing on the so-called uptick in DV (against women) after football game is a nice entry-point for feminists to inject "women" in this very popular American pastime and stigmatize football fans as well as football game itself which is allegedly causing men to behave macho against their partners.
This happens ("this" means this study, not the so-called uptick in DV) because feminists are jealous of all the attention that football games get at after Thanksgiving dinner - and women are not in it! Again, "men" (football stars) are the center of all the attention, and "men" (fans) are having pretty good time watching the games. Where are women in this equation? People need to pay attention to women, because this century belongs to women!! (me doing a little feminist talk) Focusing on the so-called uptick in DV (against women) after football game is a nice entry-point for feminists to inject "women" in this very popular American pastime and stigmatize football fans as well as football game itself which is allegedly causing men to behave macho against their partners.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
White House as kindergarden
Can we now say that it is official that liberals and feminists want to impose gender and any other demography-based quota on any of the recreational activities at the White House?
Gender-quota zealots will not cease counting beans and checking gender balance even for one moment. In their logic, if Obama wants to play some hoop, equal number of men and women should be in the court. If Obama plays golf, there should be equal number of men and women playing with the President.
I can see what’s next – equal number of points should be scored by men and women in such a basketball game - who knows, the Prez may bond stronger with better, higher scoring players!))
At the Whitehouse everything must be done together by men and women, at roughly same proportion, be it its official duties (equal number of men and women should be in cabinet meeting!) or unofficial, recreational basketball game (men and women should be playing together!) The White house now resembles kindergarden in the sense that everything has to be done together by little boys/men and little girls/women. While at kindergarden, it may be sennsible for little boys and girls to do everything together (though even at that age the differences betwen male and female are distinct), if grown-up adults, some in their fifties and sixties, were to do everything together, hand in hand, it is...ummm how should I say... revolting?
And feminists are not happy with achieving what is supposed to be one of their ultimate goals – statistical gender parity – in the number of White House staff. Now that the numbers are roughly equal, they looked for the next excuse to continue their crusade against men - and suddenly there are more important measure of equality,i.e. the exposure to media and visibility. Now they contend that there needs to be equal amount of exposure to media and equal level of importance to the jobs that women do in the White House.
““Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers”
WHAT!!?? Many women, including almost 100% of the feminists, were determined to derail Obama’s historic quest for the nomination for the Democratic Party only a year ago, and were doing anything they can do achieve that. Obviously many women don’t seem to have good memory, as far as you can read from De Dee Myers’ comment. (women should deal with amnesia before they ask for more important jobs!). By the way, guess what kind of book Ms. Misinformation Dee Dee Myers wrote.
It’s time for Obama to stop trying to appease feminists. They will never be happy. Perhaps they were born with special genes that make them complaining all the time. If appeasing angry unhappy women is going to be the number priority for the Obama administration, there is going to be not much chance for success.
More article on this topic here.
Gender-quota zealots will not cease counting beans and checking gender balance even for one moment. In their logic, if Obama wants to play some hoop, equal number of men and women should be in the court. If Obama plays golf, there should be equal number of men and women playing with the President.
I can see what’s next – equal number of points should be scored by men and women in such a basketball game - who knows, the Prez may bond stronger with better, higher scoring players!))
At the Whitehouse everything must be done together by men and women, at roughly same proportion, be it its official duties (equal number of men and women should be in cabinet meeting!) or unofficial, recreational basketball game (men and women should be playing together!) The White house now resembles kindergarden in the sense that everything has to be done together by little boys/men and little girls/women. While at kindergarden, it may be sennsible for little boys and girls to do everything together (though even at that age the differences betwen male and female are distinct), if grown-up adults, some in their fifties and sixties, were to do everything together, hand in hand, it is...ummm how should I say... revolting?
And feminists are not happy with achieving what is supposed to be one of their ultimate goals – statistical gender parity – in the number of White House staff. Now that the numbers are roughly equal, they looked for the next excuse to continue their crusade against men - and suddenly there are more important measure of equality,i.e. the exposure to media and visibility. Now they contend that there needs to be equal amount of exposure to media and equal level of importance to the jobs that women do in the White House.
““Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers”
WHAT!!?? Many women, including almost 100% of the feminists, were determined to derail Obama’s historic quest for the nomination for the Democratic Party only a year ago, and were doing anything they can do achieve that. Obviously many women don’t seem to have good memory, as far as you can read from De Dee Myers’ comment. (women should deal with amnesia before they ask for more important jobs!). By the way, guess what kind of book Ms. Misinformation Dee Dee Myers wrote.
It’s time for Obama to stop trying to appease feminists. They will never be happy. Perhaps they were born with special genes that make them complaining all the time. If appeasing angry unhappy women is going to be the number priority for the Obama administration, there is going to be not much chance for success.
More article on this topic here.
Friday, October 23, 2009
70% of world's poorest are women - REALLY??!!
There is a starting figure that has been circulating in major media outlets – a startling 70% of the world’s poorest-those who earn 1 dollar or less- are women. Which one is startling, that 70% of world’s poorest are women, or that such counter-intuitive and obviously flawed figure circulates major media without any doubts?
The figure, originally advocated by Ms. (do anyone think this would come from Mr.?) Fareda Banda, a law professor at London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in her report prepared for UN Human Right Commissioner (Ms.-again) Louise Arbour in 2008. Since then, it has become an accepted figure, and repeated by senior UN officials and most major media outlets as a fact.
70% of the world’s poorest are women. Hmmm, it really shows the depth of discrimination women face worldwide, isn’t it? OR IS IT? ISN’T THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE NUMBER?
Okay, there is 1.5 billion people in the world who earns less than a dollar a day, who qualifies as the world’ s poorest in the report’s definition. If 70% of them are women, and 30% of them are men, that’ll be 1.05 billion women and 450 million men qualified as the world’s poorest. That’s 600 million more women than men. That’s more than two women for every man who earns less than a dollar a day.
Now most of the world’s poor (not just the poorest living under 1$ but poor who are slightly better off than that) live in developing nations, where people have large families, with many children, unlike western states where families have more or less disbanded and individuals are living on their own as individuals. That means that in developing countries, poverty is family-based, that it affects entire family, that if a husband is poor, then his wife is poor, and so are his boys and girls. It is hard to imagine and highly improbable that just a husband or one member of family living an affluent life while the rest of his family living in dire poverty.
Now, how can you get 600 million more women living in dire poverty than men? 600 million is not a small number? - it is twice the population of the United States!! Just thik about these for a few seconds and immediately it becomes clear that there is something wrong about this number.
The figure, originally advocated by Ms. (do anyone think this would come from Mr.?) Fareda Banda, a law professor at London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in her report prepared for UN Human Right Commissioner (Ms.-again) Louise Arbour in 2008. Since then, it has become an accepted figure, and repeated by senior UN officials and most major media outlets as a fact.
70% of the world’s poorest are women. Hmmm, it really shows the depth of discrimination women face worldwide, isn’t it? OR IS IT? ISN’T THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE NUMBER?
Okay, there is 1.5 billion people in the world who earns less than a dollar a day, who qualifies as the world’ s poorest in the report’s definition. If 70% of them are women, and 30% of them are men, that’ll be 1.05 billion women and 450 million men qualified as the world’s poorest. That’s 600 million more women than men. That’s more than two women for every man who earns less than a dollar a day.
Now most of the world’s poor (not just the poorest living under 1$ but poor who are slightly better off than that) live in developing nations, where people have large families, with many children, unlike western states where families have more or less disbanded and individuals are living on their own as individuals. That means that in developing countries, poverty is family-based, that it affects entire family, that if a husband is poor, then his wife is poor, and so are his boys and girls. It is hard to imagine and highly improbable that just a husband or one member of family living an affluent life while the rest of his family living in dire poverty.
Now, how can you get 600 million more women living in dire poverty than men? 600 million is not a small number? - it is twice the population of the United States!! Just thik about these for a few seconds and immediately it becomes clear that there is something wrong about this number.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
feminist colonialism
Currently there is frantic drive to support women in developing countries. Just like environmentalism and green movement, it is everywhere.
This strong feminist push in my view comes from some reasons.
First, there is western feminists’ fantasizing of building a feminist utopia in a developing world, a world which has not yet experienced an modernization or even industrial evolution and thus has not been tainted by patriarchal gender system that accompanies the modernization and industrial revolution, according to feminist theory. Western feminists who find it quite difficult to break into and eventually dominate the already developed social and economic institutions in the developed world would find it much easier to do so in developing States, where such institutions are weak or non-existent. For example, if your goal is to increase the number of female politicians by whatever means necessary (after all, it’s supposed to be good), it’s much easier to march into a post-conflict country, and amidst all the chaos and confusions, furtively impose a gender quota on national parliament, than to support women candidates in elections and campaign district by district in western developed states. This is why countries like Rwanda have THE highest ratio of women in parliament - higher that US or even Sweden (Rwanda is surely a feminist heaven – I suggest feminists whiners to move to Rwanda if they feel their daily lives are so miserable just because they don’t see many women politicians in US).
There is also a hint of racism or colonial mentality in western feminists’ promotion of feminism in the third world. Just like feminists’ great-great grandfather (or great-great grandmother’s husbands, if we were to take women-centric worldview) did in the 18 th and the 19 th centuries, today’s western feminists tend to think westerners (this time women!) would be in a better position to think what’s best for the people (especially the kinder, gentler half of it) in the Third World and benevolently (or so they think) provide assistance to realize their plan. According to feminists, those poor women in developing countries were so uninformed to realize that women’s real place is in workplace, and family is not a bedrock of society but a place of oppression for women.
Of course, all these efforts to build feminist utopia in the third world is going to do no good.
For one thing, micro-financing to women is not going to lift the country out of poverty, contrary to what well-meaning western intellectuals want you to believe. Bunch of women selling gums, soaps and other household items with the money borrowed from microfinance scheme organized by western feminists is NOT going to pave a way for country’s rapid economic development. While feminists’ strong wishes that women become, for the first time in human’s history, a driving force for strong economic development is understandable (after all, they are feminists!), wishes alone do not make people richer.
No country in the history of the world has had strong economic development by relying on women’s power. It has always been, and by always I mean without a single exception, men’s ingenuity and hard work that drove economic development. This is probably why Bangladesh, now a world center of microfinance, is still stuck near the bottom of economic development and GDP per capita in the world, whereas China, a country not especially known for being nice to women, is poised to become the second largest economy in the world next year, in a matter of just a few decades after adopting a de-facto capitalist economy.
This strong feminist push in my view comes from some reasons.
First, there is western feminists’ fantasizing of building a feminist utopia in a developing world, a world which has not yet experienced an modernization or even industrial evolution and thus has not been tainted by patriarchal gender system that accompanies the modernization and industrial revolution, according to feminist theory. Western feminists who find it quite difficult to break into and eventually dominate the already developed social and economic institutions in the developed world would find it much easier to do so in developing States, where such institutions are weak or non-existent. For example, if your goal is to increase the number of female politicians by whatever means necessary (after all, it’s supposed to be good), it’s much easier to march into a post-conflict country, and amidst all the chaos and confusions, furtively impose a gender quota on national parliament, than to support women candidates in elections and campaign district by district in western developed states. This is why countries like Rwanda have THE highest ratio of women in parliament - higher that US or even Sweden (Rwanda is surely a feminist heaven – I suggest feminists whiners to move to Rwanda if they feel their daily lives are so miserable just because they don’t see many women politicians in US).
There is also a hint of racism or colonial mentality in western feminists’ promotion of feminism in the third world. Just like feminists’ great-great grandfather (or great-great grandmother’s husbands, if we were to take women-centric worldview) did in the 18 th and the 19 th centuries, today’s western feminists tend to think westerners (this time women!) would be in a better position to think what’s best for the people (especially the kinder, gentler half of it) in the Third World and benevolently (or so they think) provide assistance to realize their plan. According to feminists, those poor women in developing countries were so uninformed to realize that women’s real place is in workplace, and family is not a bedrock of society but a place of oppression for women.
Of course, all these efforts to build feminist utopia in the third world is going to do no good.
For one thing, micro-financing to women is not going to lift the country out of poverty, contrary to what well-meaning western intellectuals want you to believe. Bunch of women selling gums, soaps and other household items with the money borrowed from microfinance scheme organized by western feminists is NOT going to pave a way for country’s rapid economic development. While feminists’ strong wishes that women become, for the first time in human’s history, a driving force for strong economic development is understandable (after all, they are feminists!), wishes alone do not make people richer.
No country in the history of the world has had strong economic development by relying on women’s power. It has always been, and by always I mean without a single exception, men’s ingenuity and hard work that drove economic development. This is probably why Bangladesh, now a world center of microfinance, is still stuck near the bottom of economic development and GDP per capita in the world, whereas China, a country not especially known for being nice to women, is poised to become the second largest economy in the world next year, in a matter of just a few decades after adopting a de-facto capitalist economy.
WNBA
Everyone knows that WNBA is a politically correct charity that no one in NBA could dare to suggest ending because of its cultural nature. As long as NBA exists, WNBA will continue to exist and continue to suck millions of money from it, fans will continue to be bombarded with gender-equity message when they want to simply enjoy sports and are least ready for it.
If we accept the fact that women's professional basketball is a charity and a part of grand gender equity scheme, and stop pretending that this is a serious competitive sports to be managed by for-profit organizations, then we could think of some alternatives. It could be a government-run programme or run by non-profit organizations. (because there is never going to be profit!)
Currently NBA is shouldering all the burdens of this grand charity, which is not fair for NBA, and to add insult to injury, is forced to treat WNBA stars like something equivalent top NBA stars, and promote them whenever and wherever they could.
Every WNBA ad TV stations need to show during NBA games are like free public announcements (how can they refuse to run such ads?- after all, it supports a good cause).
If we accept the fact that women's professional basketball is a charity and a part of grand gender equity scheme, and stop pretending that this is a serious competitive sports to be managed by for-profit organizations, then we could think of some alternatives. It could be a government-run programme or run by non-profit organizations. (because there is never going to be profit!)
Currently NBA is shouldering all the burdens of this grand charity, which is not fair for NBA, and to add insult to injury, is forced to treat WNBA stars like something equivalent top NBA stars, and promote them whenever and wherever they could.
Every WNBA ad TV stations need to show during NBA games are like free public announcements (how can they refuse to run such ads?- after all, it supports a good cause).
Monday, October 05, 2009
Women prison officers do not need physical strength
Interesting article…
The Connecticut PAT, which simulates actual situation that guards could face in their line of duty, and therefore seems most fair at least to me, is, according to some PC forces, just another device men uses to keep women down.
By the same token, we should not reject students who apply to Harvard on the basis of bad grades at high schools or bad SAT tests. Grades and test scores are no more relevant to being good students in an elite university than physical fitness were to prison guards!
By the way, whenever I see female prison guards or police officers or military personnel, I wonder;
Are they really going to protect us?
There are some female security guards in the company I work for, so sighting female officers is not uncommon. Some of them are very young and seems frail (and hot too!) But everytime I see them, I wonder, if something happens, do we (I mean men not in uniform) need to protect these women instead? For example, if female officer was confronting intruders or criminals, and looks like on the verge of being overpowered, should I as a man show some chavinistic side of me and step in to help this hapless woman? I know if the officer was man, I don't have to ask this question to myself.
Also, if a criminal attacked female police officer, would it come with a heavier sentence, since in addition to attacking officer, he is committing "violence against women", a crime which could carry another hefty sentences? Or the fact that the attacked officer was a woman enough to elicit sympathy for her and anger towards the attacker to punish him with heavier sentence?
The Connecticut PAT, which simulates actual situation that guards could face in their line of duty, and therefore seems most fair at least to me, is, according to some PC forces, just another device men uses to keep women down.
By the same token, we should not reject students who apply to Harvard on the basis of bad grades at high schools or bad SAT tests. Grades and test scores are no more relevant to being good students in an elite university than physical fitness were to prison guards!
By the way, whenever I see female prison guards or police officers or military personnel, I wonder;
Are they really going to protect us?
There are some female security guards in the company I work for, so sighting female officers is not uncommon. Some of them are very young and seems frail (and hot too!) But everytime I see them, I wonder, if something happens, do we (I mean men not in uniform) need to protect these women instead? For example, if female officer was confronting intruders or criminals, and looks like on the verge of being overpowered, should I as a man show some chavinistic side of me and step in to help this hapless woman? I know if the officer was man, I don't have to ask this question to myself.
Also, if a criminal attacked female police officer, would it come with a heavier sentence, since in addition to attacking officer, he is committing "violence against women", a crime which could carry another hefty sentences? Or the fact that the attacked officer was a woman enough to elicit sympathy for her and anger towards the attacker to punish him with heavier sentence?
Very predictable article from Slate
I like an article that is very predictable, an article whose conslusion you can tell even beofer reading the first paragraph. Who would expect that an article that appears (and therefore editorially approved) in Slate could come to a different conclusion? Would anyone believe Slate editor would approve an article that says, um, actually men are better than women (as judges or whatever professions)? Would professors in politically-correct university dare to publish an article that doesn't say women are better than men? Why should anyone risk tenured life for not dancing along approved PC lines?
Anyway the article does a good job trying to pretend that this article is based on some scholary study when in fact it is just another recycled feminist nonsense.
The main argument that these authors use to say that women are just as good as men (or even better) is that first, women judges are more independent, and second, women judges who come from smaller pool are just as good as men who come from larger pool and therefore women is better.
On first point, I don't know when one decided that deviating from political party's line is a proof of better judge. If that's the case, Judge Sotomoyer the female supremo will go down in the history as one of the worst judge as you can easily predict when it comes to issues such as affirmative action, gender, etc. she is going to vote 100% in line with Democratic Party line (and so far the record shows that she has)
On second point, it simply shows that women are terrible at math and statistics. I don't know why they love to prove correct over and over again with their own actions and stupidity the Lawrence Sumer's theory that women are genetically inferior when it comes to math and numbers.
The real danger here is that this kind of psuedo-scientific study is going to be taken at its face value and media will gladly use it as a part of growing body of "evidence" that shows superiority of women in court, etc. As long as there are hard-core feminists in academia who are on the fringe and who have nothing to do but to manufacture this kind of lies and the liberal media that take these studies uncritically (as long as they conform to PC views), this will never go away.
Anyway the article does a good job trying to pretend that this article is based on some scholary study when in fact it is just another recycled feminist nonsense.
The main argument that these authors use to say that women are just as good as men (or even better) is that first, women judges are more independent, and second, women judges who come from smaller pool are just as good as men who come from larger pool and therefore women is better.
On first point, I don't know when one decided that deviating from political party's line is a proof of better judge. If that's the case, Judge Sotomoyer the female supremo will go down in the history as one of the worst judge as you can easily predict when it comes to issues such as affirmative action, gender, etc. she is going to vote 100% in line with Democratic Party line (and so far the record shows that she has)
On second point, it simply shows that women are terrible at math and statistics. I don't know why they love to prove correct over and over again with their own actions and stupidity the Lawrence Sumer's theory that women are genetically inferior when it comes to math and numbers.
The real danger here is that this kind of psuedo-scientific study is going to be taken at its face value and media will gladly use it as a part of growing body of "evidence" that shows superiority of women in court, etc. As long as there are hard-core feminists in academia who are on the fringe and who have nothing to do but to manufacture this kind of lies and the liberal media that take these studies uncritically (as long as they conform to PC views), this will never go away.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
New gender equality
Yes, this is GENDER EQUALITY!
This is what happens if you choose under-qualified person for some top government post based on genitalia. A new woman minister for railroad in India introduced eight “women only trains”.
For India, a country known for its zest for gender quota (as seen in parliament), its devotion to the notion “separate but equal”, and harsh penalties for wife-beaters and deadbeat dads (but not for husband-beaters or deadbeat moms), perhaps this comes as not so surprising.
I'm sure ladies only trains are newer, cleaner, nicer trains where all women can sit comfortably, free of annoying peddlers who sell anything from tea, foods to children’s toys (I experienced firsthand in India), while the rest of the male population will be hoarded into old, dirty, dangerous trains, many men sitting on rooftops and clinging to windows by their fingertips to ride on extremely packed trains, risking their lives everyday just to get to work or to home.
Security will be much tighter for these trains, and government officials would do anything to make sure that if there is going to be another train-wreck disaster (which happens often in India), it would happen to those dirty, filthy “men” trains that get wrecked and not the “Ladies Specials”. (Imagine how feminists would blame men if such disaster strikes Ladies Specials.
This is a new definition of gender equality in some countries, which is wholeheartedly endorsed by New York Times (as they thought this issue is important enough to be out on front page of the paper) and the benefits that "women shattering glass ceiling" bring.
Even with this kind of for women and feminists, still some women are not fully satisfied.
“Then the train stopped, and Ms. Sharma stood up. Asked what more the government could do for women, she laughed.
“Oh my God, it is a long list,” she said. “But I’m sorry, this is my station.””
But there still seems to be some hope for India, as some men have gumptions to express anger at this blatant government-sanctioned gender discrimination.
“Many men are not thrilled. Several female passengers said eve teasing was worse here in northern India than elsewhere in the country. As the Ladies Special idled on Track 7 at the station in Palwal, a few men glared from the platform. …”
“The local boys will come and use the bathroom on the train,” said Meena Kumari, one of the female ticket collectors in flowing blue saris who patrol the train along with female security officers. “They do it out of contempt. They do not want the train to run.”
Perhaps these few men are the only hope left for India.
Another example of women transportation officials wrecking public transportation system is here.
But this apparently affirmative actioned lady is adamant that howling away male customers who wait long hours at bus station away just because the bus is reserved for women is not a discrimination, but a “positive discirimination that responds to the demands of women.” She continues “And it’s also for men because it protects their daughters, sisters and mothers.””
For women;
For men;
This is what happens if you choose under-qualified person for some top government post based on genitalia. A new woman minister for railroad in India introduced eight “women only trains”.
For India, a country known for its zest for gender quota (as seen in parliament), its devotion to the notion “separate but equal”, and harsh penalties for wife-beaters and deadbeat dads (but not for husband-beaters or deadbeat moms), perhaps this comes as not so surprising.
I'm sure ladies only trains are newer, cleaner, nicer trains where all women can sit comfortably, free of annoying peddlers who sell anything from tea, foods to children’s toys (I experienced firsthand in India), while the rest of the male population will be hoarded into old, dirty, dangerous trains, many men sitting on rooftops and clinging to windows by their fingertips to ride on extremely packed trains, risking their lives everyday just to get to work or to home.
Security will be much tighter for these trains, and government officials would do anything to make sure that if there is going to be another train-wreck disaster (which happens often in India), it would happen to those dirty, filthy “men” trains that get wrecked and not the “Ladies Specials”. (Imagine how feminists would blame men if such disaster strikes Ladies Specials.
This is a new definition of gender equality in some countries, which is wholeheartedly endorsed by New York Times (as they thought this issue is important enough to be out on front page of the paper) and the benefits that "women shattering glass ceiling" bring.
Even with this kind of for women and feminists, still some women are not fully satisfied.
“Then the train stopped, and Ms. Sharma stood up. Asked what more the government could do for women, she laughed.
“Oh my God, it is a long list,” she said. “But I’m sorry, this is my station.””
But there still seems to be some hope for India, as some men have gumptions to express anger at this blatant government-sanctioned gender discrimination.
“Many men are not thrilled. Several female passengers said eve teasing was worse here in northern India than elsewhere in the country. As the Ladies Special idled on Track 7 at the station in Palwal, a few men glared from the platform. …”
“The local boys will come and use the bathroom on the train,” said Meena Kumari, one of the female ticket collectors in flowing blue saris who patrol the train along with female security officers. “They do it out of contempt. They do not want the train to run.”
Perhaps these few men are the only hope left for India.
Another example of women transportation officials wrecking public transportation system is here.
But this apparently affirmative actioned lady is adamant that howling away male customers who wait long hours at bus station away just because the bus is reserved for women is not a discrimination, but a “positive discirimination that responds to the demands of women.” She continues “And it’s also for men because it protects their daughters, sisters and mothers.””
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
More on global financial crisis....
A few more articles that written by feminist opportunists who use this global financial crisis as a tool to attack men…. Some interesting lines from this article published a while ago (February) about Davos world economic forum in a Guardian, a publication that is even more Marxist than NYT.
“The idea that that can be achieved while excluding half the population is breathtaking in its arrogance”
This sentence makes sense only if the white men who gathered in Davos were there to represent the Caucasian males of the world, to discuss Causcasian males’ interest and their interest only.
OFF COURSE NOT. They gathered there not to represent particular demographic group, ethnicity or gender, but to represent firstly the companies they each lead and secondly the large global businesses as a whole, to seek ways for better cooperation and way out of recession. Even if were to take this author’s logic, there were some women in Davos, however minority, so it doesn’t mean that half of the population were entirely excluded from the meeting.
But with the same logic this author uses, you can also say that all the teenagers/Africans/Blacks/disabled/homosexuals/transgendered/dogs/chimps/rats, etc, etc. weren’t represented in Davos. Feminist should stop seeing any large private meetings (Davos is not an inter-governmental body) with influential participants as some sort of a world governing body in which all demographic groups and types should be statistically proportionately represented, and in which they mistakenly believe that they have right to representation by virtue of their genitalia.
“Women such as Oxfam director Barbara Stocking, who has been lobbying the WEF for several years to bring in more women, believes its definition of leadership is too narrow and should be broadened to include, say, female community leaders from Africa.”
Right, opening up the meeting to groups that produce absolutely nothing and rely their sustenance entirely on foreign assistance (whose money originally came from white males gathered in Davos) may be a good idea. Like having beggars and financiers on a same table and discuss world economic issues as if they are equals. I guess it fits feminists’ and leftists’ vision of equality.
“Women are the single biggest - and least acknowledged - force for economic growth on the planet. This is not a claim made by rampant feminists, but by the Economist,…”
It is still a claim made by a rampant feminists, just like Ruth Sunderland, the author of this article. Rampant feminists somehow getting a job in the Economist through affirmative action does not make them serious economists or journalists, they still are rampant journalists, just like Ruth Sunderland.
Next up, just one quote from this article about my perennial favourite Ms. Harriet Her"person" of UK.
"Somebody did say that if it had been 'Lehman Sisters'”
If it had been Lehman Sisters, it sure wouldn’t have caused such big problem since it wouldn’t have grown into such a large firm whose meltdown would have such a big effect on the financial market. It would have been crushed or stayed as a small women-only firm with no real talents to lead the company to stay competitive and grow, with many employees taking turn to take maternity leaves and leave work at 5 to pick up babies or go shopping.
“The idea that that can be achieved while excluding half the population is breathtaking in its arrogance”
This sentence makes sense only if the white men who gathered in Davos were there to represent the Caucasian males of the world, to discuss Causcasian males’ interest and their interest only.
OFF COURSE NOT. They gathered there not to represent particular demographic group, ethnicity or gender, but to represent firstly the companies they each lead and secondly the large global businesses as a whole, to seek ways for better cooperation and way out of recession. Even if were to take this author’s logic, there were some women in Davos, however minority, so it doesn’t mean that half of the population were entirely excluded from the meeting.
But with the same logic this author uses, you can also say that all the teenagers/Africans/Blacks/disabled/homosexuals/transgendered/dogs/chimps/rats, etc, etc. weren’t represented in Davos. Feminist should stop seeing any large private meetings (Davos is not an inter-governmental body) with influential participants as some sort of a world governing body in which all demographic groups and types should be statistically proportionately represented, and in which they mistakenly believe that they have right to representation by virtue of their genitalia.
“Women such as Oxfam director Barbara Stocking, who has been lobbying the WEF for several years to bring in more women, believes its definition of leadership is too narrow and should be broadened to include, say, female community leaders from Africa.”
Right, opening up the meeting to groups that produce absolutely nothing and rely their sustenance entirely on foreign assistance (whose money originally came from white males gathered in Davos) may be a good idea. Like having beggars and financiers on a same table and discuss world economic issues as if they are equals. I guess it fits feminists’ and leftists’ vision of equality.
“Women are the single biggest - and least acknowledged - force for economic growth on the planet. This is not a claim made by rampant feminists, but by the Economist,…”
It is still a claim made by a rampant feminists, just like Ruth Sunderland, the author of this article. Rampant feminists somehow getting a job in the Economist through affirmative action does not make them serious economists or journalists, they still are rampant journalists, just like Ruth Sunderland.
Next up, just one quote from this article about my perennial favourite Ms. Harriet Her"person" of UK.
"Somebody did say that if it had been 'Lehman Sisters'”
If it had been Lehman Sisters, it sure wouldn’t have caused such big problem since it wouldn’t have grown into such a large firm whose meltdown would have such a big effect on the financial market. It would have been crushed or stayed as a small women-only firm with no real talents to lead the company to stay competitive and grow, with many employees taking turn to take maternity leaves and leave work at 5 to pick up babies or go shopping.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Another self-serving agit-prop from Newsweek...
Is this a serious journalism or just another agit-prop articles that appear in Newsweek and other once-serious media at an increasing rate, that are disguised as a serious journalism and serious economic forecast? Or is it just another attempt by feminists to spin the recession and use it as a tool to launch a broadside attack against men in general (think: "Death of macho" in Foreign policy magazine)?
Much of the article is filled with agit-prop for women's power and feminist issues and very little on serious insights into post-recession economy.Who said that women holding the power of the purse is good for economy? For example, women in Japan, like in any other country I suppose, make more than 80% of the economic decisions. Even many of women in Japan are housewives, that doesn't prevent them from making economic decisions on behalf of their husbands, and Newsweek's optimistic view on females' priorities notwithstanding, Japan's economics has been in the tank for the last... how many years?
Even the author also knows this;
"In fact, women already make the majority of the world's purchasing decisions. BCG estimates that they control some $12 trillion of the world's $18.4 trillion in annual consumer spending.."
This is not a new phenomenon, and has been so for years, including before and during recession, therefore it is hard to understand why promoting this trend could be touted as way a out of recession. If anything, this could have been the CAUSE of the recession, if you only look at the timeline.
The author likes to paint women as some kind of saints who only care about others and children, but in fact what do most (Western) women spend their most money on? It's clothes, shoes, accessories, cosmetics, and so on!. Sure the prices of these are much higher that tobacco and alcohol, which are listed as typical of men's spending, but still you never heard of country rising out from poverty just by making clothes and shoes.
The truth is that men always made money FOR their family, that is their wives and children, and wives made most of the economic decisions for family on behalf of men from long time ago. Men worked hard and let women use their hard earned money, and spend very little on their own (like tobacco and alcohol!) Women always used men's money, both for family items as well as personal items such as clothes and jewelries. The difference is that there are now ever more thankless women who think that now that they graduated from top universities (with dad's hard-earned money), and got a good job (through affirmative action), and free to spend, they think they own and rule the world. That there are more women who thinks (thanks in no small part for this kind of misinformation) that the society and economy has to be restructured to suit their spending and wish priorities. In fact, the trend of increasing young female professionals could be worse for economy, as they are more likely to spend money on cloth and shoes, and less on healthcare and education - since they are less likely to get marry and have kids in the first place!
Much of the article is filled with agit-prop for women's power and feminist issues and very little on serious insights into post-recession economy.Who said that women holding the power of the purse is good for economy? For example, women in Japan, like in any other country I suppose, make more than 80% of the economic decisions. Even many of women in Japan are housewives, that doesn't prevent them from making economic decisions on behalf of their husbands, and Newsweek's optimistic view on females' priorities notwithstanding, Japan's economics has been in the tank for the last... how many years?
Even the author also knows this;
"In fact, women already make the majority of the world's purchasing decisions. BCG estimates that they control some $12 trillion of the world's $18.4 trillion in annual consumer spending.."
This is not a new phenomenon, and has been so for years, including before and during recession, therefore it is hard to understand why promoting this trend could be touted as way a out of recession. If anything, this could have been the CAUSE of the recession, if you only look at the timeline.
The author likes to paint women as some kind of saints who only care about others and children, but in fact what do most (Western) women spend their most money on? It's clothes, shoes, accessories, cosmetics, and so on!. Sure the prices of these are much higher that tobacco and alcohol, which are listed as typical of men's spending, but still you never heard of country rising out from poverty just by making clothes and shoes.
The truth is that men always made money FOR their family, that is their wives and children, and wives made most of the economic decisions for family on behalf of men from long time ago. Men worked hard and let women use their hard earned money, and spend very little on their own (like tobacco and alcohol!) Women always used men's money, both for family items as well as personal items such as clothes and jewelries. The difference is that there are now ever more thankless women who think that now that they graduated from top universities (with dad's hard-earned money), and got a good job (through affirmative action), and free to spend, they think they own and rule the world. That there are more women who thinks (thanks in no small part for this kind of misinformation) that the society and economy has to be restructured to suit their spending and wish priorities. In fact, the trend of increasing young female professionals could be worse for economy, as they are more likely to spend money on cloth and shoes, and less on healthcare and education - since they are less likely to get marry and have kids in the first place!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)