It’s an interesting contrast to see the difference between men and women’s approach in dealing with complex social issues such as marriage; men deal with logics, reasoning and statistics, women deal with emotion, hysteria, and intimidation, as the two articles posted side by side in the Forbes.com best illustrate. It’s amazing a woman (or a person) of this caliber who cannot cite single source of reference or data to back her claim up, is charged with writing a front page article for such a large magazine - all hail to the affirmative action! Without it, she wouldn’t have and certainly shouldn’t have come this far.
It is actually to some extent a frightening to think that women who are not able to distinguish, or understand, or value the difference between statistics and personal anecdotes is taking on more and more executive positions in American society. Is it advancement for a society or start of the decline of civilization?
It’s a fact of life that only liberals and feminists get to have articles pulled out from the internet immediately after it was posted, and have your “counterpoints” posted side by side to it; you don’t see very often conservative or men’s “counterpoint” posted on feminists issue articles that are posted perhaps thousand times more frequently. It’s also a (sad) fact of life that only feminists and liberals could write article solely based on hysteric fits and have other treated it as an “article’ worthy of being posted on a large website.
I’m sure that this poor author will be stripped of all his career opportunities, probably fired for any reason that feminists could concoct (Mr. Noel, don’t be surprised that suddenly any of one of the recently mass-manufactured 50-plus year old high-powered female exec will accuse you of sexual harassment for the suggestive look that you give to her two years ago), maybe a mandatory sensitive training for all male staff will be instituted at the entire magazine, or even worse, at the entire industry. I have no doubt that the New York Times and the Washington Post are more than willing to write articles to push for it.
Usually the typical responses from the feminists and liberals to articles or views that are not in line with their dogma are intimidation and implying instituting censorship. However the New York Times took a slightly different approach this time, attacking the website itself that posted such article, claiming that, contrary to the claim by the company, the website does not have as much web visitors as it claims. Maybe they were hoping that their article will reduce the readership or visitors to the website and the magazine, and the advertising companies to would consider putting ads in the Forbes. The article in Washington Post tried to associate Mr. Noel’s article with Forbes’ occasional so-called ‘saucy” articles thus discredit it. Overall curiously devoid of any analysis or her own views on the issue, she attempts to put on some of neutrality by citing some “support’ for Mr. Noer’s article, but she could cite only one.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Monday, August 21, 2006
Game industry
Here is a good example of automatic, blind application of gender-feminist perspective in every spheres of life. You can put almost any industries, issues, areas or whatever conceivable in XXX in “XX failing women”, and articles with such scary headings (or supposed to at least) will almost assured of top page coverage and accompanying screaming calls by gender feminists and feminist-males for “urgent attention” or “increased public support”, or “eliminate gender stereotyping” or “gender balance” or “gender quota” or worse, “more women in top position”.
Exactly how women not immersing themselves in electronic games as much as male counterparts do are causing them or society at large big problem is not discussed at all, and neither the fact that many boys do suffer from low school grades or some form of social dysfunctionalities and other myriad of problems for the exact same behavior now being glorified by the respectable BBC is discussed. Instead, gender-feminists and feminists-wannabees are ironically taking “everything men do is good, therefore women should copy it”-mentality. Boys who play games 6 hours a day are usually derided as geeks, but girls who do the same are heralded as some kind of heroines, courageous people who are fighting the stereotypes that put females down.
Here a male-feminist, who may have thought that playing along with gender-feminists agenda will spare him from feminists’ purge to drive men out from all important public spheres, says that “(girls) don't want 'pink games”, but just a few sentences later but he too fell into gender-stereotyping (a crime that would be put on a same level as crime against humanity when women take charge of the world) by chivarlously stating for all womenkind that “(women) want relationships, they want to be able to chat.". Maybe to compensate for that mishap, he concluded that “Four of our 11 studios around the world are run by women” -probably the most important data for power and statistics (or genderbalance)-obsessed feminists.
In a related article published over a year ago, all the critical ingredients of feminists’ women-as-perpetual-victims article were displayed. In the article, women complains about “constant harassment, sexual stereotyping and abusive behaviour of male players”, so they called for “creating a safe gaming environment - while "kicking boy booty". Their efforts are heralded as “a haven for female gamers who want to break down misconceptions about female gamers.”
This mainstream media-sponsored feminist campaign in the gaming world, a “white paper” about women and games, and etc., would mean that there will be fewer and fewer areas where boys will be free from the consequences of feminists’ put-women-first / anti-male campaigns. The schools were completely run over by such feminist zealots which now resulted in boys’ problems at schools, and now games.
Exactly how women not immersing themselves in electronic games as much as male counterparts do are causing them or society at large big problem is not discussed at all, and neither the fact that many boys do suffer from low school grades or some form of social dysfunctionalities and other myriad of problems for the exact same behavior now being glorified by the respectable BBC is discussed. Instead, gender-feminists and feminists-wannabees are ironically taking “everything men do is good, therefore women should copy it”-mentality. Boys who play games 6 hours a day are usually derided as geeks, but girls who do the same are heralded as some kind of heroines, courageous people who are fighting the stereotypes that put females down.
Here a male-feminist, who may have thought that playing along with gender-feminists agenda will spare him from feminists’ purge to drive men out from all important public spheres, says that “(girls) don't want 'pink games”, but just a few sentences later but he too fell into gender-stereotyping (a crime that would be put on a same level as crime against humanity when women take charge of the world) by chivarlously stating for all womenkind that “(women) want relationships, they want to be able to chat.". Maybe to compensate for that mishap, he concluded that “Four of our 11 studios around the world are run by women” -probably the most important data for power and statistics (or genderbalance)-obsessed feminists.
In a related article published over a year ago, all the critical ingredients of feminists’ women-as-perpetual-victims article were displayed. In the article, women complains about “constant harassment, sexual stereotyping and abusive behaviour of male players”, so they called for “creating a safe gaming environment - while "kicking boy booty". Their efforts are heralded as “a haven for female gamers who want to break down misconceptions about female gamers.”
This mainstream media-sponsored feminist campaign in the gaming world, a “white paper” about women and games, and etc., would mean that there will be fewer and fewer areas where boys will be free from the consequences of feminists’ put-women-first / anti-male campaigns. The schools were completely run over by such feminist zealots which now resulted in boys’ problems at schools, and now games.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
We absolutely need that 0.08% of people who play support roles
Uhhh, yes, and exactly how Indian army would not be able to do without females? 918 females in 1.1 million strong army is like what・0.08percent!! Is proportion like 0.08 percent absolutely indispensable, or would less than one-tenth of one percent, or less than one in one thousand would bring the rest of 99.92 percent to a grinding halt? And the roles carried out by women currently also cannot be taken over by men? Women were begun to be incorporated in the army in the early 1990's, meaning for more than 40 years of its existence since the country's independence after the Second World War, Indian army has done without the services of females. But all of a sudden, Indian army is also barraged with Western-States like political withchunt and the top brass there are forced to pay lip service to irate gender feminists. Is this a curse of western-style modernization?
Anger at Indian general's gender slur
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1801148,00.html
Maseeh Rahman in New Delhi
Monday June 19, 2006
Anger at Indian general's gender slur
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1801148,00.html
Maseeh Rahman in New Delhi
Monday June 19, 2006
Relax and just admit it...
I simply admire the courage of the writer who writes such a politically incorrect column in the bastion of left-wing ideology. I hope the writer will continue to maintain common sense (that men are simply way better in some areas of life) and courage (write about common sensical things) despite above predictable slanders and organized personal attacks by left wingers.
""When men are just better"
Calls for more coverage of women's endeavours miss the mark in the objective world of sport
Zoe Williams
Wednesday July 26, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1830160,00.html"
""When men are just better"
Calls for more coverage of women's endeavours miss the mark in the objective world of sport
Zoe Williams
Wednesday July 26, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1830160,00.html"
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Disabled kids or single women first?
So exactly what is the problem here? It’s very unclear from reading of the article. Clearly from the title, the author of the article intends to promote feminists’ agenda at the expense of state of disabled kids, but as far as you can see in the article, it is hard to understand why an article on disabled children ends up lamenting the sorry state of single women.
The author doesn’t even pretend for a second to show concern for the state for disabled children which should be a main concern for most sane people, but instead focus solely on women who take care of them, somehow magically turning it into a women’s issue. Instead of looking into more valid questions such as whether the disabled kids fare better or worse in single female household compared to single male household or normal two-parent household (or in two-female parent household or two-male parent household or….these days there are so many alternative family structure) or non-biological parent(s) or…. The article simply say that more women are taking care of these kids than men, implying that this is some kind of major social problem that is in need of immediate attention and social remedy.
To liberal mainstream media the fact that more women are taking care of kids than men are such an irrefutable established social problem, they don’t even bother to elaborate why it is bad. Why a social problem? Is it because kids will fare worse when taken care of by women than when taken care by men?
Let’s put the question this way. So, what will be the solution? When all the women are freed from the dire chore of taking care of kids and shove it onto men, so that women can concentrate on their career aspirations, so that men are deprived of career opportunity and bound at home, thereby “leveling the playing field”? Or when absolute equal number of men and women are taking care of kids so that both sexes have equal chances of losing career opportunity as well as of pursuing career? Who is talking about kids here?
The author doesn’t even pretend for a second to show concern for the state for disabled children which should be a main concern for most sane people, but instead focus solely on women who take care of them, somehow magically turning it into a women’s issue. Instead of looking into more valid questions such as whether the disabled kids fare better or worse in single female household compared to single male household or normal two-parent household (or in two-female parent household or two-male parent household or….these days there are so many alternative family structure) or non-biological parent(s) or…. The article simply say that more women are taking care of these kids than men, implying that this is some kind of major social problem that is in need of immediate attention and social remedy.
To liberal mainstream media the fact that more women are taking care of kids than men are such an irrefutable established social problem, they don’t even bother to elaborate why it is bad. Why a social problem? Is it because kids will fare worse when taken care of by women than when taken care by men?
Let’s put the question this way. So, what will be the solution? When all the women are freed from the dire chore of taking care of kids and shove it onto men, so that women can concentrate on their career aspirations, so that men are deprived of career opportunity and bound at home, thereby “leveling the playing field”? Or when absolute equal number of men and women are taking care of kids so that both sexes have equal chances of losing career opportunity as well as of pursuing career? Who is talking about kids here?
Transgendered science prof
So here comes a whining science professor out from a closet. Now he (or she, as “he” used to be, or whatever) is an instant media celebrity as a living testament of entrenched gender bias in scientific establishment.
Of course the New York Times, the Washington Post and host of other liberal media will love him. He is a transgendered person. He testifies that there is a gender bias in the scientific community. He belittles former Harvard president Summers. He has all the necessary elements to be the leftist media darling. Remember, he has personal experience and very unique insight into this issue which not many other people (or any other people, I suspect) would have. He will be, along with people like the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan, a media icon who would be relied upon by liberal media from time to time to render final verdict for the whole world on controversial political and social issues.
So, with an account of personal experience of one unknown scientist, who remained obscure during when he was a woman because of bias (or simple she was not as talented as other male colleagues – but this question does not matter as Dr. Barres and the media already seem to have an answer), media is ready to conclude that Dr. Summers was a just a sexist, white male.
But how good this professor is as a scientist? Dr. Barres asks, “Why do Asian girls do better on math tests than American boys?” My question is - does he think it is really “scientific’ to compare Asian girls with American boys? Why not compare Asian girls to Asian boys and American boys to American girls? The answers would be obvious – in both ethnic groups, boys will do much better. It is just that when you compare math tests of Asians and Americans as a whole, for some cultural or other reasons, Asians do better. But the great discriminated scientist Dr. Barres compares Asian girls with American boys and satisfied with the result he gets. Now we know his standard of scientific method, and also reasons why he got a bad rap as a scientist when he was a woman and why he is such a celebrity. He chose a wrong career. He should have been political activist than scientist.
Of course the New York Times, the Washington Post and host of other liberal media will love him. He is a transgendered person. He testifies that there is a gender bias in the scientific community. He belittles former Harvard president Summers. He has all the necessary elements to be the leftist media darling. Remember, he has personal experience and very unique insight into this issue which not many other people (or any other people, I suspect) would have. He will be, along with people like the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan, a media icon who would be relied upon by liberal media from time to time to render final verdict for the whole world on controversial political and social issues.
So, with an account of personal experience of one unknown scientist, who remained obscure during when he was a woman because of bias (or simple she was not as talented as other male colleagues – but this question does not matter as Dr. Barres and the media already seem to have an answer), media is ready to conclude that Dr. Summers was a just a sexist, white male.
But how good this professor is as a scientist? Dr. Barres asks, “Why do Asian girls do better on math tests than American boys?” My question is - does he think it is really “scientific’ to compare Asian girls with American boys? Why not compare Asian girls to Asian boys and American boys to American girls? The answers would be obvious – in both ethnic groups, boys will do much better. It is just that when you compare math tests of Asians and Americans as a whole, for some cultural or other reasons, Asians do better. But the great discriminated scientist Dr. Barres compares Asian girls with American boys and satisfied with the result he gets. Now we know his standard of scientific method, and also reasons why he got a bad rap as a scientist when he was a woman and why he is such a celebrity. He chose a wrong career. He should have been political activist than scientist.
Ultimate censorship
This is an example of the most direct, visible display of censorship-cutting off michrophone when a person who is speaking makes remarks that someone - in this case, organizer of the event, dislikes. While this incident took place at a graduation ceremony in one high school, sometime I fret at the thought that one day left-wing liberals would get so powerful and dominant in the political discourse and mass-media that they will someday use the same tactics - imagine during an important political debate on NBC or CBS, a crazed feminista sitting on the control room of the TV station turn off michrophone when conservatives try to argue against abortion or affirmative action.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
homework is discrimination
Another story...how about "grading" doesn't properly compensate for differences in pupil's backgrounds?
'Scrap homework' call from Left Party
The Left Party has proposed abolishing homework for children up to the age of 16, saying that it wants to compensate for differences in pupils' backgrounds.
Scrapping homework is one of the proposals put forward in the party's program for 'equality at school', which was presented on Wednesday.
The disappearance of homework would be compensated for with more concentrated teaching and more qualified teachers, said the Left Party's political secretary Anders Thor・to Svenska Dagbladet. The party did not intend to make the school day longer, he said.
Thor・pointed to a Teleborg school in V艀j・ which he said had positive experiences of abolishing homework.
The party argues that schools are not meeting their aim to give every pupil the same chances, and that they are not compensating for pupils' social differences.
The Liberal Party's education spokesman Jan Bjklund described the proposal as "beyond idiotic".
Unions were also critical. Eva-Lis Preisz, chairwoman of the Swedish Teachers' Union, said that politicians should not interfere with schools' homework policies. She said that politicians had an "excessive ambition" to micromanage the work of schools.
'Scrap homework' call from Left Party
The Left Party has proposed abolishing homework for children up to the age of 16, saying that it wants to compensate for differences in pupils' backgrounds.
Scrapping homework is one of the proposals put forward in the party's program for 'equality at school', which was presented on Wednesday.
The disappearance of homework would be compensated for with more concentrated teaching and more qualified teachers, said the Left Party's political secretary Anders Thor・to Svenska Dagbladet. The party did not intend to make the school day longer, he said.
Thor・pointed to a Teleborg school in V艀j・ which he said had positive experiences of abolishing homework.
The party argues that schools are not meeting their aim to give every pupil the same chances, and that they are not compensating for pupils' social differences.
The Liberal Party's education spokesman Jan Bjklund described the proposal as "beyond idiotic".
Unions were also critical. Eva-Lis Preisz, chairwoman of the Swedish Teachers' Union, said that politicians should not interfere with schools' homework policies. She said that politicians had an "excessive ambition" to micromanage the work of schools.
"feminist self-defence" in public schools
I just can't love Sweden enough for its stupidity......
This story gives you a glimpse of a future of society run by militant feminists・
A "feminist self-defence" for all girls, money earmarked at compulsory and upper secondary levels, in order to "improve girls' self-confidence"
Left Party: teach all girls self-defence
Sweden's Left Party wants all girls to be offered 'feminist self-defence' training from the seventh grade, aged 13-14. Meanwhile, boys should attend courses in feminism.
The party is demanding that money be earmarked for self-defence for all girls, both at the compulsory and upper secondary levels, according to Svenska Dagbladet.
The proposal is part of a new programme for schooling and is a continuation of the decision made in 2001 by the Social Democrats and their political partners to invest five million kronor in self-defence classes "to improve girls' self-confidence".
The Liberal Party's education spokesman, Jan Bjklund, declared himself sceptical towards the idea of 'teaching violence in school'.
"Different feminist groups are competing to be the most militant. But equality cannot be about learning to beat each other up," he said.
This story gives you a glimpse of a future of society run by militant feminists・
A "feminist self-defence" for all girls, money earmarked at compulsory and upper secondary levels, in order to "improve girls' self-confidence"
Left Party: teach all girls self-defence
Sweden's Left Party wants all girls to be offered 'feminist self-defence' training from the seventh grade, aged 13-14. Meanwhile, boys should attend courses in feminism.
The party is demanding that money be earmarked for self-defence for all girls, both at the compulsory and upper secondary levels, according to Svenska Dagbladet.
The proposal is part of a new programme for schooling and is a continuation of the decision made in 2001 by the Social Democrats and their political partners to invest five million kronor in self-defence classes "to improve girls' self-confidence".
The Liberal Party's education spokesman, Jan Bjklund, declared himself sceptical towards the idea of 'teaching violence in school'.
"Different feminist groups are competing to be the most militant. But equality cannot be about learning to beat each other up," he said.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Womin's place n history
A new and innovative way to claim “womin’s place”in history…
Rewriting of history by feminists.
Rewriting of history by feminists.
Girls gone drunk
Usually it’s great achievement for womenkind to catch up with men, but achievement in some areas could have adverse effect on women. That’s a dilemma for gender feminists who are working hard to “be like”men, or “be” men in all facets of life. It’s hard for feminists to admit the difference, biological or whatever, between men and women that causes such different effects between the sexes, but it is their second nature to call for social remedy, legislation or special entitlement specifically targeted to women. Thus in Newsweek’s article, little efforts were made to seek the reason for different impact that alcohol consumption has on men and women - admitting biological differences of sexes is not compatible with prevailing feminist dogma - it was loaded with social and cultural background that makes young women drink more (remember we live in patriarchal society!?)
Actually there is another important element that is missing from this seemingly alarming article. Exactly how many young women nationwide are being affected by excessive alcohol consumption? Other than one or two sorry cases of privileged, smart girls on the road to good colleges and bright future slightly derailed by alcohol, there is no statistics to back up the alarming tome of the title.
“started experimenting with marijuana and even crystal methamphetamine”..umm, that’s certainly bad, but how many thousands of boys are in worse situation?
“percentage of 21- to 30-year-olds who report being intoxicated in the past 12 months increased from 48 percent in 1981 to 63 percent in 2001” – boy isn’t that alarming, but what’s the data for boys? -wait a minute, “intoxicated in the past 12 months”? - you mean there are people who don’t get drunk for an entire year?
So one thing is clear - for Newsweek, girls are the only people they worry about, their every little problem need to be featured in magazine, worthy of commanding attention of the society and all the resources in the world need to be directed to fixing their every little problem.
Actually there is another important element that is missing from this seemingly alarming article. Exactly how many young women nationwide are being affected by excessive alcohol consumption? Other than one or two sorry cases of privileged, smart girls on the road to good colleges and bright future slightly derailed by alcohol, there is no statistics to back up the alarming tome of the title.
“started experimenting with marijuana and even crystal methamphetamine”..umm, that’s certainly bad, but how many thousands of boys are in worse situation?
“percentage of 21- to 30-year-olds who report being intoxicated in the past 12 months increased from 48 percent in 1981 to 63 percent in 2001” – boy isn’t that alarming, but what’s the data for boys? -wait a minute, “intoxicated in the past 12 months”? - you mean there are people who don’t get drunk for an entire year?
So one thing is clear - for Newsweek, girls are the only people they worry about, their every little problem need to be featured in magazine, worthy of commanding attention of the society and all the resources in the world need to be directed to fixing their every little problem.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Girl engineer and Google pandering to feminists
The diversity mantra is sounding more and more like a religious cult when you see it being repeated and repeated so often with near religious fervor, while giving absolutely no basis to support it. It is hard to believe that a guy smart enough to head Australian branch of the Google seriously believes in what he is saying. Does he seriously believes that a person with female genitalia fixing computer glitch as opposed to a person with male genitalia is going to benefit the company or the customer at large? What’s his Ph.D for? Must have gotten from Women’s study?
“ the lack of females in ICT - just 20 per cent of the workforce - means gender parity is a dream unless the company does something about it.”
--A dream for what? By who?
“Dr. Rasmussen is concerned that trying to fix the problem of a lack of women in ICT diverts resources from other ends and "could slow the recruitment process".
--Oops, Dr., watch your mouth, feminists don’t appreciate your slip of tongue
“But women still scrape the bottom of the food chain - both at Google and in the salary stakes. … women who earn more than $100,000 a year represent 0.25 per cent of ICT workers.”
-- What, you want to bring women from shoe sales department and install as a head of IT department and give her a top salary? All because no other reason than that she is a women?
“Companies might find it easier to identify skills sets out of non-technical backgrounds such as retail, utilities or commerce and then give them the (technical) knowledge,"”
--If you are so desperate as to consider bringing women from other field to IT sector just to improve gender balance statistics, why not just ask any woman walking on the street and hire as a IT head and give her the best salary. It will surely “give opportunity” for historically oppressed womin and “gender imbalance” as well as gender “pay gap” will be improved.
“ the lack of females in ICT - just 20 per cent of the workforce - means gender parity is a dream unless the company does something about it.”
--A dream for what? By who?
“Dr. Rasmussen is concerned that trying to fix the problem of a lack of women in ICT diverts resources from other ends and "could slow the recruitment process".
--Oops, Dr., watch your mouth, feminists don’t appreciate your slip of tongue
“But women still scrape the bottom of the food chain - both at Google and in the salary stakes. … women who earn more than $100,000 a year represent 0.25 per cent of ICT workers.”
-- What, you want to bring women from shoe sales department and install as a head of IT department and give her a top salary? All because no other reason than that she is a women?
“Companies might find it easier to identify skills sets out of non-technical backgrounds such as retail, utilities or commerce and then give them the (technical) knowledge,"”
--If you are so desperate as to consider bringing women from other field to IT sector just to improve gender balance statistics, why not just ask any woman walking on the street and hire as a IT head and give her the best salary. It will surely “give opportunity” for historically oppressed womin and “gender imbalance” as well as gender “pay gap” will be improved.
Sexual Harassment in Ohio State University
This story may sound extreme or simply bizarre to most people, and it is indeed so; putting in a recommended reading list a few of books written by conservative authors is sexual harassment (SH)? Just a little more of this absurdity would enable bringing SH lawsuits against listing of books written by Friedrich Hayek or Frances Fukuyama as they are also “conservatives” or whoever the bra-burning, tree-hugging, Trotzkyst professors that reside in today’s American universities hate.
It looks like SH is now being utilized as a cover for censorship or book-burning. It is just another function that seems to have been added to the omnipotent SH, in addition to its very useful and frequently-used functions as kicking powerful men out of job (and replace with - yes, women!), blackmailing, extortion of money and funding of the SH industry. In addition to these explicit (and horrible) consequences that charges or threat of charges of SH can bring about, it has more quiet, subtle and sometimes even unnoticed effects as well. It boosts women’s employment prospect as hiring managers would have second thoughts about hiring males - after all all males are very vulnerable to charges of SH, in which case companies have no choice to take the severest action for fear of feminists’ reprisal - company would rather hire female who would never been shot down by the same charges. It also put males under constant fear and pressure, as they feel that they are under constant scrutiny of feminist police, that staying clear of charges of SH that is being thrown at in more and more casual manner, would mean that you have to behave like either priest or hermit.
Although in this case the charge was brought about by gay male professor, the essence of SH is that it is a feminists’ choice of weapon to fight against patriarchy. Thus, it could be extended, interpreted and re-interpreted whenever and wherever feminists see fit in their fight against patriarchy.
It looks like SH is now being utilized as a cover for censorship or book-burning. It is just another function that seems to have been added to the omnipotent SH, in addition to its very useful and frequently-used functions as kicking powerful men out of job (and replace with - yes, women!), blackmailing, extortion of money and funding of the SH industry. In addition to these explicit (and horrible) consequences that charges or threat of charges of SH can bring about, it has more quiet, subtle and sometimes even unnoticed effects as well. It boosts women’s employment prospect as hiring managers would have second thoughts about hiring males - after all all males are very vulnerable to charges of SH, in which case companies have no choice to take the severest action for fear of feminists’ reprisal - company would rather hire female who would never been shot down by the same charges. It also put males under constant fear and pressure, as they feel that they are under constant scrutiny of feminist police, that staying clear of charges of SH that is being thrown at in more and more casual manner, would mean that you have to behave like either priest or hermit.
Although in this case the charge was brought about by gay male professor, the essence of SH is that it is a feminists’ choice of weapon to fight against patriarchy. Thus, it could be extended, interpreted and re-interpreted whenever and wherever feminists see fit in their fight against patriarchy.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Is it Newsweek or Good Housekeeping?
Newsweeks’ “Good Houskeeping” - rization has reached its new peak in this latest edition which features special report on the plight of women who struggled to sleep. Isn’t there any other news to report? Soon the top cover of this once-serious, hard journalism could be something like “10 great-tips to turn him on”, or “Get thin with great xxxx”. This simply shows what will happen when you have too many women in the editorial room of publication. Take heed, Times and US News and other still relatively serious journalism - although they too are not completely spared from feminists’ invasion.
Feminists conquer the Economist
A painful reminder that even a respected publication, such as the Economist, is not immune from the onslaught of gender-feminists’ advocacy articles…
Faced with politically-incorrect, undesirable realities of the rapid rise of some developing countries like China and India, which are not exactly the feminist paradise as Sweden is, gender feminists, who have infiltrated into the editorial room of the Economist (thanks largely to gender-hiring quota, I guess), countered with estrogen-filled, substitute-logic -with-emotion article. Even if we forget China, India and the internet, it is hard to believe that women are the driving force of world economy, if elite women, the vanguard of women’s rights and the ones who decide what are good for other women on their behalf (i.e. gender feminists), could only write article like this that is totally devoid of any logic or data.
Women in the workforce
http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6800723
The importance of sex
Apr 12th 2006From The Economist print edition
Faced with politically-incorrect, undesirable realities of the rapid rise of some developing countries like China and India, which are not exactly the feminist paradise as Sweden is, gender feminists, who have infiltrated into the editorial room of the Economist (thanks largely to gender-hiring quota, I guess), countered with estrogen-filled, substitute-logic -with-emotion article. Even if we forget China, India and the internet, it is hard to believe that women are the driving force of world economy, if elite women, the vanguard of women’s rights and the ones who decide what are good for other women on their behalf (i.e. gender feminists), could only write article like this that is totally devoid of any logic or data.
Women in the workforce
http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6800723
The importance of sex
Apr 12th 2006From The Economist print edition
Monday, April 10, 2006
International feminists and hijakijing of post-conflict recovery
International journalists and media persons are having their field day after the election of Liberia`s female President. This event was truly a windfall for feminist journalist who were dying for a news that will carry their agenda. They are now racing each other to put bigger coverage in their respective media outlet about this Liberian President and the issue of women`s political participation in Africa.
Here, again, the increasingly finer line between objective reporting and advocacy reporting is blurred. The media insinuates that the entire African continent, or even the entire world, is buzzing with hope for the female president, but is it just progressive western journalists or militant feminist circles in Africa buzzing with expectations?
As the author pointed out, some countries in Africa has the highest proportion of women in parliament in the world. But this is mainly due to peculiar circumstances in such countries. According to the author again, much of the male populations were slaughtered in Rwanda, leaving much less men alive than women when the conflict was over and a time to form a new government.
While most people, who have at least a shred of humanity, would feel this as a tragedy of gigantic proportion, but not militant feminists. Many local feminist organizations, aided and abetted, or sometimes set up by their western sisters, saw this as an "opportunity" to increase their voice in politics and boy they did seized the "opportunity"
Inspired by western gender feminists and international organizations, most notably the United Nations, the concept of "gender quota" which remains a controversial concept to say the least in western democracies, was presented as though it is a "world standard" and before men, yet to recover from the atrocity of genocide which mainly targeted them, could see what`s really behind it, was sneakly written into constitutions.
This in tern gives western feminist new ammunition in their eternal fight to introduce gender quota in their home countries. Now they could say, "Look, even Rwanda of all countries has higher number of women in parliament than us. Aren`t you ashamed? Why are we behind them in women`s political participation? What can we do to redress the problem?" and, "Rwanda has seen a remarkable progress since the end of conflict...it`s all because of gender quota!...let`s do in our country too, whoa!" The second kind of argument would naturally be accompanied by phony, selective, and manipulated data that is supposed to back up their self-serving claims.
Not only Rwandan men were butchered in thousands during the conflict, their plight was sometimes regarded by feminists as "men`s problem", meaning, men are killing other men and each other and is thus just their own problem. Instead of men who are butchered in thousands, feminists have successfully shifted attention of international community to the plight of women, who are raped, beaten, or became widows and had to raise family by themselves.
Thus men in Rwanda or other African countries affected by conflicts are doubly victimized or discriminated. First, during the conflict, they are the one who bear the majority of the blunt. Second, when the conflict ends and the society heads to recovery, most of the attention would be placed on women; increase women in power, empowerment of female victim of conflict of widows, economical empowerment of women - at the expense of ignoring the plight of men.
Some links on this article...here
Here, again, the increasingly finer line between objective reporting and advocacy reporting is blurred. The media insinuates that the entire African continent, or even the entire world, is buzzing with hope for the female president, but is it just progressive western journalists or militant feminist circles in Africa buzzing with expectations?
As the author pointed out, some countries in Africa has the highest proportion of women in parliament in the world. But this is mainly due to peculiar circumstances in such countries. According to the author again, much of the male populations were slaughtered in Rwanda, leaving much less men alive than women when the conflict was over and a time to form a new government.
While most people, who have at least a shred of humanity, would feel this as a tragedy of gigantic proportion, but not militant feminists. Many local feminist organizations, aided and abetted, or sometimes set up by their western sisters, saw this as an "opportunity" to increase their voice in politics and boy they did seized the "opportunity"
Inspired by western gender feminists and international organizations, most notably the United Nations, the concept of "gender quota" which remains a controversial concept to say the least in western democracies, was presented as though it is a "world standard" and before men, yet to recover from the atrocity of genocide which mainly targeted them, could see what`s really behind it, was sneakly written into constitutions.
This in tern gives western feminist new ammunition in their eternal fight to introduce gender quota in their home countries. Now they could say, "Look, even Rwanda of all countries has higher number of women in parliament than us. Aren`t you ashamed? Why are we behind them in women`s political participation? What can we do to redress the problem?" and, "Rwanda has seen a remarkable progress since the end of conflict...it`s all because of gender quota!...let`s do in our country too, whoa!" The second kind of argument would naturally be accompanied by phony, selective, and manipulated data that is supposed to back up their self-serving claims.
Not only Rwandan men were butchered in thousands during the conflict, their plight was sometimes regarded by feminists as "men`s problem", meaning, men are killing other men and each other and is thus just their own problem. Instead of men who are butchered in thousands, feminists have successfully shifted attention of international community to the plight of women, who are raped, beaten, or became widows and had to raise family by themselves.
Thus men in Rwanda or other African countries affected by conflicts are doubly victimized or discriminated. First, during the conflict, they are the one who bear the majority of the blunt. Second, when the conflict ends and the society heads to recovery, most of the attention would be placed on women; increase women in power, empowerment of female victim of conflict of widows, economical empowerment of women - at the expense of ignoring the plight of men.
Some links on this article...here
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Drunk women discriminated against
Breaking news!!! Another disturbing evidence of thriving patriarchy in Sweden!!! Scientific study has found out that drunk women are refused more often than drunk men. ---probably what we need is a new gender training course for bartenders and bar owners to serve drunk women another pitcher of beer.
Clay ceiling
Psssst...I can hear feminists whispering;
“..I just have so much problem having men`s work being displayed in our museum…you know, men are all potential rapists and oppressors…who wants potential rapists` artwork in our museum?....our place is supposed to be a “safe haven” for oppressed women artists and a base from which to launch a counter-attack against patriarchal art society and society at large…..Hmmmm but there is not enough women artists to fill our huge museum built on generous donation by private donations (next time to which company I should mention that we are planning to file sexual harassment class action lawsuit?) and government funding (our sisters are on the budget committee…)….hmmm, let`s display artworks on the subject of women, and highlight heavily on the fact that “subjects” are women, so that no one will notice that actually it was “men” who created them (I hope our sister will keep quiet…)…..”
“..I just have so much problem having men`s work being displayed in our museum…you know, men are all potential rapists and oppressors…who wants potential rapists` artwork in our museum?....our place is supposed to be a “safe haven” for oppressed women artists and a base from which to launch a counter-attack against patriarchal art society and society at large…..Hmmmm but there is not enough women artists to fill our huge museum built on generous donation by private donations (next time to which company I should mention that we are planning to file sexual harassment class action lawsuit?) and government funding (our sisters are on the budget committee…)….hmmm, let`s display artworks on the subject of women, and highlight heavily on the fact that “subjects” are women, so that no one will notice that actually it was “men” who created them (I hope our sister will keep quiet…)…..”
"Manliness" needed! (suddenly!)
In modern America, where manhood is universally condemned for every political and social mishaps and illnesses, from the Iraq war to economy, poverty, social development, environment and everything else as testosterone-driven, reckless, and dominating Neanderthal value, there is still one area, and only one area, where manhood is still valued: when it comes to paying child support. In other words, when it comes to benefit women. The need to fictitiously hail manliness is even greater when the man was deceived into parenthood and enforced a child support by the court, such as in the case of Mr. Dubay.
In a world where male behavior and traits are constantly ridiculed in media and TV, where male attributes and values are scoffed and written off as thing of the past, where men are easy target for allegation for sexual harassment, domestic violence, abuse and discrimination, and where men are forced to undergo mind-programming course such as sensitivity training or rape awareness class where men are taught to introspect on their inner feminine side and cultivate sensitivity, feminists and politically correct media has prescribed the only area where men could exhibit their manliness.
We would love to see Jeff Jacoby, a male columnist for Boston Globe showing off his own manliness in any way he wants, but manliness that this metrosexual columnist (I guess) demands of Mr. Dubay comes with no cheap price tag. It`s 18 plus years of child support that we are talking about. It would be quite easy for Mr. Jacoby to extol the virtue of manhood from his comfortable office, where he has nothing to worry about. People like him would realize the dire situation of men in today`s America only when he himself is tricked into fatherhood and slapped with huge child support by court. Of course in that case, we expect that he will react “manly”.
I would suggest that some women, could be any woman walking on the street, to go to a court and claim Mr. Jacoby as her child`s father. No proof, DNA or otherwise, will be required. I want to see how Mr. Jacoby`s face upon hearing the court order him top pay the child support.
In a world where male behavior and traits are constantly ridiculed in media and TV, where male attributes and values are scoffed and written off as thing of the past, where men are easy target for allegation for sexual harassment, domestic violence, abuse and discrimination, and where men are forced to undergo mind-programming course such as sensitivity training or rape awareness class where men are taught to introspect on their inner feminine side and cultivate sensitivity, feminists and politically correct media has prescribed the only area where men could exhibit their manliness.
We would love to see Jeff Jacoby, a male columnist for Boston Globe showing off his own manliness in any way he wants, but manliness that this metrosexual columnist (I guess) demands of Mr. Dubay comes with no cheap price tag. It`s 18 plus years of child support that we are talking about. It would be quite easy for Mr. Jacoby to extol the virtue of manhood from his comfortable office, where he has nothing to worry about. People like him would realize the dire situation of men in today`s America only when he himself is tricked into fatherhood and slapped with huge child support by court. Of course in that case, we expect that he will react “manly”.
I would suggest that some women, could be any woman walking on the street, to go to a court and claim Mr. Jacoby as her child`s father. No proof, DNA or otherwise, will be required. I want to see how Mr. Jacoby`s face upon hearing the court order him top pay the child support.
Black women winning victim sweepstake!
Looks like black women is again winning the I-am-the-biggest-victim sweepstake, according to Joy Jones, a black women (what other demographic group could a person who say something like this belong to?).
According to her, “declining marriage rates among African Americans hit women the hardest.”. This despite the fact that more black men than black women have never been married (by a narrow margin - 43.3 percent versus 41.9 percent), and black women`s chief reasons for not marrying, again according to her own writing, seems to be something like; “(women) don't want to lose their freedom.", or “many of their female peers are satisfied with the lives they have constructed and are less likely to settle for marriage”, as “marriage may not be a business deal that offers sufficient return on investment” for black women who nowadays are on average far more educated, well-salaried, and accomplished and than average black men.
As opposed to black women`s selfish, ego-centric and drama-queen reasons for not marrying, black men`s far more serious reasons for not (or not being able to) marrying, such as incarceration, indebtedness with child support or alimony to wealthier ex-wives, drug and alchohol abuse, etc., are not mentioned at all. Instead, single women who think in the lines of “why should well-salaried women marry?", are portrayed as victims of low rate of marriage among blacks. Here men are treated as commodity or object that women could use in case women wished to look for some companionship and spiritual satisfaction, when she need some respite from her life centered on her high-flung career.
According to her, “declining marriage rates among African Americans hit women the hardest.”. This despite the fact that more black men than black women have never been married (by a narrow margin - 43.3 percent versus 41.9 percent), and black women`s chief reasons for not marrying, again according to her own writing, seems to be something like; “(women) don't want to lose their freedom.", or “many of their female peers are satisfied with the lives they have constructed and are less likely to settle for marriage”, as “marriage may not be a business deal that offers sufficient return on investment” for black women who nowadays are on average far more educated, well-salaried, and accomplished and than average black men.
As opposed to black women`s selfish, ego-centric and drama-queen reasons for not marrying, black men`s far more serious reasons for not (or not being able to) marrying, such as incarceration, indebtedness with child support or alimony to wealthier ex-wives, drug and alchohol abuse, etc., are not mentioned at all. Instead, single women who think in the lines of “why should well-salaried women marry?", are portrayed as victims of low rate of marriage among blacks. Here men are treated as commodity or object that women could use in case women wished to look for some companionship and spiritual satisfaction, when she need some respite from her life centered on her high-flung career.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Reverse-reverse discrimination or women victim of gender quota
Feminists are extremely quick to react to anything that affects their agenda. It may be partly due to a modern trend in leftist political activism for "quick reaction" or partly due to women's natural tendency to defend themselves (as a child-bearer, women put primacy on protecting and defending their bodies, a contrast to man's rather risk-taking and assertive nature). A New York Times Op-ed author is already hinting that there is reverse-reverse discrimination against women in college admission as college admission officers engage in affirmative action admission for prospective male students, since there have been not enough males on campus.
I do not know how true the story is, (no stats to back-up, only anecdotal stories told by feminists, as usual) and if it is true, how widespread this phenomenon is, but it is quite interesting to see that seemingly women are now being adversely affected by gender quota principle that is held so sacrosanct in every public decisions these days. On the other hand, the timing of the publication of this article and its coverage in major newspaper points to the privileged status of women, as an government-designated "oppressed" or "marginalized" group, in getting their voices heard in mainstream media.
Anyway, however disappointed these women maybe for not being admitted at their first choice schools, these women are receiving admissions from a number of good universities, and once in the universities, they are going to enjoy a number of special privileges and entitlements as a women, including a chance to start a sport and join a team for the first time at collegiate level, which are created by eliminating men's varsity teams, a chance to join Vagina monologue event and shout at male students, and so on and so on・. In the meantime, issues that negatively affect men in much severerer way, will continued to be ignored and pushed aside by editorial board now controlled by man-hating feminists.
I do not know how true the story is, (no stats to back-up, only anecdotal stories told by feminists, as usual) and if it is true, how widespread this phenomenon is, but it is quite interesting to see that seemingly women are now being adversely affected by gender quota principle that is held so sacrosanct in every public decisions these days. On the other hand, the timing of the publication of this article and its coverage in major newspaper points to the privileged status of women, as an government-designated "oppressed" or "marginalized" group, in getting their voices heard in mainstream media.
Anyway, however disappointed these women maybe for not being admitted at their first choice schools, these women are receiving admissions from a number of good universities, and once in the universities, they are going to enjoy a number of special privileges and entitlements as a women, including a chance to start a sport and join a team for the first time at collegiate level, which are created by eliminating men's varsity teams, a chance to join Vagina monologue event and shout at male students, and so on and so on・. In the meantime, issues that negatively affect men in much severerer way, will continued to be ignored and pushed aside by editorial board now controlled by man-hating feminists.
UK gender feminists
Feminists are the same. I mean, whether they whine in the United States or Britain or Europe or Asia or Africa or Latin America, they all whine about the same thing ・more power and more money, and the tactics they use are the same. Or in UK maybe they go a little bit further.
The rough average of difference of the total sum of money earned by men and women in the entire labor force, or the so-called "pay gap" of about 17 percent, was further twisted and now verbally transferred in this article by the hand of a militant feminist to "(money that) we're due" as if something we need reimburse to the entire female population.
In the article seemingly written out of estrogen-driven hysteria and dearth of mathematic and logical thinking (remember it was written by a feminist?) called for holding back top salary only for men, so that average earning between men and women will be closer. Exactly who will benefit from this kid of absurd proposal? Nobody. Except militant feminists whose only concern are statistical figures of men and women's average salary. Militant feminists who can reach organism by just looking at the bar chart showing equal pay for men and women in the entire society.
Further, the author pretend to be shocked or (genuinely shocked - then I feel sorry for her mental state) at the whopping 41 percent pay gap between full-time worker and part-time worker ・is anyone with right mind shocked at all? Why should there be pay parity between full-time and part-time worker? The only thing this shows it the level of hatred against men that these militant feminist have - if they were to compare female full-time and part-time worker and discover the gap, would they be "shocked"? - my guess is that even feminists are genetically not as good as men in doing math, they wouldn't be so "shocked". She was "shocked" because for them the fulltime employee represented men (although in reality needless to say there are many female full time worker) and part-time employee represented women, and in her mind the gender war has to go on and it has to be won.
At one point the author seems to correctly blast at the thought-programming of female students, but later she flipflop (another feminist's forte) and refers to this as a good recommendation. If thought-programming is good, why not go one step further and ban all female students from taking such major as literature and sociology and force them to take engineering, etc.?
No wait, the government was also supposed to look at the structural societal gender discrimination, that is, job overrepresented by men, such as engineering and construction, being paid much more than female-dominated occupation (such as teacher, social worker). So if the government succeeded in its grand social-engineering scheme and lowered the overall pay for the former and raise the latter to 田lose・the pay gap between gender, what would happen to all those women who were forced to take up engineering jobs by the government under this new plan, only to see their jobs devalued and whose pay were artificially capped by the government at lower rate than market dictates? Only women can keep the traditional lavish engineering pay?
Familiar line of the women's work paid less than men's work simply because women are valued less is repeated here. This is based on the concept of thoroughly-debunked "comparable worth" theory, which asserts that pay level should be a function of a "worth" to society, to be determined by committee of wise women (no men are going to be included, I guess), rather than a function of free market. The reason for men's jobs' 'better pay is because, among other myriad of reasons, men's jobs tend to be far more dangerous and harder - over 90 percent of occupational deaths occurred to men (yet there is no outcry for "gender imbalance" here), while women's job is much safer and more comfortable. I think it would be a benefit for women if the author does not display this kind of complete lack of mental ability to reason or analyse the economic factor as she did in this article. People will start not believing that women could handle economic or other important public mater anymore, if she seriously beliee that employer and union are colluding to keep women's pay low.
The rough average of difference of the total sum of money earned by men and women in the entire labor force, or the so-called "pay gap" of about 17 percent, was further twisted and now verbally transferred in this article by the hand of a militant feminist to "(money that) we're due" as if something we need reimburse to the entire female population.
In the article seemingly written out of estrogen-driven hysteria and dearth of mathematic and logical thinking (remember it was written by a feminist?) called for holding back top salary only for men, so that average earning between men and women will be closer. Exactly who will benefit from this kid of absurd proposal? Nobody. Except militant feminists whose only concern are statistical figures of men and women's average salary. Militant feminists who can reach organism by just looking at the bar chart showing equal pay for men and women in the entire society.
Further, the author pretend to be shocked or (genuinely shocked - then I feel sorry for her mental state) at the whopping 41 percent pay gap between full-time worker and part-time worker ・is anyone with right mind shocked at all? Why should there be pay parity between full-time and part-time worker? The only thing this shows it the level of hatred against men that these militant feminist have - if they were to compare female full-time and part-time worker and discover the gap, would they be "shocked"? - my guess is that even feminists are genetically not as good as men in doing math, they wouldn't be so "shocked". She was "shocked" because for them the fulltime employee represented men (although in reality needless to say there are many female full time worker) and part-time employee represented women, and in her mind the gender war has to go on and it has to be won.
At one point the author seems to correctly blast at the thought-programming of female students, but later she flipflop (another feminist's forte) and refers to this as a good recommendation. If thought-programming is good, why not go one step further and ban all female students from taking such major as literature and sociology and force them to take engineering, etc.?
No wait, the government was also supposed to look at the structural societal gender discrimination, that is, job overrepresented by men, such as engineering and construction, being paid much more than female-dominated occupation (such as teacher, social worker). So if the government succeeded in its grand social-engineering scheme and lowered the overall pay for the former and raise the latter to 田lose・the pay gap between gender, what would happen to all those women who were forced to take up engineering jobs by the government under this new plan, only to see their jobs devalued and whose pay were artificially capped by the government at lower rate than market dictates? Only women can keep the traditional lavish engineering pay?
Familiar line of the women's work paid less than men's work simply because women are valued less is repeated here. This is based on the concept of thoroughly-debunked "comparable worth" theory, which asserts that pay level should be a function of a "worth" to society, to be determined by committee of wise women (no men are going to be included, I guess), rather than a function of free market. The reason for men's jobs' 'better pay is because, among other myriad of reasons, men's jobs tend to be far more dangerous and harder - over 90 percent of occupational deaths occurred to men (yet there is no outcry for "gender imbalance" here), while women's job is much safer and more comfortable. I think it would be a benefit for women if the author does not display this kind of complete lack of mental ability to reason or analyse the economic factor as she did in this article. People will start not believing that women could handle economic or other important public mater anymore, if she seriously beliee that employer and union are colluding to keep women's pay low.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
More on only WOMEN need apply
Here are the same article that gender feminist Jessica Neuwurth published in other newspapers in US and Canada, which I commented on 16 March in "Only WOMEN need apply"
Windsor Star, Canada 22 March
Houston Chronicle 3/17
Canton Repository Ohio, 19 March
Canton Repository Ohio, 16 March
Windsor Star, Canada 22 March
Houston Chronicle 3/17
Canton Repository Ohio, 19 March
Canton Repository Ohio, 16 March
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
European vs. American feminists
There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between European and American feminists in which one claims that situation surrounding women in their country/region is worse than the other, through use of selective statistics and rhetoric, and end up benefiting feminists from both areas with more support for their causes and government-funded gender-specific empowerment programmes.
People in America have been long told that Europe, especially Scandinavian countries, is more progressive, liberal society in which women enjoy equality with men and all the benefits provided by progressive, socialist governments. The article lists very long maternity leave, etc, etc, as some of such benefits European women enjoy. However the feminists in Europe were still not satisfied with all the extensive benefits and decided to claim that their status is worse than America where women have only 12 weeks of maternity leave, etc.
The criteria for comparison that this kind of power-hungry gender feminists use of course are percentage of women in political power and in large corporations ・nothing else. Even here some facts that they usually self-congratulate in other fora, such as near 50 percent of women in cabinet and parliament in Sweden and other Nordic countries, are conveniently forgotten and focus is shifted to statistic provided by extremely-feminist-friendly ILO which provides that while women account for 45 percent of high-level decision makers in America・ in Sweden, only 29 percent hold high-power posts. If you show this to American feminists, I am sure they would counter-claim the far-far-worse women・status in America by screaming something like ・women hold less than 15 percent of Senate seats compared to Sweden's 40-some percent, uh, it takes another 500 years to reach parity!!! Damn patricarchy!!・
What's the solution to the dismal status of European women as a result of "cushy" welfare system? The most common-sensical and straightforward solution would be to eliminate all these extensive benefits and special entitlements for European women, such as up to 3 years (!) paid maternity leave, state-sponsored day-care centers, that European women seem to have too much of? Of course not! Instead they would push the envelope further, and call for forced paternity leave, and more flex time. They are also envy of American style guilty-until-proven, sue-as-you-go sexual harassment law and tax structure based on single working (lesbian) women. And of course, (who can miss this, it's such a staple), gender quota in corporate board room and MBA schools, strict enforcement of pay parity between sexes (I wonder what the number would be in Europe, as opposed to men's 1 dollar to women's 76 cents in US - whatever the number feminists want us to believe).
According to the authors, Europe's future depends on whether more women will be in the corporate ranks and all Europe will benefit from it. This is a good example of 努omen-think・ so self-centered and self-congratulatory and lacking in ability to see the big picture and distinguish yourself's interest from others. Of course it would be good for you, militant gender feminists and your comrades, and power-hungry women, because you will be having ecstasy looking at the pie chart showing parity between men and women in power, and getting a high-powered post with flex time, 3-year no-question-asked maternity leave, forced paternity leave for your husband and sue-and-forget sexual harassment lawsuit and just wait for the company to pay multi-million dollars (or Euros) settlement to your bank account. But for entire Europe? "Take heed, Europe"? It's good that Europe is still not overrun by such self-centered narcissistic feminists, but they will march on...
Myth & Reality
By Rana Foroohar
Newsweek International http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11435567/site/newsweek/
People in America have been long told that Europe, especially Scandinavian countries, is more progressive, liberal society in which women enjoy equality with men and all the benefits provided by progressive, socialist governments. The article lists very long maternity leave, etc, etc, as some of such benefits European women enjoy. However the feminists in Europe were still not satisfied with all the extensive benefits and decided to claim that their status is worse than America where women have only 12 weeks of maternity leave, etc.
The criteria for comparison that this kind of power-hungry gender feminists use of course are percentage of women in political power and in large corporations ・nothing else. Even here some facts that they usually self-congratulate in other fora, such as near 50 percent of women in cabinet and parliament in Sweden and other Nordic countries, are conveniently forgotten and focus is shifted to statistic provided by extremely-feminist-friendly ILO which provides that while women account for 45 percent of high-level decision makers in America・ in Sweden, only 29 percent hold high-power posts. If you show this to American feminists, I am sure they would counter-claim the far-far-worse women・status in America by screaming something like ・women hold less than 15 percent of Senate seats compared to Sweden's 40-some percent, uh, it takes another 500 years to reach parity!!! Damn patricarchy!!・
What's the solution to the dismal status of European women as a result of "cushy" welfare system? The most common-sensical and straightforward solution would be to eliminate all these extensive benefits and special entitlements for European women, such as up to 3 years (!) paid maternity leave, state-sponsored day-care centers, that European women seem to have too much of? Of course not! Instead they would push the envelope further, and call for forced paternity leave, and more flex time. They are also envy of American style guilty-until-proven, sue-as-you-go sexual harassment law and tax structure based on single working (lesbian) women. And of course, (who can miss this, it's such a staple), gender quota in corporate board room and MBA schools, strict enforcement of pay parity between sexes (I wonder what the number would be in Europe, as opposed to men's 1 dollar to women's 76 cents in US - whatever the number feminists want us to believe).
According to the authors, Europe's future depends on whether more women will be in the corporate ranks and all Europe will benefit from it. This is a good example of 努omen-think・ so self-centered and self-congratulatory and lacking in ability to see the big picture and distinguish yourself's interest from others. Of course it would be good for you, militant gender feminists and your comrades, and power-hungry women, because you will be having ecstasy looking at the pie chart showing parity between men and women in power, and getting a high-powered post with flex time, 3-year no-question-asked maternity leave, forced paternity leave for your husband and sue-and-forget sexual harassment lawsuit and just wait for the company to pay multi-million dollars (or Euros) settlement to your bank account. But for entire Europe? "Take heed, Europe"? It's good that Europe is still not overrun by such self-centered narcissistic feminists, but they will march on...
Myth & Reality
By Rana Foroohar
Newsweek International http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11435567/site/newsweek/
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Law firm partners
Here`s another cookie-cutter, why-are-there-not-enough-women-in-power-in..(insert any industry you can think of)..., advocacy article written by and for gender feminists. The article is a standard template for deploring the dearth of women in top positions and urging the society to change its attitude and calling for more women in top positions. It`s so predictable from the beginning to end.
Some people simply automatically assumes that achievements and grades at certain point in lifetime (percentage of women in top law schools in this case) must be reflected at the exact same proportion in any point in the following continuum of lifecycle (women ending in partner status in prestigious law firms) or there must be some reasons ・translation - discrimination, barrier, bias, and stereotype.
It is simply astounding that people with such high education and supposedly high intelligence so as to get a positions in big law firms and editorial room of newspaper do not understand that demographic group is nothing but an aggregate of individuals and individuals have choices in free country; moreover individuals choice is influenced by natural genetic differences or circumstance. May be there are well aware of this and are embarking on a massive campaign of denial, denial of and individual free choices, denial of nature and genetic differences, so that they could re-program our thought and behavior, and enforce their utopian vision of absolute statistical gender parity?
One thing that is repeated in this article and other similar article that advocates more women in top position is that retention and promotion of more women is "winning business strategy." However, I have never seen any data or evidence to backup this claim that is so central to their entire argument. Even though the author preemptively qualifies in the article that retention and promotion of women is not merely good-will gesture, it remains to be so as long as there is no rock-solid evidence to back it up.
Why will it be a winning business strategy? In order for one to categorically state that retention and promotion of women is a winning business strategy for law firm, there must be clear economic, not just moral or psychological, benefit to it.
Is there evidence that those female lawyers leaving law firms were better than male lawyers who are staying? Or is it simply a loss of average or sub-average employee for which the law firm`s loss is the money and time it expended for the training of such employees? If so, law firms could cover and eventually overcome such loss by employing male lawyers, who might have been passed over for female candidate due to explicit or inexplicit affirmative action/gender quota by the hiring manager. Many of the female lawyers would say there were disappointed, felt unwelcome, or the atmosphere was not conducive to exercising their maximum potential, or in any other pathetic whining way. But what would the law firms feel? Maybe they were also disappointed by the performance of these female lawyers? Especially after years of substantial efforts and expenditures to comply to feminist-dictated female friendly workplace, after so much bending backwards to cater and cajole to feminists demand, and still what all female lawyers, with brilliant education and six to seven-figure income, benefiting from female specific training and development programme and other gender-specific entitlements, could produce is a further whining about not women-friendly or sensitive enough workplace?
In addition to proven innate difference in the brain structure and the resultant behavior differences between men and women, there are other differences between them when it comes to work and how they view achievement; men simply do their job, by setting goals, plan and prioritize tasks. Achievement for men is something that they have to strive for and work hard for. For women, achievement, or a result is something that needs to be guaranteed by government or some authorities regardless of their ability or efforts or accomplishment, an accessory to a position that they get also through affirmative action or other government-sanctioned gender-empowerment programme.
New York Times March 19, 2006
Why Do So Few Women Reach the Top of Big Law Firms?
By TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/business/yourmoney/19law.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Some people simply automatically assumes that achievements and grades at certain point in lifetime (percentage of women in top law schools in this case) must be reflected at the exact same proportion in any point in the following continuum of lifecycle (women ending in partner status in prestigious law firms) or there must be some reasons ・translation - discrimination, barrier, bias, and stereotype.
It is simply astounding that people with such high education and supposedly high intelligence so as to get a positions in big law firms and editorial room of newspaper do not understand that demographic group is nothing but an aggregate of individuals and individuals have choices in free country; moreover individuals choice is influenced by natural genetic differences or circumstance. May be there are well aware of this and are embarking on a massive campaign of denial, denial of and individual free choices, denial of nature and genetic differences, so that they could re-program our thought and behavior, and enforce their utopian vision of absolute statistical gender parity?
One thing that is repeated in this article and other similar article that advocates more women in top position is that retention and promotion of more women is "winning business strategy." However, I have never seen any data or evidence to backup this claim that is so central to their entire argument. Even though the author preemptively qualifies in the article that retention and promotion of women is not merely good-will gesture, it remains to be so as long as there is no rock-solid evidence to back it up.
Why will it be a winning business strategy? In order for one to categorically state that retention and promotion of women is a winning business strategy for law firm, there must be clear economic, not just moral or psychological, benefit to it.
Is there evidence that those female lawyers leaving law firms were better than male lawyers who are staying? Or is it simply a loss of average or sub-average employee for which the law firm`s loss is the money and time it expended for the training of such employees? If so, law firms could cover and eventually overcome such loss by employing male lawyers, who might have been passed over for female candidate due to explicit or inexplicit affirmative action/gender quota by the hiring manager. Many of the female lawyers would say there were disappointed, felt unwelcome, or the atmosphere was not conducive to exercising their maximum potential, or in any other pathetic whining way. But what would the law firms feel? Maybe they were also disappointed by the performance of these female lawyers? Especially after years of substantial efforts and expenditures to comply to feminist-dictated female friendly workplace, after so much bending backwards to cater and cajole to feminists demand, and still what all female lawyers, with brilliant education and six to seven-figure income, benefiting from female specific training and development programme and other gender-specific entitlements, could produce is a further whining about not women-friendly or sensitive enough workplace?
In addition to proven innate difference in the brain structure and the resultant behavior differences between men and women, there are other differences between them when it comes to work and how they view achievement; men simply do their job, by setting goals, plan and prioritize tasks. Achievement for men is something that they have to strive for and work hard for. For women, achievement, or a result is something that needs to be guaranteed by government or some authorities regardless of their ability or efforts or accomplishment, an accessory to a position that they get also through affirmative action or other government-sanctioned gender-empowerment programme.
New York Times March 19, 2006
Why Do So Few Women Reach the Top of Big Law Firms?
By TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/business/yourmoney/19law.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Friday, March 17, 2006
Some cant take criticism
Female politicians always get away with anything they do or say by just uttering one of the following words; discrimination, harassment, gender-based, sexism, patriarchy.
Democratic frontrunner for the 2008 Presidential election, and a master of gender politics, Hillary Clinton is one of the most frequent user of this tactics. Of course when you make such deragatory comments about Republicans, you would draw a lot of criticism. But, girl, it was not a gender-based attack. It was rather mild, inhibited quips about such irresponsible and reckless comments uttered by such a high-office holder. If you were a man, you would get far harsher criticism from your opponents who do not have to worry about the consequences of looking to be criticizing women・ If you were a man, you could not sling completely baseless charge of gender-based・attack, because there is supposedly no such thing as gender-based attack against men, it goes in only one way, right? Well of course if you were a man, you couldnt marry Bill and became the First Lady, you political launching pad in the first place.
The only gender difference in this case is that, while male politicians would always have to face consequences of their words and actions and take responsibility in the end, female politicians can always get away with uttering the words, gender-based・and discrimination・ This is one of the biggest advantages that female politician have, and Hillary of course knows it best. She has mastered the art of accusation or insinuation of gender discrimination and employs it so tactfully and strategically, it could be now considered her biggest political asset.
Hillarys strategic use of gender victim card and medias willingness to make it into a big story creates two distinct categories of politicians; male politicians who are responsible and answerable to charges and female politicians, consequence / responsibility-free, and immune from criticism. American voters are presented with two such categories of politicians to choose from, and the current politically correct climate dictates that the politicians of the latter category (consequence-free females) be more represented in Senate and Congress.
Although male politicians have no chance of evading from the consequences of their actions by playing gender-victim card, the experiences of taking responsibility, facing consequences actually made male politicians tougher, more responsible, and better politicians, in their innate quality as well as to the eyes of public. By striving to be more responsible, cautious and Public also know that male politicians always have to answer to charges and critics as they have no gender-victim card to play with and thus would trust more on them.
On the other hand, paradoxically, female politicians, free from facing similar consequences that male politicians would otherwise have to face by simply uttering the word discrimination, havent had a chance to be trained in the same way as male politicians. Public would not trust politicians who do not take responsibility for what they say but would only scream gender discrimination, and whose questionable words and actions are not to be covered by mainstream media due to the prevailing politically correct atmosphere.
If feminists want to increase the number of women in politics, their often stated biggest goal in the movement (its not about equality anymore its about power grab) isnt it time for them to learn to take responsibility for what they say and do? It may hurt a bit, but it in the long run, it may help them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030700443.html
Democratic frontrunner for the 2008 Presidential election, and a master of gender politics, Hillary Clinton is one of the most frequent user of this tactics. Of course when you make such deragatory comments about Republicans, you would draw a lot of criticism. But, girl, it was not a gender-based attack. It was rather mild, inhibited quips about such irresponsible and reckless comments uttered by such a high-office holder. If you were a man, you would get far harsher criticism from your opponents who do not have to worry about the consequences of looking to be criticizing women・ If you were a man, you could not sling completely baseless charge of gender-based・attack, because there is supposedly no such thing as gender-based attack against men, it goes in only one way, right? Well of course if you were a man, you couldnt marry Bill and became the First Lady, you political launching pad in the first place.
The only gender difference in this case is that, while male politicians would always have to face consequences of their words and actions and take responsibility in the end, female politicians can always get away with uttering the words, gender-based・and discrimination・ This is one of the biggest advantages that female politician have, and Hillary of course knows it best. She has mastered the art of accusation or insinuation of gender discrimination and employs it so tactfully and strategically, it could be now considered her biggest political asset.
Hillarys strategic use of gender victim card and medias willingness to make it into a big story creates two distinct categories of politicians; male politicians who are responsible and answerable to charges and female politicians, consequence / responsibility-free, and immune from criticism. American voters are presented with two such categories of politicians to choose from, and the current politically correct climate dictates that the politicians of the latter category (consequence-free females) be more represented in Senate and Congress.
Although male politicians have no chance of evading from the consequences of their actions by playing gender-victim card, the experiences of taking responsibility, facing consequences actually made male politicians tougher, more responsible, and better politicians, in their innate quality as well as to the eyes of public. By striving to be more responsible, cautious and Public also know that male politicians always have to answer to charges and critics as they have no gender-victim card to play with and thus would trust more on them.
On the other hand, paradoxically, female politicians, free from facing similar consequences that male politicians would otherwise have to face by simply uttering the word discrimination, havent had a chance to be trained in the same way as male politicians. Public would not trust politicians who do not take responsibility for what they say but would only scream gender discrimination, and whose questionable words and actions are not to be covered by mainstream media due to the prevailing politically correct atmosphere.
If feminists want to increase the number of women in politics, their often stated biggest goal in the movement (its not about equality anymore its about power grab) isnt it time for them to learn to take responsibility for what they say and do? It may hurt a bit, but it in the long run, it may help them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030700443.html
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Gender-based appointment
Another example of “gender-based” appointment….Liberian female president picked a person who fled the country a decade ago and have no experience in policing since then, a teacher in New Jersey!, to assume the position of chief police in the country. This show the extent to which feminists would go to ensure that powerful and prominent post will not go to men. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031000557.html
Only WOMAN need apply
Massive campaign to choose the next Secretary-General of the United Nations based on gender, not capacity nor qualification, has been in full swing with active and willing cooperation of liberal media. While governments and people around the world are marveling about, in a more serious manner, what kind of person should be leading the United Nations in the coming years and who would be most qualified to take up the job after Kofi Annan, current Secretary-General, leaves the office in December, feminist organizations are trying to put forward their candidates for the post, - the ones with female organs. The short list that Jessica Neuwirth, president of the Equality Now, has presented in her article is impressive indeed, (a judge on the International Criminal Court ?), the most impressive about her short list is that all the candidates possess one MUST-HAVE ITEM for future leaders in this increasingly politically correct world – female organs. Sorry to repeat these rather untasteful words, but there is really no other words that are common to these candidates, - uh wait, how about irrelevant or inconsequential?
While their assertion that the Secretary-General has to have female organs is not likely to come to fruition this time, as we are already seeing some strong candidates emerging from Asia - unfortunately for feminists none of these candidates were born with female organ - feminists are covertly trying to introduce and mainstream the idea of “gender-rotation” in the appointment of the Secretary-General and other senior officials, in the hope that even they do not get their choice this time, they have a better shot next time 5 or 10 years from now when the next SG’s term expires, or increase the percentage of women in senior position in United Nations. This new and emerging concept of gender-rotation is feminists’ new arsenal in their Orwellian scheme of enforcing statistical gender parity in senior positions. If the post of Secretary-General or other senior positions are to be rotated based on gender, it would ensure automatic 100% compliance to statistical gender parity – feminists’ biggest goal in their social engineering scheme. While this notion is already bizarre by itself, it would look even more so in the light of feminists’ often-repeated assertion that men and women are exactly the same in their capacity, disposition, character, etc. If they are identical, why do you have to rotate by gender?
It is profoundly ironic (or was predicted?) that feminists, who were supposed to be championing “gender-blind” society (although they still do when it fits their purpose) are the ones most aggressively pushing for the appointment solely and strictly based on gender. We also know that these are the people who, after getting jobs, say, “gender has never played any role in my selection as the chief of ……”. - Whatever.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401126.html
While their assertion that the Secretary-General has to have female organs is not likely to come to fruition this time, as we are already seeing some strong candidates emerging from Asia - unfortunately for feminists none of these candidates were born with female organ - feminists are covertly trying to introduce and mainstream the idea of “gender-rotation” in the appointment of the Secretary-General and other senior officials, in the hope that even they do not get their choice this time, they have a better shot next time 5 or 10 years from now when the next SG’s term expires, or increase the percentage of women in senior position in United Nations. This new and emerging concept of gender-rotation is feminists’ new arsenal in their Orwellian scheme of enforcing statistical gender parity in senior positions. If the post of Secretary-General or other senior positions are to be rotated based on gender, it would ensure automatic 100% compliance to statistical gender parity – feminists’ biggest goal in their social engineering scheme. While this notion is already bizarre by itself, it would look even more so in the light of feminists’ often-repeated assertion that men and women are exactly the same in their capacity, disposition, character, etc. If they are identical, why do you have to rotate by gender?
It is profoundly ironic (or was predicted?) that feminists, who were supposed to be championing “gender-blind” society (although they still do when it fits their purpose) are the ones most aggressively pushing for the appointment solely and strictly based on gender. We also know that these are the people who, after getting jobs, say, “gender has never played any role in my selection as the chief of ……”. - Whatever.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401126.html
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Women`s hockey
One more story related to the Turin Olympic. So the US and Canada are dominant in the women’s hockey. And so dominant like ’27 Yankees? Who cares who are “dominant” in women’s hockey? If there are only two countries who seriously play in this category (note that I’m not talking about hockey as a sport, but as “Women’s hockey in Olympic” as a “category”), why it is in the Olympic in the first place? There are many other sports that are longing to be included in Olympics. Just because the IOC needs to play some “gender balance” game, by adding more women’s game in Olympics? They shouldn’t act like NCAA and college officials who are forced under Title IX to eliminate men’s collegiate programs to be more “gender balanced”.
And the Washington Post (or Associated Press) needs to apologize to ’27 Yankees and the other baseball teams from that era and the whole baseball industry and fans for comparing women’s hockey to ’27 Yankees. At least they had more than two teams (or six teams, if you want to include those token women hockey teams) in the league back then.
Related stories..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022000873.html
And the Washington Post (or Associated Press) needs to apologize to ’27 Yankees and the other baseball teams from that era and the whole baseball industry and fans for comparing women’s hockey to ’27 Yankees. At least they had more than two teams (or six teams, if you want to include those token women hockey teams) in the league back then.
Related stories..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022000873.html
Well, now it’s Olympic season, and judging from the rather low attendance and ticket sales in Turin, I do not know how many people are paying attention to this sporting event, but there was one interesting story on Washington Post.
First thing gender feminists do, when things don’t go in their way or confronted with hard facts, is to fight straight back, and not just fight back, but make it a vehicle to further promote their agenda. Thus, when several female luge racers crashed in a difficult Turin luge course while only one male crashed in the same course, and the question of women’s aptitude in this luge race arise, they not only declared unilaterally that the crashes were gender-blind, but also cheered for inclusion of women’s ski jump, making downhill skiing course more difficult, and allowing bodycheck in women’s ice hockey.
It’s the same kind of knee-jerk reaction by militant gender feminists, who, when confronted with such uncomfortable and inconvenient fact that women commit domestic violence almost as often as men do, deny the fact, scream about the patriarchal oppression of women by the society and call for more research, funding, advocacy legislation to “protect” women.
I do not know if these people are really worried about the safety of female athletes or just interested in playing statistics game, - you know, to achieve 50 - 50 parity in every sphere of society.
First thing gender feminists do, when things don’t go in their way or confronted with hard facts, is to fight straight back, and not just fight back, but make it a vehicle to further promote their agenda. Thus, when several female luge racers crashed in a difficult Turin luge course while only one male crashed in the same course, and the question of women’s aptitude in this luge race arise, they not only declared unilaterally that the crashes were gender-blind, but also cheered for inclusion of women’s ski jump, making downhill skiing course more difficult, and allowing bodycheck in women’s ice hockey.
It’s the same kind of knee-jerk reaction by militant gender feminists, who, when confronted with such uncomfortable and inconvenient fact that women commit domestic violence almost as often as men do, deny the fact, scream about the patriarchal oppression of women by the society and call for more research, funding, advocacy legislation to “protect” women.
I do not know if these people are really worried about the safety of female athletes or just interested in playing statistics game, - you know, to achieve 50 - 50 parity in every sphere of society.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Mainstream modern feminists
Very interesting site...If you want to know what today's cutting-edge feminists are thinking, you've got to visit this site....
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/
Friday, February 10, 2006
Finally girls are winning over boys!!!
Girl rules, yeah!!!!
… needless to say, according to political orthodoxy, teenage girls suffer more from drug abuse than boys do, and unlike boys, girls who abuse drugs are “victims”……just need to push girl agenda no matter where…….
… needless to say, according to political orthodoxy, teenage girls suffer more from drug abuse than boys do, and unlike boys, girls who abuse drugs are “victims”……just need to push girl agenda no matter where…….
Gender feminists again reached its new high (or low) in meaningless, trivial gender representation statistics, in their relentless pursuit of absolute statistical parity in every nook and cranny of the social sphere (insofar as they deem it is advantages to them).
In a latest story, the first woman president (of course only in TV, and it WILL be only in TV) laments such triviality as (it doesn’t even qualify as trivial in my view, though) less than one to four female to male ratio in crowd scenes in movies and deplore how it negatively affects girl’s self-image, and our venerated Washington Post is more than happy to promote this kind of nonsense put up by professional whiners. I remember some feminists complaining that Lord of the Rings series put male characters too much on the centerstage, they just can’t stand the fact that men (or boys) are in the limelight, not taking orders from or hiding behind strong, trailblazing, stereotype-shattering (to use feminists favorite word) girls.
Well, actually they should remember that girls are doing great in movie too, they can be in a special force (G.I. Jane), and lots of other stuffs, but, oh, still men are better, because we can fly the sky (Superman) and bend railway and throw trains around (Spyderman) and travel though times. What’s the gender breakdown of people who have traveled though time, feminists? That must be one interesting statistics.
In a latest story, the first woman president (of course only in TV, and it WILL be only in TV) laments such triviality as (it doesn’t even qualify as trivial in my view, though) less than one to four female to male ratio in crowd scenes in movies and deplore how it negatively affects girl’s self-image, and our venerated Washington Post is more than happy to promote this kind of nonsense put up by professional whiners. I remember some feminists complaining that Lord of the Rings series put male characters too much on the centerstage, they just can’t stand the fact that men (or boys) are in the limelight, not taking orders from or hiding behind strong, trailblazing, stereotype-shattering (to use feminists favorite word) girls.
Well, actually they should remember that girls are doing great in movie too, they can be in a special force (G.I. Jane), and lots of other stuffs, but, oh, still men are better, because we can fly the sky (Superman) and bend railway and throw trains around (Spyderman) and travel though times. What’s the gender breakdown of people who have traveled though time, feminists? That must be one interesting statistics.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Looking for girl power in all the wrong places
For years, gender feminists have been busy trying to project girl power in the areas of politics, corporation, academia and sports among others, which are traditionally seen as male dominated areas. This is largely because gender feminists decided a few decades ago that women have to be like men, or just “be men” and symbols and bastion of male dominance have to be destroyed and be replaced by women. As a result of this unbalanced focus to turn women into men, gender feminists have neglected to project girl power in traditionally more girly areas, such as fashion design or cooking. Most of the famous fashion designers or top chefs at five-star restaurants or celebrity chefs on TV are men. But now, rather a bit belatedly, Cathy Horn of New York Times attempts to do a little chest-thumping to say that girls are becoming claiming their places in fashion design, too.
It is quite interesting that men tend to dominate the fashion and other industries that cater mostly to women. The majority of clients are women, and majority of students who study in fashion design and other related areas are also women. But somehow, when it comes to the gender breakdown of top fashion designers, it is overwhelmingly men. Is it because the sexist nature of the industry, or because they want to hire or promote people who look like them to top jobs? Not likely. Guys in the fashion industry are one of the most immasculated type, kind of guys that cherish feminine sensitivity, and it is hard to think that they would suddenly turn “neandelthaar” and deny promotion for women.
I think the main reason for this gender imbalance in this girly industry is because, first, as I stated above, gender feminists have paid much less attention to these areas at the expense of their focus on getting more women in politics and corporate boardrooms and editor’s office in major newspapers and magazines. They didn’t cook up many fabricated statistics to show discrimination against women in pay, hiring, and promotion, bring baseless lawsuits on sexual harassment or discrimination, and did not push for gender quota in the number of designers who participate in such and such fashion show. Second, to be a top designer means you need to be competitive and beat other designers in terms of creativity. And when it comes to competition, it is men’s game, even if the men we talk about here is actually more on the girly side than regular men.
This lead me to think, if women cannot even become top fashion designers or top chefs in a fair competition, how women would be able to reach pinnacle in other more male dominated area of politics, corporations and others? Quota, lawsuits, fabricated statistics, media campaign? You bet. Those are the only options.
It is quite interesting that men tend to dominate the fashion and other industries that cater mostly to women. The majority of clients are women, and majority of students who study in fashion design and other related areas are also women. But somehow, when it comes to the gender breakdown of top fashion designers, it is overwhelmingly men. Is it because the sexist nature of the industry, or because they want to hire or promote people who look like them to top jobs? Not likely. Guys in the fashion industry are one of the most immasculated type, kind of guys that cherish feminine sensitivity, and it is hard to think that they would suddenly turn “neandelthaar” and deny promotion for women.
I think the main reason for this gender imbalance in this girly industry is because, first, as I stated above, gender feminists have paid much less attention to these areas at the expense of their focus on getting more women in politics and corporate boardrooms and editor’s office in major newspapers and magazines. They didn’t cook up many fabricated statistics to show discrimination against women in pay, hiring, and promotion, bring baseless lawsuits on sexual harassment or discrimination, and did not push for gender quota in the number of designers who participate in such and such fashion show. Second, to be a top designer means you need to be competitive and beat other designers in terms of creativity. And when it comes to competition, it is men’s game, even if the men we talk about here is actually more on the girly side than regular men.
This lead me to think, if women cannot even become top fashion designers or top chefs in a fair competition, how women would be able to reach pinnacle in other more male dominated area of politics, corporations and others? Quota, lawsuits, fabricated statistics, media campaign? You bet. Those are the only options.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Gender imbalance in an Utah university (..not so common imbalance)
A few days ago I wrote my views on the Newsweek cover story about boys’ failing grades at schools. Maybe related or not related to this, not to be outdone, liberal mainstream media have found one university in the state of Utah, out of thousands in the nation, where enrollment of women is lower than that of men, and decided to counter-claim their cherished victim status. It is so rare that they decided to make it a story and claim discrimination against women.
Of course, if you find just one university in some state in the Midwest where men’s enrollment is just 8 points higher than women (or mere 4 points above the absolute statistical parity of 50-50), you need to be in a crisis mode and the university and community need to “make it easier for women to go to school, as well as educate them on why they need a college degree” (start educating on the need to go to college before actually educating about knowledge, I guess some people need to start from there), and “(use) research and creative recruiting methods to draw more women, even more scholarships especially for women”. This after years of much higher enrollment of women in colleges and universities across the board in the whole nation and much higher achievement by girls in the entire school system from K-1 to high school.
No outcry back then. So much for equality. This is one of the best evidence that gender feminists are not concerned about equality between sexes, but superiority of females over males.
I don’t comprehend the sentence “most (universities in Utah) are much more balanced and mirror the national trend of more women then men”. Does it mean that it is “balanced” to be closer to 50-50 or be balanced to be closer to a national average (which is more lopsided to women than this college in question in Utah is to men)
Of course, if you find just one university in some state in the Midwest where men’s enrollment is just 8 points higher than women (or mere 4 points above the absolute statistical parity of 50-50), you need to be in a crisis mode and the university and community need to “make it easier for women to go to school, as well as educate them on why they need a college degree” (start educating on the need to go to college before actually educating about knowledge, I guess some people need to start from there), and “(use) research and creative recruiting methods to draw more women, even more scholarships especially for women”. This after years of much higher enrollment of women in colleges and universities across the board in the whole nation and much higher achievement by girls in the entire school system from K-1 to high school.
No outcry back then. So much for equality. This is one of the best evidence that gender feminists are not concerned about equality between sexes, but superiority of females over males.
I don’t comprehend the sentence “most (universities in Utah) are much more balanced and mirror the national trend of more women then men”. Does it mean that it is “balanced” to be closer to 50-50 or be balanced to be closer to a national average (which is more lopsided to women than this college in question in Utah is to men)
Shooting in California
Oops, the perpetrator of this carnage is female, so I guess we need to be "gender-sensitive", do not gender-stereotype, and make every efforts to ensure that her women's right is not offended...gender-sensitive way of arresting, handcuffing, body searching and special treatment during detention, including larger and more sanitary prison with more free time and entertainment than males….oh, the woman killed herself already...
How come the media have not disclosed the identity of this woman yet? To protect the woman? If it were a man committing this carnage, his name and details will be all over the media, especially if he happened to be a deadbeat dad, or have a restraining order against him for domestic violence…
I wonder what will be the feminists’ reaction to this…they could be either;
a) Trumpet women’s capacity to commit violence, highlighting that women are ”catching up” with men in every aspect, including crime (most likely from power feminists who want to copy anything men do and gauge women’s progress in terms of how women closely resemble men), or
b) Fabricate the fact that this female culprit is actually a “victim” of domestic violence, or suffered from pervasive sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace (from victim feminists who think that all crime committed by women are in fact manifestation of oppression of women by men), or
c) Just shun the topic
I think C) is their preferred way to go because of the bad publicity but if asked comments in public or privately in their internet discussion board or their views and reactions on this horrible incident will be along the lines of b).
--I think so because they have a knee-jerk response to link anything to harassment and discrimination when cornered with tough facts or questions, and also because they can further advance their agenda on harassment and discrimination if they played the victim card.
What do you think?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013100239.html
Six Dead in Calif. Post Office Shooting
How come the media have not disclosed the identity of this woman yet? To protect the woman? If it were a man committing this carnage, his name and details will be all over the media, especially if he happened to be a deadbeat dad, or have a restraining order against him for domestic violence…
I wonder what will be the feminists’ reaction to this…they could be either;
a) Trumpet women’s capacity to commit violence, highlighting that women are ”catching up” with men in every aspect, including crime (most likely from power feminists who want to copy anything men do and gauge women’s progress in terms of how women closely resemble men), or
b) Fabricate the fact that this female culprit is actually a “victim” of domestic violence, or suffered from pervasive sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace (from victim feminists who think that all crime committed by women are in fact manifestation of oppression of women by men), or
c) Just shun the topic
I think C) is their preferred way to go because of the bad publicity but if asked comments in public or privately in their internet discussion board or their views and reactions on this horrible incident will be along the lines of b).
--I think so because they have a knee-jerk response to link anything to harassment and discrimination when cornered with tough facts or questions, and also because they can further advance their agenda on harassment and discrimination if they played the victim card.
What do you think?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013100239.html
Six Dead in Calif. Post Office Shooting
Thursday, January 26, 2006
NBA coach troubled by ills of feminism
Another case of high-profile sexual harassment allegation, this time involving New York Knick’s President Isiah Thomas. Thomas and his lawyers are right on the mark – the allegations, just like many other high-profile sexual harassment cases – is “a blatant and cynical attempt …. to get a large sum of money”, by an individual “seeking a financial windfall”, who “use ..(Thomas) as a pawn for their financial gain,".
And looks like the accuser is not the first time offender of politically and financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits, but a repeat offender. It’s also interesting to note that the reason this women was fired a while ago was her “inability to fulfill professional responsibilities”. I told you that hiring of people, especially to senior positions, based on gender and race, is not good.
Sometimes I think filing of sexual harassment lawsuits by old, fat, or/and ugly women serves to fulfill hidden, subconscious desire of these women to be recognized sexually, as such cases, if substantiated, would underscore that the accusing women are attractive enough to get “unwanted”, random sexual advances by men despite their age, look or weight.
Anyway, this case all the ills brought about by modern feminism; an old, incomptent woman hired for a senior position based solely on her gender repeatedly filing financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits against high-profile person.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600279.html
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-nba-knicks-thomas.html
And looks like the accuser is not the first time offender of politically and financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits, but a repeat offender. It’s also interesting to note that the reason this women was fired a while ago was her “inability to fulfill professional responsibilities”. I told you that hiring of people, especially to senior positions, based on gender and race, is not good.
Sometimes I think filing of sexual harassment lawsuits by old, fat, or/and ugly women serves to fulfill hidden, subconscious desire of these women to be recognized sexually, as such cases, if substantiated, would underscore that the accusing women are attractive enough to get “unwanted”, random sexual advances by men despite their age, look or weight.
Anyway, this case all the ills brought about by modern feminism; an old, incomptent woman hired for a senior position based solely on her gender repeatedly filing financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits against high-profile person.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600279.html
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-nba-knicks-thomas.html
Merkel and more discrimination
There seems to be a pattern that the more women achieve something, especially things that fit nicely into feminists’ plan of action to bring about matriarchy on the planet earth, such as winning elections or becoming the first women to this or do that, the more feminists will complain about gender discrimination. Quite expectedly, or even a bit belatedly if you consider feminists zealotry to exploit any opportunity to advance their agenda, European edition of the Time magazine carried a cover story about the sorry state of women in Germany. I guess this story could have been published whether Merkel captured the Chancellor post or not - if she lost it, after spectacularly losing almost all of the wide lead that her conservative party had over its main rivals – something that not many male politicians in Germany had done in the past (but somehow mysteriously was able to hold on the post of the party leader and then eventually become the Chancellor -again something that not many male politicians were able to do in the past), Time will claim gender bias for the her not being able to become the Chancellor. In the article, as in any other article of this sort, feminists do two things at once, trumpet women’s achievement in Germany (Merkel) and whine about the sorry state of women in general in Germany.
The kind of statistics used in the article are all too familiar to American readers (gender wage gap, relation between the number of child day care and women’s participation in politics, percentage of women in politics, business, etc, etc), and women who took up non-traditional, stereotype-shattering occupations are glorified. It is the cookie-cutter feminist advocacy article.
It’s a little confusing when feminists refer to Sweden and other Scandinavian countries as a model for gender equality, when many Swedish feminists are whining about gender discrimination in their country and how men are comparable to pigs and so on. Well, actually in Sweden, feminists whining will go much further and female politicians discuss seriously about what to do with Swedish men who take almost as much parental leaves as mommy do but spend far less time actually holding and caring babies – what’s the solution – passing a law that that requires if women hold babies for 5 minutes and smile at him for 10 minutes, men have to do the same or more? It’s a country where when men travel abroad, a secret police of sort would follow you so that they can arrest (arrest! a number of legal arrangements between Sweden and host countries to this effect have been made) any Swedes who try to make use of local brothels. Well, feminists may want to look up to this great country.
Feminists’ logic in this advocacy article is, as usual, shaky, to put it mildly. For example, if the German economy is doing so well and is so big (the third biggest in the world) and their science is so advanced compared to other countries, what exactly is the problem? Actually couldn’t you say that overrepresentation of men in these areas is responsible for strong economic growth and academic quality? Certainly the under-representation of women is not a problem in any way with regard to the economic growth and technological advancement, because presently women are under-represented and these two areas in question are doing great. Wouldn’t it be that if we were to artificially boost the women’s number in top business circles and academia by instating various social engineering schemes, it would actually hurt the economy and academia? Would anyone have ever given a thought that the absence of various social engineering schemes, such as affirmative action or positive discrimination, tapering or lowering of criteria and employing less qualified people over more qualified people actually hurt the competitive edge?
The kind of statistics used in the article are all too familiar to American readers (gender wage gap, relation between the number of child day care and women’s participation in politics, percentage of women in politics, business, etc, etc), and women who took up non-traditional, stereotype-shattering occupations are glorified. It is the cookie-cutter feminist advocacy article.
It’s a little confusing when feminists refer to Sweden and other Scandinavian countries as a model for gender equality, when many Swedish feminists are whining about gender discrimination in their country and how men are comparable to pigs and so on. Well, actually in Sweden, feminists whining will go much further and female politicians discuss seriously about what to do with Swedish men who take almost as much parental leaves as mommy do but spend far less time actually holding and caring babies – what’s the solution – passing a law that that requires if women hold babies for 5 minutes and smile at him for 10 minutes, men have to do the same or more? It’s a country where when men travel abroad, a secret police of sort would follow you so that they can arrest (arrest! a number of legal arrangements between Sweden and host countries to this effect have been made) any Swedes who try to make use of local brothels. Well, feminists may want to look up to this great country.
Feminists’ logic in this advocacy article is, as usual, shaky, to put it mildly. For example, if the German economy is doing so well and is so big (the third biggest in the world) and their science is so advanced compared to other countries, what exactly is the problem? Actually couldn’t you say that overrepresentation of men in these areas is responsible for strong economic growth and academic quality? Certainly the under-representation of women is not a problem in any way with regard to the economic growth and technological advancement, because presently women are under-represented and these two areas in question are doing great. Wouldn’t it be that if we were to artificially boost the women’s number in top business circles and academia by instating various social engineering schemes, it would actually hurt the economy and academia? Would anyone have ever given a thought that the absence of various social engineering schemes, such as affirmative action or positive discrimination, tapering or lowering of criteria and employing less qualified people over more qualified people actually hurt the competitive edge?
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Failing boy's grade and Newsweek
Gender feminists have vested interest in keeping boys grades down. In short, it ensures that more girls than boys go to better colleges, more girls than boys will get better jobs, with higher salaries, social status and power, thus, gender wage gap will be narrowed and reversed, percentage of women in the Congress, CEO of Fortune 500 and partners of prestigious law firms will increase and eventually dominate majority. It will also create favorable (for feminists, of course) stereotype that girls and women are smarter, better and occupy high positions, while boys and men are dumber and languish in less-skilled jobs and overrepresented in prisons. In short, keeping the current situation will enable creation of feminists’ utopia.
That is why gender feminists will need to suppress or at least spin the discussions about boys’ failing grades in school. In this week’s Newsweek’s cover story, renowned feminists Carol Gilligan, who was very instrumental in raising the profile of problem with girls in school back in 80’s and 90’s in the first place, is now pretending to care about boys (she is a mother of three boys – was sex selection of babies not available to her back then?). It is profoundly ironic (or predicted?) that the Newsweek is turning to the very gender feminists who is the chief suspect of causing todays’ boy’s failure in school system by systematically slanting educational priorities, criteria and methodologies to benefit girls over boys.
Before discussing about boys’ failure, she reminds us that “We are only a generation away from the time when girls were effectively off the map”, and spends much time boasting the achievements made with respect to girls’ education. When she finally turns to the core issue, she continues her agenda by trying to foster sensitivity in boys, along the favored feminists’ line of immasculating males to achieve gender-neutral or blind society. Of course, as a devoted feminist; she does not forget to warn the readers of the danger of “trouble boys are having with school becomes grounds for reinstituting traditional codes of manhood, including a return to the patriarchal family” and whines that “men still outnumber women at the highest levels of academia, as well as in business and government”. She concludes by saying “we now have an opportunity to redress a system of gender relationships that endangers both sexes”. Feminists will always be feminists, aren’t they?
If the discussion on boys’ failing grade, a problem that deserves the highest attention, that finally made into the attention of major news media is so much spun along gender feminists ideology who had created this very problem in the first place, we are reminded that the problem of boy’s failing grade goes much deeper than simply a creating all-boy school or employing more boy-friendly educational methods. The Newsweek’s story is like turning to Hitler or Goeling for ways to redress the poor living and social condition of Jews in the Third Reich. Yeah, I’m sure you will get the right answer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965127/site/newsweek/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/ (main story)
That is why gender feminists will need to suppress or at least spin the discussions about boys’ failing grades in school. In this week’s Newsweek’s cover story, renowned feminists Carol Gilligan, who was very instrumental in raising the profile of problem with girls in school back in 80’s and 90’s in the first place, is now pretending to care about boys (she is a mother of three boys – was sex selection of babies not available to her back then?). It is profoundly ironic (or predicted?) that the Newsweek is turning to the very gender feminists who is the chief suspect of causing todays’ boy’s failure in school system by systematically slanting educational priorities, criteria and methodologies to benefit girls over boys.
Before discussing about boys’ failure, she reminds us that “We are only a generation away from the time when girls were effectively off the map”, and spends much time boasting the achievements made with respect to girls’ education. When she finally turns to the core issue, she continues her agenda by trying to foster sensitivity in boys, along the favored feminists’ line of immasculating males to achieve gender-neutral or blind society. Of course, as a devoted feminist; she does not forget to warn the readers of the danger of “trouble boys are having with school becomes grounds for reinstituting traditional codes of manhood, including a return to the patriarchal family” and whines that “men still outnumber women at the highest levels of academia, as well as in business and government”. She concludes by saying “we now have an opportunity to redress a system of gender relationships that endangers both sexes”. Feminists will always be feminists, aren’t they?
If the discussion on boys’ failing grade, a problem that deserves the highest attention, that finally made into the attention of major news media is so much spun along gender feminists ideology who had created this very problem in the first place, we are reminded that the problem of boy’s failing grade goes much deeper than simply a creating all-boy school or employing more boy-friendly educational methods. The Newsweek’s story is like turning to Hitler or Goeling for ways to redress the poor living and social condition of Jews in the Third Reich. Yeah, I’m sure you will get the right answer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965127/site/newsweek/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/ (main story)
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Of sexual harassment and gender discrimination
It’s good to see that there is still a man with common sense, uninfected by politically correct virus, is writing pieces for Newsweek, a kind of news magazine which routinely put up advocacy articles and special cover stories to promote various feminists’ agenda (do anyone still remember “When women lead?” ?)
The author’s view on the recent spate of crackdowns by the Wall Street firms on the use of adult-entertainment facility by its employees is a result of PC hysteria. It is true. But there is more to it. Such allegations and lawsuits on sexual harassment and gender discrimination is not really about harassment or discrimination, it is about women getting back at big companies, which they see as a symbol of patriarchy and male power. The gender feminists ideology posits that such male dominated institution must be weakened, disbanded and replaced by female-dominated institution, to achieve true gender “equality” (yeah, of course). In their eternal quest for power, control and money, lawsuits, or threat to bring lawsuits, are the quickest, easiest and most effective way to redistribute millions or billions of money from company (male domain) to women employee and female lawyers who specialize in this area, and any foundation or NGO or whatever they set up with the payoff money to promote agenda (female domain), and oust male execs from their position and fill in the position with one of their cohorts (how difficult it would be for companies to replace the man just fired for sexual harassment with yet another man?). This is the quickest way to correct the so-called “gender wage gap” and increase the percentage of women in executive positions, the two top priorities for feminists and women executives, far more important than creating profits for company they work for or for the US economy as a whole. Of course it is the fastest way because you don’t need to actually work hard and produce results which they seem to be most reluctant to do or largely incapable of doing, but you just need to whine in the court or to the media and who are more than willing to take up your case. This is why they just can’t stop bringing lawsuits and no matter how much companies bend over backward to create PC workplace, feminists will keep inventing new kind of discrimination, new kinds of harassment, so that they can continue this cycle of redistribution of power and money through litigation. They will keep honing their sensitivity so that their sexual harassment/discrimination antenna can pick up the most subtle hint of sexual connotation and turn it into multi million/billon dollar sexual harassment/discrimination lawsuit.
I hope that the author can continue to write articles like this one for Newsweek. That is, I hope that he can withstand the avalanche of e-mails (hate-mail) and other more direct or subtle organized harassment campaign by gender feminists this author will most likely face as a result of publishing this article.
The author’s view on the recent spate of crackdowns by the Wall Street firms on the use of adult-entertainment facility by its employees is a result of PC hysteria. It is true. But there is more to it. Such allegations and lawsuits on sexual harassment and gender discrimination is not really about harassment or discrimination, it is about women getting back at big companies, which they see as a symbol of patriarchy and male power. The gender feminists ideology posits that such male dominated institution must be weakened, disbanded and replaced by female-dominated institution, to achieve true gender “equality” (yeah, of course). In their eternal quest for power, control and money, lawsuits, or threat to bring lawsuits, are the quickest, easiest and most effective way to redistribute millions or billions of money from company (male domain) to women employee and female lawyers who specialize in this area, and any foundation or NGO or whatever they set up with the payoff money to promote agenda (female domain), and oust male execs from their position and fill in the position with one of their cohorts (how difficult it would be for companies to replace the man just fired for sexual harassment with yet another man?). This is the quickest way to correct the so-called “gender wage gap” and increase the percentage of women in executive positions, the two top priorities for feminists and women executives, far more important than creating profits for company they work for or for the US economy as a whole. Of course it is the fastest way because you don’t need to actually work hard and produce results which they seem to be most reluctant to do or largely incapable of doing, but you just need to whine in the court or to the media and who are more than willing to take up your case. This is why they just can’t stop bringing lawsuits and no matter how much companies bend over backward to create PC workplace, feminists will keep inventing new kind of discrimination, new kinds of harassment, so that they can continue this cycle of redistribution of power and money through litigation. They will keep honing their sensitivity so that their sexual harassment/discrimination antenna can pick up the most subtle hint of sexual connotation and turn it into multi million/billon dollar sexual harassment/discrimination lawsuit.
I hope that the author can continue to write articles like this one for Newsweek. That is, I hope that he can withstand the avalanche of e-mails (hate-mail) and other more direct or subtle organized harassment campaign by gender feminists this author will most likely face as a result of publishing this article.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Liberia fiasco
Coupled with another gender feminist taking the highest office in a country in Latin America, this news from Liberia, Africa would mark January 16, 2006 as a very stark, grim day for all the men in the world. Bascially, this election in Liberia is completely a UN-international feminists coalition-staged election to steal the presidency from a former soccer star George Weah. The lopsided support to Johnson by UN officials, both formerly and informerly, while putting up fake pretense of neutrality, was so obvious during the entire election campaign during both general election and (even more so) run-off campaign. You can almost see grinning in the faces of UN officials when they talk about the prospect of Johnson winning before the election. No wonder George Weah's supporters are so pissed off. If Liberia relapsed into instability and turmoil, who is going to take responsibility? UN? Feminists? I'm sure they are going to blame on men.
Chilean President - It's a girl!
Quite shameful that Chile has elected a woman president - a woman who only know to say "I'm a woman, I'm woman, (hear me roar!) - according to BBC, her top priority after assuming the office will be to name half of her cabinet women - pretty much all of her priority and policy during her term, I suppose.
Expect loads of bandwagon reporting from BBC and other left-leaning feminists - worshipping media about how women are changing politics or Latin America or world politics or universe or whatever they wish they could change - or America should follow suit or how women needs to be mo respresented in politcs or women this and women that.......
Expect loads of bandwagon reporting from BBC and other left-leaning feminists - worshipping media about how women are changing politics or Latin America or world politics or universe or whatever they wish they could change - or America should follow suit or how women needs to be mo respresented in politcs or women this and women that.......
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Women as a pivot vote
My favourite radio show NPR reported on 6 January that Maine Senator Olimpia Snowe could have a key vote in Alito's confirmation hearing as a Supreme Court judge. Wind back a clock a little bit and you would remember that the former Supremem Court justice Sandra O'Conner, a jostice whom Alito is poised to replace, was also known as a key "pivot" judge in important cases, casting crucial ballot in many of the 5-4 split decisions.
Both Snowe and O'Conner are women. Is it a coincidence? Is it because women are more independently minded and wouldn't follow strict party or ideological line, or is it because they do not have strong stance or views on any issue and be easily swayed by the tide of the time or convenient political calculation? Does it play into generally held stereotype that women are just standing out there waiting for other people (men) to woo? Probably so. But mainstream media are busy portraying those women as independently minded, key voter, and shaker and mover, shaping American judicial history, when in fact they are incapable of holding stong ideological footing that are requisite for their important positions.
Both Snowe and O'Conner are women. Is it a coincidence? Is it because women are more independently minded and wouldn't follow strict party or ideological line, or is it because they do not have strong stance or views on any issue and be easily swayed by the tide of the time or convenient political calculation? Does it play into generally held stereotype that women are just standing out there waiting for other people (men) to woo? Probably so. But mainstream media are busy portraying those women as independently minded, key voter, and shaker and mover, shaping American judicial history, when in fact they are incapable of holding stong ideological footing that are requisite for their important positions.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Feminists' agenda in World Cup Soccer 2006
On 3 Janury, the National Public Radio (NPR) reported about a story on the World Cup Soccer which will be held in Germany this summer. Their story? Prospect for US team in the tournament? A favorite to win the tournament? No way. Don’t forget that this is left-wing, very, very politically correct NPR. They reported on the ongoing efforts, led by German feminists, to stop forced prostitution during the World Cup. The first thing that came to my mind when I heard this story was the Superbowl hoax. Remember this hoax? – a hoax which held that during the Superbowl Sundays, instances of domestic violence increase dramatically.
Feminists tend to bring this kind of hoax up at regular intervals. The cycle goes like this - one hoax with phony facts and half-truths, much celebrated and promoted by major media is debunked by responsible media and people (but get much lesser attention by the original hoax), and eventually fade away from people’s collective memory, only to be followed by yet another hoax. But major sporting events are their favourite time to launch phony campaign- and there are a few reasons for this.
First, gender feminists don’t like major sporting events – unless of course it is women’s event. They cannot stand the fact that much spotlight is falling on men, their “potential batterer” and “potential rapists”. In their mind, men should be at home doing housework in sitting in prison attending sexual harassment courses.
Second, it is good opportunity to promote their cause. Major sporting events, especially the one like the World Cup soccer, the world’s biggest sporting event surpassing even Olympics, attract eyes and ears of literally billions of people worldwide. Why not link you pet cause to the event and raise your profile? You don’t need an advice of expensive ad agency to realize the potential advertising or “awareness-raising” value of the World Cup. Feed NPR with press releases approach media representatives, and hijacking of world’s biggest sporting events with your pet cause, at least within the elite circle who listens to NPR on regular basis, is complete.
Third, feminists cannot accept deep down prostitution, which was legalized in Germany two years ago. (do I need to mention that many gender feminists cannot stand the notion of intimate and happy relationship between male and female?) To circumvent the fact that prostitution is legalized, gender feminists have changed tactics and now focuses on “forced prostitution”. While such forced labor is unethical and illegal and thus need to be prevented, as one of their sister feminist inadvertently admitted it, it constitutes only a tiny fraction of prostitution in Germany. Gender feminists’ overemphasis on this issue reveals their true intent.
Feminists tend to bring this kind of hoax up at regular intervals. The cycle goes like this - one hoax with phony facts and half-truths, much celebrated and promoted by major media is debunked by responsible media and people (but get much lesser attention by the original hoax), and eventually fade away from people’s collective memory, only to be followed by yet another hoax. But major sporting events are their favourite time to launch phony campaign- and there are a few reasons for this.
First, gender feminists don’t like major sporting events – unless of course it is women’s event. They cannot stand the fact that much spotlight is falling on men, their “potential batterer” and “potential rapists”. In their mind, men should be at home doing housework in sitting in prison attending sexual harassment courses.
Second, it is good opportunity to promote their cause. Major sporting events, especially the one like the World Cup soccer, the world’s biggest sporting event surpassing even Olympics, attract eyes and ears of literally billions of people worldwide. Why not link you pet cause to the event and raise your profile? You don’t need an advice of expensive ad agency to realize the potential advertising or “awareness-raising” value of the World Cup. Feed NPR with press releases approach media representatives, and hijacking of world’s biggest sporting events with your pet cause, at least within the elite circle who listens to NPR on regular basis, is complete.
Third, feminists cannot accept deep down prostitution, which was legalized in Germany two years ago. (do I need to mention that many gender feminists cannot stand the notion of intimate and happy relationship between male and female?) To circumvent the fact that prostitution is legalized, gender feminists have changed tactics and now focuses on “forced prostitution”. While such forced labor is unethical and illegal and thus need to be prevented, as one of their sister feminist inadvertently admitted it, it constitutes only a tiny fraction of prostitution in Germany. Gender feminists’ overemphasis on this issue reveals their true intent.
Discrimination in ……of course, Sweden.
My belief is that gender feminists will never stop their accusing of men and society in general for gender discrimination, no matter how much progress women make, or how many gender quota laws were enacted, how many daycare centers were established, how many so called “deadbeat dads” were thrown into prison and how fewer number of men go to college. The victimology and demonization of men are so deeply entwined in basic tenets of gender feminism, indeed it is theoretically impossible to conceive of modern gender feminism in other way. One example to prove this point is an article published in an international edition of newsweek titled “The Gender Gap: Moms Not Wanted”.
The female author of this article claims that Sweden’s welfare system, which, to feminist’s dream, provides 480 day parental leave with 80% pay, is actually hurting women, because private sector is, oh what a surprise, "less willing to deal with the disruption caused by very long maternity leaves," and thus is less likely to hire women. I emphasize with Swedish companies. I emphasize with them even more when you think that there are looming threat to these companies of a new gender quota in the boardroom, just like the one that has hitted its neighbor, Norway. Long maternity leave is a course of a new "glass ceiling" and a “subtle discrimination”, as one gender feminists put it in the article.
What do these feminists want? Didn’t they want ridiculously long, macro-and micro-economically-challenged maternity leave for every women with all the perks and privileges? Now that they've got that in this northern feminist utopia, they are blaming it a discrimination? This would lead one to wonder as to the solution to this dilemma in the feminist-utopia - get rid of this long maternity leave or force companies to ban considering the possibility of long maternity leave in hiring of new personnel? Of course the correct answer, as gender feminist would tell us, will be the latter, but how? Another gender-quota law or re-education camp?
This is a good example that feminists will never stop their accusation of discrimination, and perpetual blaming of men and society. It is ironic that their supposedly women-friendly programme actually turned out to hurt some of the women (and needless to say rest of the society), it predictably led to cry for further corrective social engineering scheme, with more vengeance.
The female author of this article claims that Sweden’s welfare system, which, to feminist’s dream, provides 480 day parental leave with 80% pay, is actually hurting women, because private sector is, oh what a surprise, "less willing to deal with the disruption caused by very long maternity leaves," and thus is less likely to hire women. I emphasize with Swedish companies. I emphasize with them even more when you think that there are looming threat to these companies of a new gender quota in the boardroom, just like the one that has hitted its neighbor, Norway. Long maternity leave is a course of a new "glass ceiling" and a “subtle discrimination”, as one gender feminists put it in the article.
What do these feminists want? Didn’t they want ridiculously long, macro-and micro-economically-challenged maternity leave for every women with all the perks and privileges? Now that they've got that in this northern feminist utopia, they are blaming it a discrimination? This would lead one to wonder as to the solution to this dilemma in the feminist-utopia - get rid of this long maternity leave or force companies to ban considering the possibility of long maternity leave in hiring of new personnel? Of course the correct answer, as gender feminist would tell us, will be the latter, but how? Another gender-quota law or re-education camp?
This is a good example that feminists will never stop their accusation of discrimination, and perpetual blaming of men and society. It is ironic that their supposedly women-friendly programme actually turned out to hurt some of the women (and needless to say rest of the society), it predictably led to cry for further corrective social engineering scheme, with more vengeance.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Girls’ toilet in Africa – discrimination! Part 1
When the Transport Workers Union (TWU) of New York workers finally returned to work and ended three-day mass transit strike in New York city that had largely paralyzed the city, many news media understandably reported the news in the cover page. But other news shared the front page (internet edition) of the New York Times on 23 December. The news? Toilet in Africa. And how it negatively affects women’s status in Africa.
Even though we get more and more accustomed to the blending of hard news and advocacy article in the New York Times, this one comes across a bit overboard. It is becoming increasingly hard to know if we are reading the respectable (once) newspaper or Feminist Africa e-news (I made this one up). With all the important news that impact millions of people in the world, New York Times would choose the issue of girl toilet in African schools.
But if we look more closely at the background, the intent of this feminist advocacy stunt will become clear. Feminists put emphasis and considerable efforts in the development of Africa, because they view Africa as an experimental ground for constructing matriarch modern society, or building true feminist utopia, build and run by women, where all the concerns of women and girls come first. Other parts of the world, including Europe, could become feminist utopia if they could continue affirmative action, gender quota and demonization and ghettorization of men and boys at current pace, but the prospect is not certain, and you cannot say that the modern society was built by women. Feminists could hijack the government and rewrite the history to their liking, but the truth is that the modern society in those regions was not built by women.
But Africa could be a different story. Africa, as you all know, is a continent with very low level of development, which means human and social capitals are very underdeveloped. Basic social and economic structure is there, but underdeveloped and weak, men who mostly occupy important positions and run the countries also may not be as competent and as professional as their western counterparts. It would be relatively easy to construct a matriarch society in such underdeveloped society. For example, while it would require considerable efforts and resources to unseat male legislatures in the developed world and replace with women, it would be far easier to do so in Africa. You can plant a western educated and trained professional woman, who rose to senior positions in international organization through gender quota to a country reeling from long years of civil war and pit against an uneducated man who didn’t benefit from such western feminine favoritism, and with infusion of lots of cash and electoral assistance by constellation of international feminist NGOs, you can have the first elected women president in Africa (Liberia). Or you can exploit the post-conflict turmoil and a total lack of political structure, appoint yourselves to be some of the drafters of new constitution, make gender quota in national legislature essential part of the constitution, and there you have the legislature with the world’s highest female representation (Rwanda). ( I guess it would provide another ammunition for Scandinavian feminists).
Even though we get more and more accustomed to the blending of hard news and advocacy article in the New York Times, this one comes across a bit overboard. It is becoming increasingly hard to know if we are reading the respectable (once) newspaper or Feminist Africa e-news (I made this one up). With all the important news that impact millions of people in the world, New York Times would choose the issue of girl toilet in African schools.
But if we look more closely at the background, the intent of this feminist advocacy stunt will become clear. Feminists put emphasis and considerable efforts in the development of Africa, because they view Africa as an experimental ground for constructing matriarch modern society, or building true feminist utopia, build and run by women, where all the concerns of women and girls come first. Other parts of the world, including Europe, could become feminist utopia if they could continue affirmative action, gender quota and demonization and ghettorization of men and boys at current pace, but the prospect is not certain, and you cannot say that the modern society was built by women. Feminists could hijack the government and rewrite the history to their liking, but the truth is that the modern society in those regions was not built by women.
But Africa could be a different story. Africa, as you all know, is a continent with very low level of development, which means human and social capitals are very underdeveloped. Basic social and economic structure is there, but underdeveloped and weak, men who mostly occupy important positions and run the countries also may not be as competent and as professional as their western counterparts. It would be relatively easy to construct a matriarch society in such underdeveloped society. For example, while it would require considerable efforts and resources to unseat male legislatures in the developed world and replace with women, it would be far easier to do so in Africa. You can plant a western educated and trained professional woman, who rose to senior positions in international organization through gender quota to a country reeling from long years of civil war and pit against an uneducated man who didn’t benefit from such western feminine favoritism, and with infusion of lots of cash and electoral assistance by constellation of international feminist NGOs, you can have the first elected women president in Africa (Liberia). Or you can exploit the post-conflict turmoil and a total lack of political structure, appoint yourselves to be some of the drafters of new constitution, make gender quota in national legislature essential part of the constitution, and there you have the legislature with the world’s highest female representation (Rwanda). ( I guess it would provide another ammunition for Scandinavian feminists).
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Tragedy or discrimination???
Tragedy or discrimination???
Not so many male Marines or male soldiers in other services who had perished tragically in the Iraq war have a chance to have their stories told in such a detail several months after the incident on the front page of a major newspaper, but of course, women are different.
In an article titled “A Mission That Ended in Inferno for 3 Women” on New York Times on 20 November, the author tried to see the evidence of subtle discrimination against women soldiers in combat in Iraq. He asks whether the protection of the cargo trucks that carried women were adequate, why old cargo trucks and not Humvee, why mistake in the tactic in dealing with a strange car, why women had to commute to a checkpost while men didn’t need to, and concludes that protection measures for the women were all inadequate, and blame the Marine for it.
Never mind that Humvees were in short supply and not everyone get the best equipment, never mind that there are confusion among military brass about assigning women to combat roles, those advocate for women’s rights and women’s role in combat will never be happy until women soldiers get the best protection and best equipment available in the field which may or may not be available to male soldiers or even commanders, and be given the priority and best opportunity for conducting mission and gain visibility for their actions, so that women soldiers could succeed in their career, replace males in the commanding positions perhaps.
Thus, advocates routinely pull up advocacy pieces like this and put on a cover page, and put pressure on the Generals and military planners in the Pentagon and on the ground to accommodate and give special consideration to women soldiers. This puts unnecessary burden on the military planners and forces them to take into consideration politically correct, gender sensitive considerations in military planning and thus compromise the overall mission effectiveness.
Iraq war is getting increasingly complicated – complicated not only by the actual security situation on the ground, but also by political situation at home, which includes not only assaults by Democrats on President Bush’s war efforts but media with gender agenda starting to investigate and publish in-depths stories of the incident each and every time when casualties of the incidents happen to be women. Oh, I almost forgot that there were also three men who were killed during this attack (surprisingly, same number of men and women were killed but the former were mentioned so scarcely in the article)
Not so many male Marines or male soldiers in other services who had perished tragically in the Iraq war have a chance to have their stories told in such a detail several months after the incident on the front page of a major newspaper, but of course, women are different.
In an article titled “A Mission That Ended in Inferno for 3 Women” on New York Times on 20 November, the author tried to see the evidence of subtle discrimination against women soldiers in combat in Iraq. He asks whether the protection of the cargo trucks that carried women were adequate, why old cargo trucks and not Humvee, why mistake in the tactic in dealing with a strange car, why women had to commute to a checkpost while men didn’t need to, and concludes that protection measures for the women were all inadequate, and blame the Marine for it.
Never mind that Humvees were in short supply and not everyone get the best equipment, never mind that there are confusion among military brass about assigning women to combat roles, those advocate for women’s rights and women’s role in combat will never be happy until women soldiers get the best protection and best equipment available in the field which may or may not be available to male soldiers or even commanders, and be given the priority and best opportunity for conducting mission and gain visibility for their actions, so that women soldiers could succeed in their career, replace males in the commanding positions perhaps.
Thus, advocates routinely pull up advocacy pieces like this and put on a cover page, and put pressure on the Generals and military planners in the Pentagon and on the ground to accommodate and give special consideration to women soldiers. This puts unnecessary burden on the military planners and forces them to take into consideration politically correct, gender sensitive considerations in military planning and thus compromise the overall mission effectiveness.
Iraq war is getting increasingly complicated – complicated not only by the actual security situation on the ground, but also by political situation at home, which includes not only assaults by Democrats on President Bush’s war efforts but media with gender agenda starting to investigate and publish in-depths stories of the incident each and every time when casualties of the incidents happen to be women. Oh, I almost forgot that there were also three men who were killed during this attack (surprisingly, same number of men and women were killed but the former were mentioned so scarcely in the article)
Women suffers disproportionately from natural disasters???
According to an article by Agence France-Presse, a report was issued by the leading international feminist organizations, called the Global Fund for Women.
Of course in the eyes of gender feminists, it is women who suffer disproportionately by anything, anytime, on whatever occasions. If there was a war, it’s women who suffer. If there was economic depression, it’s women who suffer. If the Yankees couldn’t win the World Series, it’s women who suffer. And if mother nature strikes, it’s women who suffer. Too bad the mother nature, despite its gender (mother), according to feminists, also discriminates against women.
Implicit in the claims that it is discrimination because more women died than men for instance in the wake of earthquake in India/Pakistan is that more men should die. The goal of any disaster relief or disaster preparation should be to minimize the casualties and damages of all people and properties, including both men and women, boys and girls, not about fretting about reducing the ratio of women and girls ( or increasing the ration of men and boys) who is afflicted by the nature’s wrath. Their implicit assumption is so obnoxious but they have no qualm putting forth this kind of statement. Frankly, I don’t know when these feminists will be happy, when more men die of natural disasters than women or is their ultimate goal a time when only men die of natural disasters?
Also we can spot a tendency by gender feminists to exploit such huge events as Asia Tsunami or Katrina; with all the eyes and ears of the world are turned to the plight of disasters, it is a perfect PR time for these feminists to claim discrimination and further their social engineering schemes through redistribution of power and money. In fact, any natural disasters or conflict or war or social turmoil is an opportune time for these people to exploit the situation and further their causes. Wherever they see trouble in the world, they will send a team of “experts”, conduct their own skewed and biased agenda-driven research and study, and come up with a series of their cookie-cutter recommendations whose aim is to restructure the society in their desired manner.
The pictures and stories of women who were affected by natural disasters are indeed gripping. It fits our common image of women as a weaker and fairer sex and appeals to our chauvinistic to help them out with priority. Gender feminists, whose basic ideological assumption is that there is absolutely no difference between men and women and all the difference are “socially constructed” by patriarchal society, have no qualm about exploiting the image of weaker women when it fits their purpose and flip to stronger women image when grabbing for political and economic power in the post-disaster reconstruction stage.
Of course in the eyes of gender feminists, it is women who suffer disproportionately by anything, anytime, on whatever occasions. If there was a war, it’s women who suffer. If there was economic depression, it’s women who suffer. If the Yankees couldn’t win the World Series, it’s women who suffer. And if mother nature strikes, it’s women who suffer. Too bad the mother nature, despite its gender (mother), according to feminists, also discriminates against women.
Implicit in the claims that it is discrimination because more women died than men for instance in the wake of earthquake in India/Pakistan is that more men should die. The goal of any disaster relief or disaster preparation should be to minimize the casualties and damages of all people and properties, including both men and women, boys and girls, not about fretting about reducing the ratio of women and girls ( or increasing the ration of men and boys) who is afflicted by the nature’s wrath. Their implicit assumption is so obnoxious but they have no qualm putting forth this kind of statement. Frankly, I don’t know when these feminists will be happy, when more men die of natural disasters than women or is their ultimate goal a time when only men die of natural disasters?
Also we can spot a tendency by gender feminists to exploit such huge events as Asia Tsunami or Katrina; with all the eyes and ears of the world are turned to the plight of disasters, it is a perfect PR time for these feminists to claim discrimination and further their social engineering schemes through redistribution of power and money. In fact, any natural disasters or conflict or war or social turmoil is an opportune time for these people to exploit the situation and further their causes. Wherever they see trouble in the world, they will send a team of “experts”, conduct their own skewed and biased agenda-driven research and study, and come up with a series of their cookie-cutter recommendations whose aim is to restructure the society in their desired manner.
The pictures and stories of women who were affected by natural disasters are indeed gripping. It fits our common image of women as a weaker and fairer sex and appeals to our chauvinistic to help them out with priority. Gender feminists, whose basic ideological assumption is that there is absolutely no difference between men and women and all the difference are “socially constructed” by patriarchal society, have no qualm about exploiting the image of weaker women when it fits their purpose and flip to stronger women image when grabbing for political and economic power in the post-disaster reconstruction stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)