Nobel (Women) Peace Prize

Quite an interesting piece by the Economist・

Actually I thought this year a lesbian woman will be given the prize, not that there is many internationally recognizable lesbian who is worthy of the prize, (is this Bangladesh man worthy of prize?-I tend to agree with the Economist), I`m sure there are hundreds of lesbian activists fighting for LGBT rights or other worthy liberal causes, and some of them maybe even as famous as the Bangladesh man ・before the announcement of prize, that is, of course. But it is because since Iranian woman got the prize in 2003 (the first “Arab woman” to receive the prize), and in 2004 (the first “African woman”, so for 2006 my bet was on first “lesbian woman” since the Norwegian committee that decides who get the Nobel Peace Prize is predictably very much politically invested in “diversity”.

In the 21 st century, no white man was given the prize with the exception of Jimmy Carter in 2002, for taking a snub at US President George W. Bush, a man whom the Nobel committee, just like lift-wingers in the United States, hates the most in the world. Moreover, in the recent 4 years since 2003, with the exception of 2005 when the award was given to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), (the only year in recent memory when the award was given to people/institution that genuinely contributed to peace in its original sense in my opinion), all the award is related to women ・that is either the winners were women or the activities that won him the prize were almost entirely targeted to women, or to “empower” women (96 percent of the microcredit were loaned to women)

As you can see from the list of recent winners, the Nobel committee is increasingly expanding the definition of peace, from the traditional concept of peace to a more progressive concept of peace that includes such concepts as environment protection, sustainable development and human rights. While it may benefit thousands of NGOs and activists in further advancing their noble causes, it also encourages the expectations of the “Buggin`s turn” not only on the continental rotation (as the Economist pointed out), but also of the rotation by various noble lefty causes or ethnic/demographic groups (Arab woman - African woman - what kind of woman will be next?).

Sore loser...

Sore loser….losers are always sore, whether it is a man or woman. Latvia`s president who ran for the top job at the United Nations, whose sole strength was based on the fact that she was a woman, lost her bid for the next Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Predictably, she is blaming her loss on the old-boy network, although polished diplomats from 15 countries that form the Security Council discussing the candidate for the next Secretary-General bears hardly any semblance to what people usually think of when they hear the much-cited-but-never-proven phrase “old-boy network” But it doesn`t matter as long as the Latvian loser and feminists could grab headlines with this sound-bite.

No, it`s Russia and China, stupid・ For geopolitical and historical reasons, these two countries were not going to vote for this woman anyway. If you cannot figure out this kind of most basic world politics 101, you are definitely not up to the task of the Secretary-General. I don`t know why a woman with this kind of infantile understanding of world politics rose to the top post in Latvia, -Latvians should awaken to this fact and some reflections may be needed on having such feminist-mouthpiece as the head of own State. Vaira, maybe my grandmother is more suited for the post than you are, as at least she doesn`t suffer from peculiar feminists` symptom, or what I call patriarchy conspiracy theory paranoia. And, oh, she is a woman. So, according to you Vaira, she passes the most important litmus test for the next Secretary-General.

Separate class for weaker sex at Norweigian companies?

Hmmm…. for the sake of the argument let’s put aside very obvious and justified counter-arguments to this non-sense churned out by militant feminists for which there are too many, and be a devil’s advocate and try to find some justifications for this.

Yes, I have one, and this is the only one.

You know, in sports, men and women don’t compete together. We have created different classes for men and women: for example, only men can compete in 100 meters dash, and only women are allowed to compete in women’s 100 meters dash. Nobody argues that men and women should be competing together because then the result will be too obvious. If there is gender-mixed or (“blind”) 100 meters dash in national tournament or Olympics, all the winners will be men. There is no way women can beat men and be a winner in such a race. Women are never going to get anywhere near of winning gold medal at Olympics, not even advancing to second stage of preliminaries in your local states high-school tournaments. They are not going to be “represented” in the winner’s circle in the same manner as a larger population. There will be extreme “over-representation” of men and the “gender-balance” of winners is just way too lopsided.

Now let’s turn our eye at the corporate world. At this time of writing (at least yet), men and women work in the same companies, vie for the same corner offices, compete to become CEO under same condition (just now for the sake of argument, although of course in the real world it is already titled heavily in favor of women with all these affirmative actions, etc.). However, the gender balance of corporate CEO’s are pretty much like what gender balance of winners in my hypothetical gender-mixed 100 meters dash would look like. Is it because, just like men’s bigger muscle mass and long legs do in 100 meters dash, innate biological differences, such as men’s propensity for aggressiveness and leadership are giving huge edge over women in corporate life? If so, and if one manages to find some added value in having half the CEO’s chairs or boardroom filled by skirts and those company executive orders signed by polished-nail hands, and if one wishes to see some “women’s game”, then we might need to create a separate class and set aside venues for them to compete, otherwise men would trounce them all over.

If gender feminists are going to accept this argument, then maybe I could start giving some thoughts about gender quota policy for corporate board room, but will they?

Paternity leave 3 – men not smiling enough to babies

Whenever needs arise to enforce more men to take paternity leave , inevitably gender feminists turn to “gender-equality utopia” Scandinavia for ideas, and thus ponder if introduction of a Scandinavian “daddy month” would be a good way to shape men into a women’s mold. Maybe. But don’t be content yet, because Scandinavians seem to have their own problems.

Feminists there are not happy (where in the world can you find “happy” feminists?) because Scandinavian men, even when they do take equal amount of paternity leave as women, spend less time with newborn babies, less holding and smiling and talking to babies….., which caused one distraught feminist to dub the paternity scheme in the country (Sweden in this case) as “near total failure.” So, what’s next? Record all the time the father and mother spend with the newborn, how many times each changed diaper, how many minutes they smiled at, and compile a national record?

Paternity leave 2 – enforce “negative equality”

If there is a “resistance” among men to take the exact equal amount of time for paternity leave as mothers do for maternity leave, then their attitudes or thinking needs to be corrected. If "These policies (paternity leave) may simply not be what fathers want,", then thought-control is in order. Whatever the method required, whatever feel-good excuses they prefer to use such as “more equitable society” or “gender equality”, the goal of gender feminist is one and I mean only one; to enforce “NEGATIVE EQUALITY”, meaning that, if women are not able to go back to work after extended period after giving birth to take care of the babies, thereby losing out on chances to learn new things, meet and network with new people, gain experience in the work, THEN MEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO EITHER. (fem-speak) It’s about “leveling the playing field”, baby, so that later women can occupy more corner offices in companies, but we’re not saying so because then the resistance from Neanderthal males will predictably be much bigger, so instead we cloaked in nicer, gentler notion like “gender equality”…..

Paternity leave 1 - transferable maternity leave

Slowly but surely, the true intent of feminists’ social engineering scheme is coming to light.

The “transferable maternity leave”, which UK government reportedly plans to introduce in 2008, would allow new mothers to get back to work while transferring their unused maternity leave days to new fathers. With such legislation, the complete gender role reversal would be complete, with women out at work and men staying at home to care for children… It is quite clear from such obvious consequence from the planned “transferable maternity leave” legislation that current push by gender feminists for men to take more paternity leave, under the pretense of so-called “gender-equality” is just a stepping-stone for such complete gender role reversal.

Mo more male movie director please...

In socialist Europe, liberal bias in society is more pronounced than in the United States. It’s difficult to imagine that there is a mainstream media that is more blatantly biased towards left, but there is one: just look at an op-ed piece that calls for curbing male bias in film industry by packing up the women-directed films on their first weekend.

For card-carrying gender feminists whose mantra includes such famous slogan as “personal is political”, the act of going to movie on weekend is not just a private activities that you enjoy to take a break from weekdays’ stressful lives, but also a political action that advances specific cause and which needs to be organized and orchestrated by some feminist groups.

Under feminists’ leadership, you will no loner have a privilege of choosing whatever activities you wish to do on weekend, or if you do choose to go to see a movie, no longer a privilege of choosing whatever film you like to see. No, in Ms. Walter’s view, you need to go to see a movie and that movie BETTER BE directed by women. Whatever the genre of movie you are going to see, it BETTER BE a movie directed by women (and better be at the first weekend of it s release, or otherwise it doesn’t count much, we were told). And you better cheer enthusiastically after the end of the movie yelling “NO-MORE-MALE-DIRECTORS” and write rave on-line reviews of that women-directed movie. You may also be required to join the letter-writing/e-mail campaign to film companies, theaters, etc. to put more women-directed films – you think its a bit too overboard? Sorry, you commitment to gender-equality is not genuine, and we will book you to attend the next available ‘gender-sensitivity’ training. No, relax, we are not sending you to concentration camp in Siberia, it’s just a ‘gender-sensitivity’ training, in which you will discover the joy of living under matriarchy.

This kind of feminists’ your-personal-life-is-my-political-domain mentality is not limited in the film world. There is similar movement behind women’s sport, an organized efforts to drive up attendance at for example WNBA or women’s soccer league in US (when it still existed!!), or number of TV viewers for women’s sports. Everyday feminists' e-mail inboxes are flooded with information about next women’s college soccer game on local TV or e-mails calling to bring friends, co-workers, neighbours or passer-byes to the next WNBA games.

Thus we can speculate that a large chunk of spectators or TV viewers on women’s sports, and audiences for women-directed films are in a way staged political activists. If we were to subtract these claques from the number of spectatars/audiences to women's sport or women-directed films, maybe not enough to sustain as a business, unless of course theaters or TV stations are going to be owned not by market-driven business people but agenda driven feminists.

Another woman getting rich...

Too bad if you are born into male gender you won’t have a chance to bask in this kind of financial bonanza. As Mia Hamm once said in a TV commercial, “There’s never been a better time to be a woman” I REALLY AGREE, NO SERIOUSLY. While what this Japanese woman had suffered (if her allegation was true) is truly a hardship, there’s no way that a man can get 20 million dollar in one shot unless you have a huge talent in business or something and work your butt off.

20 million dollar is a kind of money that ordinary people would not earn even in their lifetime, not even close. Out-of-proportion amount for compensatory and punitive damages generally sought in sexual harassment (SH) cases serves many purposes, aside from the plain and too obvious factor that accuser gets rich (who doesn’t want to be rich?). It will finance the whole SH industry, including lawyers, lawfirms, various centers and groups related to SH, it will transfer the money (or “level the field” from male businesses to female-owned entities (the accuser, SH industry), in addition, the large amount of money itself has a sound-bite effect in the newsmedia and help promote their case and agenda.

The sound-bide effect, which is an incidental to the original SH lawsuit, has even far-reaching and long-lasting effect. It will force board or management of the accused company as well as other companies in the business to institute SH industry-approved guidelines on SH in workplace, hire or promote more women in the management. In short, it is the fastest ways to get steps closer to SH industry paradise. The more money you ask, the more you get, not just the money. It is like killing not just two, but three, four, five or even more birds with one stone.


Links:
http://nymag.com/daily/food/2006/09/a_sexual_harassment_lawsuit_fi.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/40110

Are model too skinny or beauty ban?

Is this “growing global campaign to fight anorexia within the fashion industry” born out of a sincere concern for anorexic young models and model-wannabees or is it thinly veiled assault on people’s perception of aesthetics and beauty that do not happen to conform to feminists version of those?

It is interesting that this unprecedented model ban came from a country not particularly known for high fashion but rather known for zealously legislating feminist fantasies, that is, Spain, which just passed a legislation requiring men to share half of the housework.

This feminists’ campaign to change people’s view of women and beauty has been going on for a while - recent examples, most of which focus on justifying or mainstreaming obese women, include movies (remember “Real women have curves”?) and recent campaign by cosmetic company to feature obese “ordinary” women as models for their product and NOW’s campaign to love your body (including all the excess fat).

In ancient time, a queen or some sort ordered all women who were more beautiful than her to be executed. Enlightened, sensitive modern-day re-incarnation of the queen, called gender feminists, will not execute them (then there will be no women other than angry, old feminists left to live on earth), but simply ban the livelihood of some women whom they especially target.

How about tall models? Aren’t they too tall? To me they look far taller than average women, and thus might harm women’s self-confidence who are not as tall as models. Aren’t they also too young? Most of them look like under 25 years old? Ordinary women over 25 may feel left out. Wait, aren’t they too beautiful? And not just models in the fashion shows but how about TV stars and actresses? Aren’t they also too skinny, tall, young, and beautiful? TV starts excessive beauty might drive young girls to flock to plastic surgeons, or may harm their self-confidence as they are not as beautiful as those stars. Should we also ban these people from public eyes too?

I guess we can keep adding one ban after another until the only ones who are left to walk the catwalk or appear on TV or silver screens are the exact mirror image the people on the forefront of skinny-ban - old, unhappy, fat, ugly feminists. Then at least I can save some money by not going to movies anymore.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/fashion/21MODELS.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092000819.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091900149.html

Of course only women can save US science, although they have achieved very little so far.....

Did anyone expect that this kind of committee, headed by a doctrinaire feminist and a former Clinton cabinet member Donna Shalala, composed overwhelmingly of radical feminists (17 of 18 members were women), WILL NOT conclude that discrimination was a reason for dearth of top female scientists and engineers? Said Donna Shalala, “nothing was a foregone conclusion,” yeah, you’re right. The selection of chair, composition of members and the title of the report, everything single element of this committee-think, committee rubber-stamp report is geared to arrive at one, and I mean only one conclusion - women face discrimination in the science field.

Trying to give a benefit of a doubt that, or hypnotizing yourself hard to believe the charade that this committee was not biased in its approach to the subject matter is already a monumental task in its own right. Looks like even the most hard-headed feminists type in the committee was at least vaguely aware of what they were actually doing so she was already being a little defensive and had to qualify that the study was not meant to “lowering bars”.

The article citing the report doesn’t even bother to explain how US science field is facing global challenge or bad (or good) it is doing as compared to its past, but cited only the political slogans that are music to their ears, such as “we need overarching reform now” etc.

Global competition against who? Which countries? This argument wouldn’t stand unless the US academic excellence in science and engineering is challenged by those countries whose science and engineering field is dominated by women, or at least make more use of the so-called “female talent” (which doesn’t seem to make a dent even in Scandinavian countries). China, for one, who seemed to be rising in this field lately, is of course, a country known for putting gender quota ahead of academic excellence, ha, ha, ha…

Another question.. let’s for the sake of argument say that US science field is indeed in trouble - why turn to a group of people who have made very little contribution in this field in the past, and does not have a track record of producing great scientists on a consistent basis? Why don’t you try to tap into a group of people who have made countless scientific discoveries and made our lives so much convenient and made this country so great. Those group of people are waning out because of gender quota policies, gender politicking, mud-slinging of sexual-harassment or sexual-abuse charges, etc., etc..

Okay, here’s a simple science question or logic question for members of the committee, - when in crisis, should you turn to people with demonstrated abilities in the field in question and achievements in the past, or to people who with no such track record? The latter? Bing! You passed the test to become a member of the Donna Shalala’s committee! The bad news is that however as of today, you are still highly likely to fail an admission test for top universities but it won’t be so for so long, Donna is working around the clock so that logic-deficient people like you can be a part of diverse community of scientific experts that are representative of broader society …translation; (we’re gonna mandate gender quota for science professors and science awards winners).

If science field in this country is going to be dictated by this kind of committee-think and committee-politicking that are reminiscent of Stalin-era Soviet Union, and heads of science department at universities are going to be held by people who are chosen not on the basis of academic excellence but by their gender, then indeed the future of this country’s science field is in big trouble.

It's BAAAACK at Newsweek again!!

It’s BAAAAACK again!, the routine, self-congratulating, self-lionizing campaign, of the feminists, by the feminists, for the feminists is back at Newsweek!

Last time they did this ritualistic “celebrate-me-womin” piece was when they a piece about black women, when feminists at the Newsweek marveled how the superiority of black women over black men in almost every spheres of life could spill over to the rest of society in order to establish matriarchy, while being completely oblivious to the need to helping poor black males standing on their own feet.

Ironically, contrary to what feminists are trying fanatically to have you believe that men and women are completely the same, this issue of the Newsweek magazine reminds you that men and women are different; men want from magazine news on politics, economy, society; women needs healing, therapy and a boost of self-confidence. Women are so in need of self-confidence that they periodically needs national weekly magazine to extol their virtues and extraordinary accomplishments that some of sisters made, such as being a deputy chief of an internet company.

Once every few months, the national weekly magazine that is called Newsweek is transformed into arena where one power-feminists celebrate another power-feminist, so that the rest of womin in the country can find solace living in what they see as a nation of wife-beater, sexual harasser and alpha males. The transformation of a magazine once respected for providing hard-hitting news, to a forum of feel-good-ism, mass-therapy is one of the changes brought about by ascendance of feminists at corporate and editorial rooms of media establishment.

I’m sure that this special coverage will be given special status among the archives of Newsweek articles (special of the specials) due to its subject matter and its link will be left on the top page of the website and made accessible for almost eternity as long as Newsweek and internet as we know it exists, as a sort of a public-service announcement. Just like somehow all articles related to gender issues are made available free of charge on subscription-only academic website.

WNBA

Further thoughts on the issue of coverage of women・sports in media・

WNBA, a women’s professional basketball league in America is an interesting case; the games have been broadcasted in the US, mostly in local TV channels and game results are also broadcasted usually along with other major sports (men’s) such as baseball and football, despite the fact that WNBA draws much less stadium attendance and TV viewerships than men’s sports. -- Am I the only one who suspect pressure by PC forces here?

We are supposed to root for so-called “professional” female basketball player who cannot even dunk!! What is a “professional” basketball when there is no dunk shot? Today you’l see lots of dunk even at local high school (boys, of course) games. I even saw one time a local weather reporter (a man, of course) did a dunk shot, and he’s not even get paid for it! He is only paid for reading weather report on camera. In fact a dunk shot by women is so rare that a newspaper can cite all the instances of dunk sot by women player that took place in the official matches in the history of basketball, and it doesn’t take more than two lines. But feminists are still whining that there is a huge pay gap between men and women basketball players and coverage of the women’s basketball game is much less compared to men’s. In fact I wonder why these non-dunking women players should be paid at all! If there is money to be paid, and TV hours to be spent for broadcasting WNBA, those money and TV hours should go to high school kids (boys, of course) instead.

Equal opportunity? How about equal opportunity for a poor black high school kids who loves to play basketball and can dunk, but cannot go to join the college basketball team, because the college has just capped the size of men’s basketball team due to Title IX provision? Sure he may not be as good as the Michael Jordan, but he is better than most WNBA players, because at least he can dunk.

Feminists' worst nightmare - It's a boyin the Japanese royal family!!

Judging from the gender of the baby that was just born between Princess Kiko and her husband, the emperor’s younger son, the winners in this Japanese royal succession saga were the Japanese royal family and the conservatives who wanted to preserve two-thousand years old tradition of male-only succession of crowns. And the losers? Feminists, both inside and outside Japan, and leftist media. It is like their worst nightmare come true. They would have wished that the baby wasn’t born at all.

Too bad Japan’s leftist media’s opportunistic campaign to change the law to allow female succession to crown, which had been hailed and promoted for the last few years, employing scores of familiar leftist tactics, including filling op-ed with one-sided view (theirs, of course) and intentionally skewed sampling of data and surveys of public opinions, did not materialize. They were hoping that a law change would be a catalyst to seismic societal change in Japan to give more power to women and to see a “50-50” society. Feminists around the world collaborated with their counterparts in Japan and pushed hard for another female head of state in Asia, bringing aside for a moment their age-old argument that goes something like, a royal family is the most vivid manifestation of crushing patriarchy and male domination of female – as long as a female get to be the head. The Guardian may have already prepared an article that was intended to close the argument on whether women should be allowed succession of crown in the event the baby’s gender was female, but that draft had to be thrown out, at least for a while. But they haven’t given up yet. They are feminists, they are not going to give up. They’ve already reminded people that the debate on the issue is “not over” and that people’s view on the issue “remains split”. Feminists’ counterattack will begin?


Articles.

Japan Times
International Herald Tribune
Scotsman
Washingtinpost
The Independent

EMERGENCY ALERT!! Too few female court clerks!!

These days the New York Times is acting more and more like an operational arm of NOW or being co-opted by Ms. Magazine than a major newspaper. They now seem to be in the business of counting male/female ratios of every nooks and corners of society and whenever the ratio of women fell to the point that they cannot accept, issue a early warning or a wake up call to the world (or to the ideologue sisters among its readers) that something needs to be done… Gender ratio of “clerks”? even though they serve Supreme Court justices, they don’t deliver judgement, if association with or proximity to the important office such as Supreme Court is the issue, how about gender ratio of maintenance worker at the Supreme Court building? Oops, men dominate again? Sorry!

Forbes and forces against it

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.

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.

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

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"

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?

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.

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.

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 Bjklund 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 Bjklund, 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.

Womin's place n history

A new and innovative way to claim “womin’s place”in history…
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.

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.

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.

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

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

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…)…..”

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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/

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 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

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

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

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.

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/

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…….

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.

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.

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)

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