National Public Radio from Leonart Lopate show 18 Januray 2007.
“She’s such a geek”
Nothing tells you more clearly that gender feminists have lost their own sense of worth and based women’s worth on how well they could imitate men – than feminists’ rather misguided drive to seek recognition for girl geeks. According to their value-system, anything men do is good and therefore girls have to do it, and not just do it but do it with the exact same intensity and vigor as men do, and exact same proportion of girls should be doing that any given activity as the proportion of men.
It’s ironic that feminists movement that began with one of its founding intention to define women and femininity in a way that is free from the prevailing male-dominated perspective, and who have institutionalized throughout society politically-correct easy vilification of men, ended up imitating whatever men do, without any of its own judgment.
The fact of the matter is that, although many guy geeks tend to be smarter, have higher IQ, better in science and math, and may end up with more high-paying job, (not all of them necessarily though), even male geeks are not, and never have been, subject of admiration or looked up to by other boys. They are rather subject of ridicule or harassment by other guys, particularly jock type.
This is such a common-sensical things to most guys and also to many girls, unless she is male-hating feminists type who spend most of their free time in library reading works of the late Andrea Dworkin or attending V-day (of course not Valentine’s Day but Violence against women day) poetry smash. Well, actually there could one type of geek that only girls can be; a feminist geek, a geek who find ecstasy in putting up posters of Andrea Dworkin or Mary Daly in her room and who collect all literally works by such great feminist writers.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Women's war (since they are very special, but same and idential yet different and superior to men)
This kind of article confuses me….. What do feminists want? On the one hand, they obviously want special treatment, focus, and privilege for female soldiers. On the other hand, if you treat them too differently from male soldiers, focusing on softer, gentler, feminine side of female soldiers, wouldn’t it actually weaken the case for the full integration of women in military, assigning women (officially and publicly, not in a current, tricky and sneaky way) into combat role and ultimately G.I.Janes?
It looks like women soldiers have found one convenient way to get away from of combat – just claim that you were sexually harassed or attacked. This is the easiest way out from tour of duty and of course, this privilege is for by definition female soldiers only. Not only this claim will provide them easy way out from combat, but also bolster gender-feminists case for creation of more gender-sensitivity programe and eventually overhauling of testosterone-filled alpha male culture in the military.
Furthermore, if you combine women’s one-sided story of current abuse or attack with even more one-sided and obscure “The specter of childhood abuse” it becomes nearly impossible to reject any women’s claim.
In a desperate attempt to establish case for rape where no statute exists to cover, feminists come up with a new version of rape – called “command rape”. If feminists could keep up with this pace of inventing new category of rape or sexual crime by men, sooner or later any sexual (heterosexual of course) acts will be duly covered.
This article is filled with other standard gender-feminists agendas. It tacitly calls for more gender-balanced military when it says “where the sex ratios tended to be more even. Several women credited their commanders for establishing and enforcing a more egalitarian climate, the women tended to feel more at ease among men.
It does not forget to reinforce PC image that vets are batterers when it describe vets in VA hospital as “some of whom were trying to work through sex crimes they committed during military service. Others came home from war and beat their wives”
Even an outright liar and fabricator of victimhood story Ms. Randall was given moral comfort when it says “It was difficult to know what had traumatized Randall: whether she had in fact been in combat or whether she was reacting to some more generalized recollection of powerlessness. If female soldiers who excel in playing gender-victim card can get a pass as seen simply as reacting to “some more generalized recollection of powerlessness”, no one can hold these female deserters accountable.
It looks like women soldiers have found one convenient way to get away from of combat – just claim that you were sexually harassed or attacked. This is the easiest way out from tour of duty and of course, this privilege is for by definition female soldiers only. Not only this claim will provide them easy way out from combat, but also bolster gender-feminists case for creation of more gender-sensitivity programe and eventually overhauling of testosterone-filled alpha male culture in the military.
Furthermore, if you combine women’s one-sided story of current abuse or attack with even more one-sided and obscure “The specter of childhood abuse” it becomes nearly impossible to reject any women’s claim.
In a desperate attempt to establish case for rape where no statute exists to cover, feminists come up with a new version of rape – called “command rape”. If feminists could keep up with this pace of inventing new category of rape or sexual crime by men, sooner or later any sexual (heterosexual of course) acts will be duly covered.
This article is filled with other standard gender-feminists agendas. It tacitly calls for more gender-balanced military when it says “where the sex ratios tended to be more even. Several women credited their commanders for establishing and enforcing a more egalitarian climate, the women tended to feel more at ease among men.
It does not forget to reinforce PC image that vets are batterers when it describe vets in VA hospital as “some of whom were trying to work through sex crimes they committed during military service. Others came home from war and beat their wives”
Even an outright liar and fabricator of victimhood story Ms. Randall was given moral comfort when it says “It was difficult to know what had traumatized Randall: whether she had in fact been in combat or whether she was reacting to some more generalized recollection of powerlessness. If female soldiers who excel in playing gender-victim card can get a pass as seen simply as reacting to “some more generalized recollection of powerlessness”, no one can hold these female deserters accountable.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Girls victimized into online stripping
If bad news about girls behaving badly is going to go out of control (just imagine Britney Spears, girls gone wild videos and girls striping online) and begin to tarnish the image of entire girls, some kind of spin control is in order. And as you know the spin control by feminists is always to find a new type of victimization.
So a Canadian researcher has “found” that girls are bullied into stripping in front of webcam. So the culprit in this newly found phenomenon is…drum rolling….BOYS (again!!) and of course the conclusion is that girls are totally innocent victim, as always and in any circumstances. The only thing that seems to be missing from this standard feminist victimization story is a call for federal funding to stop on-line bullying or some kind of new government programme that will give more money, power and create more jobs for gender feminists.
So a Canadian researcher has “found” that girls are bullied into stripping in front of webcam. So the culprit in this newly found phenomenon is…drum rolling….BOYS (again!!) and of course the conclusion is that girls are totally innocent victim, as always and in any circumstances. The only thing that seems to be missing from this standard feminist victimization story is a call for federal funding to stop on-line bullying or some kind of new government programme that will give more money, power and create more jobs for gender feminists.
knee-jerk militant feminism
If you read the comments by the Columbia Journalism Review in response to harsh, near-unanimous criticism leveled against Katie Couric after her interview with John Edward on his wife's returning cancer, you know that knee-jerk militant feminism is alive and kicking....
Any criticism of whatever morally-questionable or dispicable acts by a high-powered woman is considered to be a product of sexism according to the Columbia Journalism Review who said, "Why is Couric taking so much heat? Are people threatened by a woman?..." Because women in power or in so-called untraditional occupation is so sacrosanct, untouchable, and inviolable, you are NOT supposed to criticize her, or hold her to normal standard, but need to treat her with kid glove・
Any criticism of whatever morally-questionable or dispicable acts by a high-powered woman is considered to be a product of sexism according to the Columbia Journalism Review who said, "Why is Couric taking so much heat? Are people threatened by a woman?..." Because women in power or in so-called untraditional occupation is so sacrosanct, untouchable, and inviolable, you are NOT supposed to criticize her, or hold her to normal standard, but need to treat her with kid glove・
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Clinton giving proof that feminists are mathematically- and logically- challenged
Here go again the Marxist feminist・
So Hillary Clinton again devotes her taxpayer-funded working hours (although she is paid only 77% of what Obama is paid, of course) in proposing to create a matriarchal totalitarian state that checks every paycheck of its citizens with a view to achieving complete statistical parity of earnings between men and women. I always wonder, if she could expend even only one tenth of those times and energy to check and give some serious thoughts about the pay statistics she proudly cites as evidence of sexism in the society, would she be still saying the same thing....?
Just consider these simple questions...
If companies could get away with paying to women only 77% of what it pays to men, then wouldn't all companies be rushing to hire only women...?
Do you (Hillary) seriously believe that you are getting paid 77 % of fellow male Senators?
If so, I give up (you are hopeless - maybe your obsession with gender pay equity and paranoia of living in patriarchal society has taken away from you any common sense)
If not, think the following;
Let's say that if public sector do not discriminate (even the most militant feminist would not believe that public sector discriminates sexes on pay - or would they believe?), then all the pay gaps must be coming from private sectors, which means that pay gap in that sector should be wider that the alleged 77 % - should be 66%, after adjustment. (According to data from the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey show, 14 percent of the country's workforce reported that they were government employees at the local, state, or federal level (about 18 million people).) Do you still believe in the so-called "pay gap"?
Well if you look back a little in history, the fake, cooked-up "pay gap" controversy has been around for decades - those mathematically-challenged feminists believed in the past such make-belief figure as 57 %... No wonder there are not enough mathematicians and engineer PhDs at Harvard and other top universities!
So Hillary Clinton again devotes her taxpayer-funded working hours (although she is paid only 77% of what Obama is paid, of course) in proposing to create a matriarchal totalitarian state that checks every paycheck of its citizens with a view to achieving complete statistical parity of earnings between men and women. I always wonder, if she could expend even only one tenth of those times and energy to check and give some serious thoughts about the pay statistics she proudly cites as evidence of sexism in the society, would she be still saying the same thing....?
Just consider these simple questions...
If companies could get away with paying to women only 77% of what it pays to men, then wouldn't all companies be rushing to hire only women...?
Do you (Hillary) seriously believe that you are getting paid 77 % of fellow male Senators?
If so, I give up (you are hopeless - maybe your obsession with gender pay equity and paranoia of living in patriarchal society has taken away from you any common sense)
If not, think the following;
Let's say that if public sector do not discriminate (even the most militant feminist would not believe that public sector discriminates sexes on pay - or would they believe?), then all the pay gaps must be coming from private sectors, which means that pay gap in that sector should be wider that the alleged 77 % - should be 66%, after adjustment. (According to data from the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey show, 14 percent of the country's workforce reported that they were government employees at the local, state, or federal level (about 18 million people).) Do you still believe in the so-called "pay gap"?
Well if you look back a little in history, the fake, cooked-up "pay gap" controversy has been around for decades - those mathematically-challenged feminists believed in the past such make-belief figure as 57 %... No wonder there are not enough mathematicians and engineer PhDs at Harvard and other top universities!
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Water is women's issue
Part 2 of the UN gender bureaucrats' blind application of gender mainstreaming concept...
Providing safe water and instituting effective water management system in poor community sounds like an a-political, fairly non-controversial issue. After all, no one can survive without water, for drinking, eating and myriad of other purposes. It is like air. No one can live without it for a long time. But once the omnipresent UN gender bureaucrats got their hands in it, as they do in every single issues that entrusted to the United Nations by government, civil societies, etc., it took less than nanoseconds for them to turn the issue of water resource management into yet another tool to advance their radical social-engineering scheme...
The United Nations Development Programme, in collaboration with the Gender and Water Alliance, (what?) has developed a "Gender and Water Resource Management Guide" in which it discusses such feminist gobblydooks as;
"The gender-differentiated systems for access to resources, labor, water uses, water rights, and the distribution of benefits and production, sex-disaggregated data and the documentation of unpaid labor,"
"Gender dimensions of institutions at all levels in society (within the household, community-based organisations, water users associations, local governments, national civil services, etc.)."
"Gender-sensitive monitoring and evaluation indicators"
"targeted actions to increase women's contribution to decision-making; opening up new opportunities for women/men in non-traditional skill areas"
And, gender dimension on flood control, and women's influence in decision making on the flood-control. (yes, of course only women are affected by flood)
Apparently every water-related issues are re-framed with singular focus on gender power relation, with musing over the patriarchal society that brought such power relation, and ends in recommending action-oriented plans to reverse such gender power relation. Looks like with gender-bureaucrats multiplying like rats in the UN headquarters and applying Marxist-gender feminists theories to every social issues, prospect for poor African man getting access to safe water has gone down, although the prospect for increase in the number of women in "decision-making level" on water management and ultimately subverting the gender power relation has risen. And that's A-OK because that's all gender feminists care about.
Providing safe water and instituting effective water management system in poor community sounds like an a-political, fairly non-controversial issue. After all, no one can survive without water, for drinking, eating and myriad of other purposes. It is like air. No one can live without it for a long time. But once the omnipresent UN gender bureaucrats got their hands in it, as they do in every single issues that entrusted to the United Nations by government, civil societies, etc., it took less than nanoseconds for them to turn the issue of water resource management into yet another tool to advance their radical social-engineering scheme...
The United Nations Development Programme, in collaboration with the Gender and Water Alliance, (what?) has developed a "Gender and Water Resource Management Guide" in which it discusses such feminist gobblydooks as;
"The gender-differentiated systems for access to resources, labor, water uses, water rights, and the distribution of benefits and production, sex-disaggregated data and the documentation of unpaid labor,"
"Gender dimensions of institutions at all levels in society (within the household, community-based organisations, water users associations, local governments, national civil services, etc.)."
"Gender-sensitive monitoring and evaluation indicators"
"targeted actions to increase women's contribution to decision-making; opening up new opportunities for women/men in non-traditional skill areas"
And, gender dimension on flood control, and women's influence in decision making on the flood-control. (yes, of course only women are affected by flood)
Apparently every water-related issues are re-framed with singular focus on gender power relation, with musing over the patriarchal society that brought such power relation, and ends in recommending action-oriented plans to reverse such gender power relation. Looks like with gender-bureaucrats multiplying like rats in the UN headquarters and applying Marxist-gender feminists theories to every social issues, prospect for poor African man getting access to safe water has gone down, although the prospect for increase in the number of women in "decision-making level" on water management and ultimately subverting the gender power relation has risen. And that's A-OK because that's all gender feminists care about.
Friday, March 09, 2007
International Women's Day - newspapers' opinion section hijakced by feminists
Today is 8 March, International Women's Day, meaning that ever-noisy shrieking of gender-feminists will get even shriekier. Today thousands of op-ed articles fill major newspapers around the country and the world; below are some examples (tiny, tiny tip of the iceberg, really);
Some mourned the fact that there is only one women's day in a year (what, you want all 365 days to be women's day?) , while others want to build upon on the already lop-sided health imbalance between me and women by spreading that imbalance from developed countries to the developing countries, one socialist feminists wailed over (allegedly) declining support for feminists' social engineering schemes in Australia.
Most articles wine and gripe about today's so-called "pathetic" state of women and a lack of progress in achieving gender equality. But these professional complainers' complaints look silly when you think about the following facts;
-A woman can considered to be a front-runner for one of the major parties in the Presidential election of world's biggest country, just by marrying a right man, and play up a gender card in garnering support through media,
-One of the two-top contenders for Presidential election in another developed country can thwart any criticism or negative comments by threatening to label them as "sexists' and get away with not answering tough questions,
-Fat, old, ugly female politicians can now take revenge on the beauty standard that consistently eluded them by imposing restriction on the size of fashion model.
-In many countries, being born into women mean that you have guaranteed spots in political party's nomination list, or even reserved seats in local and national parliaments. In some countries, you will have automatically invited to nations' largest corporations' boardroom, and if you think you aren't up for the responsibilities, then don't worry, the government will have a crash-course on how to be (or to behave like) boardroom officers.
-In some countries you will have special mentors/teachers assigned to you if you are in schools and like to pursue math or engineering (or even if you don't want to they'll persuade you to pursue those fields)
I don't know how in the face of these lopsided benefits and entitlements those gender feminists could continue to churn out those cookie-cutter "women-oppressed" op-ed pieces.
Predictably most of the feminists' op-ed articles were identical in their contents; call for more women in politics and corporate boardroom - what else could today's power-obsessed gender-feminists can think about? In the end, every problem in the world that are related to women, be it violence or excessive diet or sports or whatever, would be connected to these two issues by the fluent tongue of gender-feminists, because after all, only those two are going to directly benefit those professional complainers and data/logic distorters, a.k.a. gender feminists - power and money.
Some mourned the fact that there is only one women's day in a year (what, you want all 365 days to be women's day?) , while others want to build upon on the already lop-sided health imbalance between me and women by spreading that imbalance from developed countries to the developing countries, one socialist feminists wailed over (allegedly) declining support for feminists' social engineering schemes in Australia.
Most articles wine and gripe about today's so-called "pathetic" state of women and a lack of progress in achieving gender equality. But these professional complainers' complaints look silly when you think about the following facts;
-A woman can considered to be a front-runner for one of the major parties in the Presidential election of world's biggest country, just by marrying a right man, and play up a gender card in garnering support through media,
-One of the two-top contenders for Presidential election in another developed country can thwart any criticism or negative comments by threatening to label them as "sexists' and get away with not answering tough questions,
-Fat, old, ugly female politicians can now take revenge on the beauty standard that consistently eluded them by imposing restriction on the size of fashion model.
-In many countries, being born into women mean that you have guaranteed spots in political party's nomination list, or even reserved seats in local and national parliaments. In some countries, you will have automatically invited to nations' largest corporations' boardroom, and if you think you aren't up for the responsibilities, then don't worry, the government will have a crash-course on how to be (or to behave like) boardroom officers.
-In some countries you will have special mentors/teachers assigned to you if you are in schools and like to pursue math or engineering (or even if you don't want to they'll persuade you to pursue those fields)
I don't know how in the face of these lopsided benefits and entitlements those gender feminists could continue to churn out those cookie-cutter "women-oppressed" op-ed pieces.
Predictably most of the feminists' op-ed articles were identical in their contents; call for more women in politics and corporate boardroom - what else could today's power-obsessed gender-feminists can think about? In the end, every problem in the world that are related to women, be it violence or excessive diet or sports or whatever, would be connected to these two issues by the fluent tongue of gender-feminists, because after all, only those two are going to directly benefit those professional complainers and data/logic distorters, a.k.a. gender feminists - power and money.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
"me, me, me"-ism gone wild in the United Nations
One thing that the United Nations is obsessed about in recent years, the biggest buzz among its bureaucrats, government officials, and far-left NGOs walking on the corridors of the United Nations is a concept called "gender mainstreaming". This concept literally tries to "mainstream" gender perspective on every single issues that enters portfolio of the United Nations, no exceptions. In a nutshell, "me, me, me" -ism by power-hungry feminists. Some issues seem justifiable or legitimate to include such perspective, such as conflict or human rights, while others are harder to understand or downright hilarious.
Here is one of the good examples of "me, me, MEEE!!"-ism gone wild in the United Nations.
Forest and women (United Nations Forum on Forest)
While originally established by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) in October 2000 to pursue such benign and legitimate objective as to promote "...the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests and to strengthen long-term political commitment.", in just a few years, with gender-feminists' takeover of United Nations in all areas, the United Nations Forum on Forest devolved into a forum where unhappy middle-aged women discuss such things as;
"..ensure that gender analysis and gender-disaggregated data are used in country reporting on achieving poor women's access to forests and forest resources."
"...develop guidelines for the participation of indigenous peoples, particularly indigenous women, in environmental policy development and implementation."
"Establish a separate unit, with expertise in forestry and gender and development, to assist countries and other partners to provide technical assistance and training to develop policies, skills and knowledge for gender mainstreaming within their forest-related agencies."
"...enable their experts to understand the impact and implications of forest degradation on women's human rights."
"Formal and non-formal educational curricula be reviewed and revised and guidelines developed at all levels to promote gender equality values and practices, ...to act for personal, community and social change."
"Women's political empowerment, leadership and capacity-building,as well as information dissemination among indigenous women, be guaranteedin order to enable their effective participation in the decision-making processrelated to the environment and sustainable development at all levels."
"...roster of experts, both men and women, with expertise in gendermainstreaming in the forest and related sectors, must be established, and equal representation of women and men as consultants and in all expert groups of the Forum must be pursued."
"National networks must be developed comprising women professionals in the forestry and related sectors... to promote gender equality and environmental sustainability."
(from Discussion paper contributed by the Women major group (E/CN.18/2005/3/Add.3), February 2005)
Here is one of the good examples of "me, me, MEEE!!"-ism gone wild in the United Nations.
Forest and women (United Nations Forum on Forest)
While originally established by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) in October 2000 to pursue such benign and legitimate objective as to promote "...the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests and to strengthen long-term political commitment.", in just a few years, with gender-feminists' takeover of United Nations in all areas, the United Nations Forum on Forest devolved into a forum where unhappy middle-aged women discuss such things as;
"..ensure that gender analysis and gender-disaggregated data are used in country reporting on achieving poor women's access to forests and forest resources."
"...develop guidelines for the participation of indigenous peoples, particularly indigenous women, in environmental policy development and implementation."
"Establish a separate unit, with expertise in forestry and gender and development, to assist countries and other partners to provide technical assistance and training to develop policies, skills and knowledge for gender mainstreaming within their forest-related agencies."
"...enable their experts to understand the impact and implications of forest degradation on women's human rights."
"Formal and non-formal educational curricula be reviewed and revised and guidelines developed at all levels to promote gender equality values and practices, ...to act for personal, community and social change."
"Women's political empowerment, leadership and capacity-building,as well as information dissemination among indigenous women, be guaranteedin order to enable their effective participation in the decision-making processrelated to the environment and sustainable development at all levels."
"...roster of experts, both men and women, with expertise in gendermainstreaming in the forest and related sectors, must be established, and equal representation of women and men as consultants and in all expert groups of the Forum must be pursued."
"National networks must be developed comprising women professionals in the forestry and related sectors... to promote gender equality and environmental sustainability."
(from Discussion paper contributed by the Women major group (E/CN.18/2005/3/Add.3), February 2005)
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Feminists' field day at UN continues....
The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) continues its annual rite of self-congratulation, women-worshiping, and male-bashing at the United Nations.
Many governments took the podium in the conference room of the United Nations to spew out their totalitarian feminist agenda, which are in many instances controversial in their own countries, but are presented as proud achievements or well-intentioned plan to solve the plight of women, especially "girl-child (this year's main topic).
Here some excerpts (taken from UN official press release on 27 February);
First, let's start off with some weird stuffs・
Rachel n. Mayanja, UN's Special Adviser on Gender Issues and the Advancement of Women "The Commission should also review women's access to information and communication technology, as the gender digital divide remained wide.・
INSTRAW (note: UN institution that study gender issues)- INSTRAW's groundbreaking research on the gender dimensions of migration and remittances had revealed that, when women migrated as the main economic providers for their households, the money sent home was used to keep their daughters in school, including in university.
Indranee Seebun, Minister of Women's Rights, Child Development, Family Welfare and Consumer Protection of Mauritius, said "An empowerment fund" had been included in the 2006-2007 budget to promote entrepreneurship among vulnerable groups".
Then the triumphant...
Trevor Prescod, Minister of Social Transformation of Barbados, said that "currently, about 16 per cent of those graduating from the secondary level pursued tertiary level education and, of those 16 per cent, 70 per cent were girls."
Jang Hajin, Minister for Gender Equality and Family, Republic of Korea, "High school enrolment rates were higher for girls"
This is for girl only, no boy need apply...
Alima Mahama, Minister of Women and Children's Affairs of Ghana, said "Measures were also being taken ... to increase their (girls) enrolment in schools -- by providing bicycles to girls in rural areas..."
Traditional legal principle doesn't matter...
Maina Kamanda, Minister for Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services of Kenya, said "The Criminal Amendment Act of 2003, removed the burden of corroboration as a requirement to prosecute and prove a sexual offence."
Now let's see what happened when a country is governed by gender-feminist...
First Liberia,
Annie Jones-Demen, Deputy Minister for Gender and Development of Liberia, said "To encourage higher enrolment of girls in schools, the Government had ....begun providing hot meals and food rations to female students. "(boys?)
While feeling ecstatic about the election of a women President (itself the biggest achievement for gender feminists), the gender bureaucrats inadvertently spilled the top secret when she said, "the Ministry for Gender and Development and its partners had played a pivotal role in the 2005 general and presidential elections. (hello~?, you are supposed to at least maintain the pretense of fairness, however farce it is, and even though many people know that the government, UN and NGOs conspired to let the woman win, since she is a woman)
Then Chile,
Andrea Reyes (Chile) "All women were guaranteed a pension, including women who had been employed sporadically, in precarious situations or who had not been paid."(-Uhh, how about men?)
Ultimate entitlement...
Rocio Garcia Gaytan (Mexico) referred to President's "commitment to end discrimination and violence through the federal "Women's Access to a Life Free of Violence" law. (How about a new law titled "Men's Access to Life Full of Fun"? - if only government can guarantee that!)
And of course, all gender feminists' all time favorite - gender quota
Greece "..set quotas mandating that women comprised one third of people on local election lists and collective bodies of all Government agencies." (gender feminists' inadvertent admission of defeatism or reaffirmation of men's superiority - they admit that there is no way that women could get elected to public office if they were subjected to such "discriminatory system" of election/selection based on merits)
Armenia - "The new Electoral Code had raised the quota of women in political parties from 5 to 15 per cent. Ten per cent of all candidates on political party lists must be women." But she continued "...still, few women had reached high-level political posts. Only one woman held a cabinet position." (What a loser!!! You get quota for yourselves and still you can't cut it - I'm sorry, but it seems that nothing could help some women's utter lack of competencies - although gender feminists will no doubt blame deep-rooted patriarchy that even transcends gender quota.)
Others...
Ana Paula Sacramento, Vice-Minister for Family and the Promotion of Women, Angola, said that "Enrolment rates of girls and boys were not equal, and it was estimated that, of the 65 per cent of illiterate citizens, half were women." (It's not equal unless majority of illiterate are men)
Many governments took the podium in the conference room of the United Nations to spew out their totalitarian feminist agenda, which are in many instances controversial in their own countries, but are presented as proud achievements or well-intentioned plan to solve the plight of women, especially "girl-child (this year's main topic).
Here some excerpts (taken from UN official press release on 27 February);
First, let's start off with some weird stuffs・
Rachel n. Mayanja, UN's Special Adviser on Gender Issues and the Advancement of Women "The Commission should also review women's access to information and communication technology, as the gender digital divide remained wide.・
INSTRAW (note: UN institution that study gender issues)- INSTRAW's groundbreaking research on the gender dimensions of migration and remittances had revealed that, when women migrated as the main economic providers for their households, the money sent home was used to keep their daughters in school, including in university.
Indranee Seebun, Minister of Women's Rights, Child Development, Family Welfare and Consumer Protection of Mauritius, said "An empowerment fund" had been included in the 2006-2007 budget to promote entrepreneurship among vulnerable groups".
Then the triumphant...
Trevor Prescod, Minister of Social Transformation of Barbados, said that "currently, about 16 per cent of those graduating from the secondary level pursued tertiary level education and, of those 16 per cent, 70 per cent were girls."
Jang Hajin, Minister for Gender Equality and Family, Republic of Korea, "High school enrolment rates were higher for girls"
This is for girl only, no boy need apply...
Alima Mahama, Minister of Women and Children's Affairs of Ghana, said "Measures were also being taken ... to increase their (girls) enrolment in schools -- by providing bicycles to girls in rural areas..."
Traditional legal principle doesn't matter...
Maina Kamanda, Minister for Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services of Kenya, said "The Criminal Amendment Act of 2003, removed the burden of corroboration as a requirement to prosecute and prove a sexual offence."
Now let's see what happened when a country is governed by gender-feminist...
First Liberia,
Annie Jones-Demen, Deputy Minister for Gender and Development of Liberia, said "To encourage higher enrolment of girls in schools, the Government had ....begun providing hot meals and food rations to female students. "(boys?)
While feeling ecstatic about the election of a women President (itself the biggest achievement for gender feminists), the gender bureaucrats inadvertently spilled the top secret when she said, "the Ministry for Gender and Development and its partners had played a pivotal role in the 2005 general and presidential elections. (hello~?, you are supposed to at least maintain the pretense of fairness, however farce it is, and even though many people know that the government, UN and NGOs conspired to let the woman win, since she is a woman)
Then Chile,
Andrea Reyes (Chile) "All women were guaranteed a pension, including women who had been employed sporadically, in precarious situations or who had not been paid."(-Uhh, how about men?)
Ultimate entitlement...
Rocio Garcia Gaytan (Mexico) referred to President's "commitment to end discrimination and violence through the federal "Women's Access to a Life Free of Violence" law. (How about a new law titled "Men's Access to Life Full of Fun"? - if only government can guarantee that!)
And of course, all gender feminists' all time favorite - gender quota
Greece "..set quotas mandating that women comprised one third of people on local election lists and collective bodies of all Government agencies." (gender feminists' inadvertent admission of defeatism or reaffirmation of men's superiority - they admit that there is no way that women could get elected to public office if they were subjected to such "discriminatory system" of election/selection based on merits)
Armenia - "The new Electoral Code had raised the quota of women in political parties from 5 to 15 per cent. Ten per cent of all candidates on political party lists must be women." But she continued "...still, few women had reached high-level political posts. Only one woman held a cabinet position." (What a loser!!! You get quota for yourselves and still you can't cut it - I'm sorry, but it seems that nothing could help some women's utter lack of competencies - although gender feminists will no doubt blame deep-rooted patriarchy that even transcends gender quota.)
Others...
Ana Paula Sacramento, Vice-Minister for Family and the Promotion of Women, Angola, said that "Enrolment rates of girls and boys were not equal, and it was estimated that, of the 65 per cent of illiterate citizens, half were women." (It's not equal unless majority of illiterate are men)
Friday, March 02, 2007
Festival of man-haters at the United Nations
Finally the cold and bitter days that affected the American East Coast seem to be over (wasn't that cold weather inconvenient to the movie "Inconvenient Truth"?)- yes, it is already March. And March is not just a month when spring officially starts, but it is also a women's month! And at the United Nations, it means an annual festival (or orgies) by man-hating gender feminists!
Thousands of unhappy, young (grungy type) and old (business suits with three-inch shoulder pat type) women packed the UN building to attend the 51 st session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW 51), disrupting the normal business there by packing the cafeteria and occupying many tables with mini lunch-session on how to kick men out of political office, and guerilla-posting of posters and flyers everywhere they could.
This is a formal UN conference attended by all UN Member States- meaning representatives of the governments-bureaucrats whose salary come from taxpayers, discussing seriously at an international forum, feminists' traditional issues such as promoting gender quota in parliament and political party, or more innovative or unique issues as gender-sensitive national budget, or mentoring programme for women scientists and female engineering students.
In addition to formal discussions, there are numerous side events that are organized by UN agencies, governments and NGOs. Let me pick up some bizarre side event topics, first by NGOs;
Violence of the girlchild in work situations: challenges and responses.
Media exploitation of girls as a form of violence against girls.
How to organize a social and psychological first aid for child girls?
Women farmers & Conflicts. (???)
Improving Human Rights for Incarcerated Girls. (aren't they way better than for incarcerated boys already?)
Girls At Risk: The Importance of Quality Standards for Children in Out-Of-Home Care, with special Focus on Girls, etc., etc.
Not to be outdone, feminist-infested UN agencies and governments also organize such strange side events as;
Health Disparities that Discriminate against the girl child (yeah, you're right)
The Nordic Father: Role Model for a Caring Male? (that's the only tolerated future model for male)
How to reach the most marginalized & invisible girls? (there GOT TO be victimized girls somewhere - go find them!)
Violence against Indigenous Women (I'm glad I just found another new victim group!)
CSW 51 has set up a special tent only for young women attending the conference, presumably so that young women could feel safe and comfortable in a male-free environment.The whole international conference started to look like a group therapy on the grandest scale....
The CSW, which discusses same topic three years in succession, selected issue of girl child for its topic starting this year. Is this a reflection of UN feminists' new strategy to link issues of women and child, with a primary aim to put on a more benign face to the militant feminists movement and make it difficult for critics to oppose (you can see more detailed discussion on this here and here) or simply they felt that is felt the need to try new approach? Whatever the reason, thousands of girls ( and of course only girls, no boys) are invited to attend the Commission and participate -quite an entitlement and experience for girl teenagers!
Thousands of unhappy, young (grungy type) and old (business suits with three-inch shoulder pat type) women packed the UN building to attend the 51 st session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW 51), disrupting the normal business there by packing the cafeteria and occupying many tables with mini lunch-session on how to kick men out of political office, and guerilla-posting of posters and flyers everywhere they could.
This is a formal UN conference attended by all UN Member States- meaning representatives of the governments-bureaucrats whose salary come from taxpayers, discussing seriously at an international forum, feminists' traditional issues such as promoting gender quota in parliament and political party, or more innovative or unique issues as gender-sensitive national budget, or mentoring programme for women scientists and female engineering students.
In addition to formal discussions, there are numerous side events that are organized by UN agencies, governments and NGOs. Let me pick up some bizarre side event topics, first by NGOs;
Violence of the girlchild in work situations: challenges and responses.
Media exploitation of girls as a form of violence against girls.
How to organize a social and psychological first aid for child girls?
Women farmers & Conflicts. (???)
Improving Human Rights for Incarcerated Girls. (aren't they way better than for incarcerated boys already?)
Girls At Risk: The Importance of Quality Standards for Children in Out-Of-Home Care, with special Focus on Girls, etc., etc.
Not to be outdone, feminist-infested UN agencies and governments also organize such strange side events as;
Health Disparities that Discriminate against the girl child (yeah, you're right)
The Nordic Father: Role Model for a Caring Male? (that's the only tolerated future model for male)
How to reach the most marginalized & invisible girls? (there GOT TO be victimized girls somewhere - go find them!)
Violence against Indigenous Women (I'm glad I just found another new victim group!)
CSW 51 has set up a special tent only for young women attending the conference, presumably so that young women could feel safe and comfortable in a male-free environment.The whole international conference started to look like a group therapy on the grandest scale....
The CSW, which discusses same topic three years in succession, selected issue of girl child for its topic starting this year. Is this a reflection of UN feminists' new strategy to link issues of women and child, with a primary aim to put on a more benign face to the militant feminists movement and make it difficult for critics to oppose (you can see more detailed discussion on this here and here) or simply they felt that is felt the need to try new approach? Whatever the reason, thousands of girls ( and of course only girls, no boys) are invited to attend the Commission and participate -quite an entitlement and experience for girl teenagers!
Friday, February 16, 2007
Movie review - "Children of men"
Movie review "Children of men"
I went to see this movie with expectations that this movie will give us a glimpse of how future in which women no longer conceive babies and the fertility rate dramatically drops will be like, a kind of society that man industrialized western countries are heading into. Well, the movie's storyline was based on such a plot, but it was, as far as I am concerned, a horrible movie. The movie was too gory and dark and depressing. Too much gun fighting and so on. The movie also did not explain why all the women in the world, I mean every single one of them on earth, suddenly stopped giving birth on 2009 (which is only 3 years from now!). There was no explanation as to why all of a sudden this one black woman (immigrant?) suddenly conceived after more than 18 years of total global baby draught.
I wished that the movie depicted in more detail how less and less women came to conceive babies, and wider social implications of it. How the rise of women in power and of rigid feminist ideology will reduce fertility rate and very wide and deep consequences of low fertility rate for the society. But the movie didn't venture into any of that, and instead it only showed that in 2009, suddenly no more babies were born ・throughout the world! ・and the only visible consequences of this radical change is large number of illegal immigrants rounded up in cages everywhere -just didn't make sense to me.
Rise of women in power and low fertility rate have much, much wider and deeper consequences than just illegal immigrants rounded up in cage. It means that welfare system will be bankrupt, schools will be closed, teachers and everyone in education industries will be out of work, nursery and toy company and toy shops ・rather than counting all professions that will be unnecessary, let's just say that in less than a few generations, the human race will be extinct. (congrats for extreme environmentalist who want to reduce human population to save environment)
I went to see this movie with expectations that this movie will give us a glimpse of how future in which women no longer conceive babies and the fertility rate dramatically drops will be like, a kind of society that man industrialized western countries are heading into. Well, the movie's storyline was based on such a plot, but it was, as far as I am concerned, a horrible movie. The movie was too gory and dark and depressing. Too much gun fighting and so on. The movie also did not explain why all the women in the world, I mean every single one of them on earth, suddenly stopped giving birth on 2009 (which is only 3 years from now!). There was no explanation as to why all of a sudden this one black woman (immigrant?) suddenly conceived after more than 18 years of total global baby draught.
I wished that the movie depicted in more detail how less and less women came to conceive babies, and wider social implications of it. How the rise of women in power and of rigid feminist ideology will reduce fertility rate and very wide and deep consequences of low fertility rate for the society. But the movie didn't venture into any of that, and instead it only showed that in 2009, suddenly no more babies were born ・throughout the world! ・and the only visible consequences of this radical change is large number of illegal immigrants rounded up in cages everywhere -just didn't make sense to me.
Rise of women in power and low fertility rate have much, much wider and deeper consequences than just illegal immigrants rounded up in cage. It means that welfare system will be bankrupt, schools will be closed, teachers and everyone in education industries will be out of work, nursery and toy company and toy shops ・rather than counting all professions that will be unnecessary, let's just say that in less than a few generations, the human race will be extinct. (congrats for extreme environmentalist who want to reduce human population to save environment)
Women victim of their own success
This is a typical gender-ratio article that routinely appears in the New York Times...it's nothing new and it's not really worth mentioning it because it is so routine, but I still managed to pick up some interesting points in the article・
In early part of the article a gender-balance expert (this is a guy!) poses a theoretical question, "Are moderate suburban Democratic women the future of the party?" and in the same breath exhorts both Democrats and Republicans to go after women since in his mind the answer is already given. For writers of this kind of article, editors of the paper and the carefully selected, hand-picked interviewees or experts quoted, this kind of article is not published to find true, correct answer to the a question, but to advance particular agenda. The only (very minor) difference between this kind of article and paid-advertisement by NOW or AAUW is that the former try to put at least a pretence of neutrality - although very few people rally believe it.
Amazingly the writer of the article is not simply content with triumphing in the increasing women's number in state legislature ・the writer manages to play of victim card again!! ・according to the writer, the mainstreaming of female politicians, or shift away from traditional feminist base is "a loss in the fight against imbalances against women that still persist in American society." I'm always amazed by feminists' astounding ability to find "victim" elements even in the most triumphant moment for them. I think it is because playing victim card is almost a second nature to them ・after all they've been relying on victim card tactics for the last four decades to advance their agandas ・it would be very difficult to shift away from their tactics and mind-set that have been the backbone of their movement for decades.
As St. Paul Goes ...
In State Legislatures, Democrats Are Pushing Toward Parity Between the Sexes
Bill Alkofer for The New York Times
By KIRK JOHNSON
Published: February 15, 2007
In early part of the article a gender-balance expert (this is a guy!) poses a theoretical question, "Are moderate suburban Democratic women the future of the party?" and in the same breath exhorts both Democrats and Republicans to go after women since in his mind the answer is already given. For writers of this kind of article, editors of the paper and the carefully selected, hand-picked interviewees or experts quoted, this kind of article is not published to find true, correct answer to the a question, but to advance particular agenda. The only (very minor) difference between this kind of article and paid-advertisement by NOW or AAUW is that the former try to put at least a pretence of neutrality - although very few people rally believe it.
Amazingly the writer of the article is not simply content with triumphing in the increasing women's number in state legislature ・the writer manages to play of victim card again!! ・according to the writer, the mainstreaming of female politicians, or shift away from traditional feminist base is "a loss in the fight against imbalances against women that still persist in American society." I'm always amazed by feminists' astounding ability to find "victim" elements even in the most triumphant moment for them. I think it is because playing victim card is almost a second nature to them ・after all they've been relying on victim card tactics for the last four decades to advance their agandas ・it would be very difficult to shift away from their tactics and mind-set that have been the backbone of their movement for decades.
As St. Paul Goes ...
In State Legislatures, Democrats Are Pushing Toward Parity Between the Sexes
Bill Alkofer for The New York Times
By KIRK JOHNSON
Published: February 15, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Thoughts on men's movement
I found an interesting article on my favourite website www.mensnewsdaily.com.
Below is my thoughts on this topic....
There is no major (or even a minor?) men’s movement because it simply doesn’t appeal to men. Major social movements that attract our attention, grab headlines and come to our attention are almost always leftist in its nature – be it feminists, environmental, or animal rights movement. It usually involves a large number of people congregating and demonstrating on streets, printing and handing outs leaflets, yelling and chanting, etc., etc. These actions hardly invoke images of masculinity or macho men – rather it is more often seen as feminine, girly acts. Of course not all the activities of mass social movements are sissy, but just imagine, holding hands or “candlelight” night vigil, etc., etc, and you’ll get the idea. If a men’s movement is going to change the feminized society and feminist-controlled legal and other social system, it is not going to be wise to adopt the same leftist-feminist style, sissy tactics.
In addition, males are not deeply emphatic being as females are; thus playing too much victim card is not going to appeal to them. Men do not want to see themselves as weak victim, and will be reluctant to identify themselves with male victims of family courts, domestic violence or false accusation of rape, sexual harassment, etc. Plus it will risk taunting by feminists and liberal media for being “sissy’ or “girly”(do anyone see irony in this?). Men are traditionally seen as, and men like to see themselves as, even in this highly feminized world, tough and independent being. Not a mass-marching, victim card-playing, candle-light vigil leftist type.
I will conntinue later...
Below is my thoughts on this topic....
There is no major (or even a minor?) men’s movement because it simply doesn’t appeal to men. Major social movements that attract our attention, grab headlines and come to our attention are almost always leftist in its nature – be it feminists, environmental, or animal rights movement. It usually involves a large number of people congregating and demonstrating on streets, printing and handing outs leaflets, yelling and chanting, etc., etc. These actions hardly invoke images of masculinity or macho men – rather it is more often seen as feminine, girly acts. Of course not all the activities of mass social movements are sissy, but just imagine, holding hands or “candlelight” night vigil, etc., etc, and you’ll get the idea. If a men’s movement is going to change the feminized society and feminist-controlled legal and other social system, it is not going to be wise to adopt the same leftist-feminist style, sissy tactics.
In addition, males are not deeply emphatic being as females are; thus playing too much victim card is not going to appeal to them. Men do not want to see themselves as weak victim, and will be reluctant to identify themselves with male victims of family courts, domestic violence or false accusation of rape, sexual harassment, etc. Plus it will risk taunting by feminists and liberal media for being “sissy’ or “girly”(do anyone see irony in this?). Men are traditionally seen as, and men like to see themselves as, even in this highly feminized world, tough and independent being. Not a mass-marching, victim card-playing, candle-light vigil leftist type.
I will conntinue later...
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Women rocks NASA
We knew sooner or later this kind of article is going to be out. Whenever and wherever major news involve women, the so-called women's advocates are going to be out and front slanting the news to promote their agenda.
It's interesting that it was a woman who made the most astounding incident in the history of NASA. I would suspect that there was artificial lowering of bar for women to join NASA and be astronauts in order to satisfy gender bureaucrats who are counting gender ratio in every federal institutions. Although I'm 100% confident that this would never even be considered when NASA conduct review of screening process for astronauts. Maybe gender feminists will even have audacity to say something like, "There wasn't a critical mass of female astronauts in NASA, that's why Laurel Clark wasn't feeling comfortable, blah, blah, blah!! We need more women, women as astonauts and in top positions, blah, blah!! Need to suspend all hiring and promotion of men until we say itç—´ OK, blah, blah!!". Never underestimate gender feminists' audacity or ability to spin the news and promote their agenda even in the most difficult times.
It is quite frightening that people of this mental state was flying in space just less than a year ago! What if "she" found out that other "female" astronaut in the spaceship was having affair with her significant others and decided to kill her on space? What if "she" found out that her nemesis is in other spacecraft and decided to attack? Future could be quite interesting.
I almost forgot to mention that the blatant difference in the way society treat men and women are again in work here. If male astronaut attacked other male, he wouldn't be put on "PAID LEAVE" like Laurel Clark but would be summarily fired, he wouldn't be paroled immediately but would be put behind bars, and no sympathetic article trying to fault on any place other than the culprit herself, but wholesale generalization that men are not mentally stable enough to be astronauts but only stay-at-home dads, probably to be penned by Maureen Dawd...
It's interesting that it was a woman who made the most astounding incident in the history of NASA. I would suspect that there was artificial lowering of bar for women to join NASA and be astronauts in order to satisfy gender bureaucrats who are counting gender ratio in every federal institutions. Although I'm 100% confident that this would never even be considered when NASA conduct review of screening process for astronauts. Maybe gender feminists will even have audacity to say something like, "There wasn't a critical mass of female astronauts in NASA, that's why Laurel Clark wasn't feeling comfortable, blah, blah, blah!! We need more women, women as astonauts and in top positions, blah, blah!! Need to suspend all hiring and promotion of men until we say itç—´ OK, blah, blah!!". Never underestimate gender feminists' audacity or ability to spin the news and promote their agenda even in the most difficult times.
It is quite frightening that people of this mental state was flying in space just less than a year ago! What if "she" found out that other "female" astronaut in the spaceship was having affair with her significant others and decided to kill her on space? What if "she" found out that her nemesis is in other spacecraft and decided to attack? Future could be quite interesting.
I almost forgot to mention that the blatant difference in the way society treat men and women are again in work here. If male astronaut attacked other male, he wouldn't be put on "PAID LEAVE" like Laurel Clark but would be summarily fired, he wouldn't be paroled immediately but would be put behind bars, and no sympathetic article trying to fault on any place other than the culprit herself, but wholesale generalization that men are not mentally stable enough to be astronauts but only stay-at-home dads, probably to be penned by Maureen Dawd...
Environmental polution - women especially hit hard
The story reminded me of an old joke, "The world to end tomorrow, women especially hit hard!". Well, being a bit sarcastic, maybe this is technically true, because they are more women than men on earth (however slightly) and the definitions of "especially" and "hard" really depends on who speaks it.
But even though the articles promotes further victimhood of women, one is left to wonder, on what grounds could the article proclaim that pollution is "particularly" bad for women? Reading a little bit more carefully, you'll find out that this "big federally funded study" like many other public of private study of these days, doesn't even bother to look into pollution's effect on men! I wonder how many people have even noticed this gender-biased focus of the study in the first place!?
But even though the articles promotes further victimhood of women, one is left to wonder, on what grounds could the article proclaim that pollution is "particularly" bad for women? Reading a little bit more carefully, you'll find out that this "big federally funded study" like many other public of private study of these days, doesn't even bother to look into pollution's effect on men! I wonder how many people have even noticed this gender-biased focus of the study in the first place!?
Fickle women and Andrea Dworkism
This pseudo-legal debate on whether woman can claim rape after initial consent is entirely done from women's perspective. An adult, grown-up women can have a full, legal right to change heart anytime, for whatever reason after giving initial consent and during sex, while men have to be always on a maximum alert during the act, which can often get wild, on the slightest sign of women changing her heart or he will risk ruining his life and prison rape. Aren't women going to take any responsibility for giving consent in the first place? Aren't we infantilizing women too much? Didn't know men wear condom? Well, couldn't you check before it began? Didn't know a man has HIV? What kind of women will learn that a man has HIV after starting sex?
What feminists are fighting for is an even greater power for everywomen to send everymen to prison at their whims. Come to think of it, this is a truly unique power that an ordinary citizen could have - to send another citizen to prisons at their whim...in ancient times, only tyrants used to have this kind of power but we've learned that this century is a "women's century". But this may be extreme but logical extension of to the two-class system that we have in the society, women (first class citizens) and men (second class citizens).
It's a bit funny that people (gender feminists and pro-feminist males) are seriously discussing how soon is soon enough to stop sex for men to avoid prison sentence, because even in States where a law (shall we call change-of-heart-law?) does not exist (Maryland), the court is already putting men behind bars for exactly that.
Actually this entire debate is kind of moot since no court in this country is going to back men in "he said, she said case" so even with or without a law, women can claim rape two weeks after perfectly consensual and romantic affair- no court in this country is going to doubt such a claim. Add to this brouhaha a proposal by gender feminists to criminalize men who have sex with adult women who sip a half can of beer before sex, soon it will be official to that no sex is safe in this country. By this I mean not "disease" safe, but "rape prosecution" safe sex.
Thanks to feminists' advocacy, the once solid line between haneous act of rape and consensual sex is further blurred. Am I the only one who smells a whiff of Andrea Dworkinism in the whole debate? While most gender feminists may deny it, my guess is that it is not going to stop until the legal definition of rape reaches feminists' icon Andrea Dworkin's definition of it which says "all form of sex is rape".
What feminists are fighting for is an even greater power for everywomen to send everymen to prison at their whims. Come to think of it, this is a truly unique power that an ordinary citizen could have - to send another citizen to prisons at their whim...in ancient times, only tyrants used to have this kind of power but we've learned that this century is a "women's century". But this may be extreme but logical extension of to the two-class system that we have in the society, women (first class citizens) and men (second class citizens).
It's a bit funny that people (gender feminists and pro-feminist males) are seriously discussing how soon is soon enough to stop sex for men to avoid prison sentence, because even in States where a law (shall we call change-of-heart-law?) does not exist (Maryland), the court is already putting men behind bars for exactly that.
Actually this entire debate is kind of moot since no court in this country is going to back men in "he said, she said case" so even with or without a law, women can claim rape two weeks after perfectly consensual and romantic affair- no court in this country is going to doubt such a claim. Add to this brouhaha a proposal by gender feminists to criminalize men who have sex with adult women who sip a half can of beer before sex, soon it will be official to that no sex is safe in this country. By this I mean not "disease" safe, but "rape prosecution" safe sex.
Thanks to feminists' advocacy, the once solid line between haneous act of rape and consensual sex is further blurred. Am I the only one who smells a whiff of Andrea Dworkinism in the whole debate? While most gender feminists may deny it, my guess is that it is not going to stop until the legal definition of rape reaches feminists' icon Andrea Dworkin's definition of it which says "all form of sex is rape".
Emergency! We do not have enough women DJs! Help! Help!
So this week's victim for feminists' endless attack on gender diversity is ....(drum rolling).....radio industry!! Congratulations for folks who work in that industry, you will be subjected to feminists' indoctrination campaign and gender sensitivity training until such time that feminists see no more reason to continue them (which means it will never end). Even better, Ms. Laverne has better idea for you; if you are not going to reach 50-50 gender ratio in DJs (Ms. Laverne picked this job for her gender-parity target・maybe she wants director and executive producers to be also 50-50, But definitely not for janitors I'm sure!) in the next 24 hours, she suggests "sex change" and "obligatory sex swap" Hmmm・that's one method that I rarely hear from even the most committed gender-warrior, but surely it will be included in the list of recommendations from now on. What better way to ensure 50-50 gender parity in all walks of life (but not including dirty or dangerous works to be determined by a committee of feminists); if there aren't enough good female DJs to fill in, just perform sex changes on some male DJs until the number of male DJs equals the number of female DJ (plural?)and forcibly transgendered former male DJs.
"Women condemned to domesticity"
Another novel that came out that inherit the "women are condemned to home while men enjoy outside" line of thinking. This kind of novel is very convenient for feminists and therefore in their view needs to be promoted, in the book section of the New York Times and other liberal fora. This kind of novel serves to deter young women from getting into an "incorrect" thinking that they will be stay-at-home-mom in the future, and the fictional accounts of poor women condemned to domesticity in the novel give feminists and working women reassurances and mental comfort that the path they've chosen was not wrong.
Monday, January 08, 2007
UK worse than Afghanistan??
By trying to make a point that the United Kingdom is a place worse off for women than Afghanistan or Iraq, this funny article unintentionally proves that militant feminists` often-repeated claim to justify gender quota, that higher the percentage of women in political and leadership positions, the more advanced the society and women have more rights and power, is actually wrong. How many people really think that Iraq or Afghanistan is a better place for women than the UK? Maybe only the gender-quota obsessed feminists whose only measure of happiness is the gender ratio at political and other socially prominent fields.
What were the members of the commission thinking? Maybe they, presumably most of whom subscribe to radical feminists theory, were thinking that by announcing such shocking information that UK is worse in women`s equality than such backward countries as Iraq, Rwanda and Afghanistan, they could make Brits feel ashamed of themselves and make them endorse their radical gender-quota plan. However it only reinforces suspicion that externally-imposed gender quota (Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan) and artificially high women`s percentage in political and economical arena has nothing to do with women`s equality.
Here are some interesting comments from readers…
AHH HAA
By: Happy man with Happy Wife , Sat, 06 Jan 2007 02:15:58 GMT
You figured it out!!! The western world is significantly worse than the third world.
In fact right now my wife is barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Granted she is college educated (graduated Cum Laude), has all of her sexual organs, and is allowed to drive to pretty much any store she wants, to spend money on pretty much any clothing she wants, pretty much anytime she wants, with pretty much anyone she wants.
Your report is so eye opening, I think I will move to Afghanistan immediately. Another good comment….
Has anyone on this commission, or that angry woman, ever considered the representation based on the number of applicants by rage, gender, or whatever they want to place discrimination? Who cares that the majority of the positions are held by men? Is it not possible that 70% of the men who applied and 70% of the women who applied to the job were denied, but if more men applied, there would stand to reason that more men hold the positions?
Just food for thought here, but it has to be said: Angry Women of the World, this is for you, were the heterosexual men more qualified? Were there other men turned down? Quit crying discrimination when you have nothing to cry about except that someone different from you got the job. Besides, if you aren`t, you certainly came across as a heterophobic female supremacist, and that`s not how you win complaints in the real world. Wake up, there`s competition for jobs and sometimes people of different genders and colors get hired.
What were the members of the commission thinking? Maybe they, presumably most of whom subscribe to radical feminists theory, were thinking that by announcing such shocking information that UK is worse in women`s equality than such backward countries as Iraq, Rwanda and Afghanistan, they could make Brits feel ashamed of themselves and make them endorse their radical gender-quota plan. However it only reinforces suspicion that externally-imposed gender quota (Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan) and artificially high women`s percentage in political and economical arena has nothing to do with women`s equality.
Here are some interesting comments from readers…
AHH HAA
By: Happy man with Happy Wife , Sat, 06 Jan 2007 02:15:58 GMT
You figured it out!!! The western world is significantly worse than the third world.
In fact right now my wife is barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Granted she is college educated (graduated Cum Laude), has all of her sexual organs, and is allowed to drive to pretty much any store she wants, to spend money on pretty much any clothing she wants, pretty much anytime she wants, with pretty much anyone she wants.
Your report is so eye opening, I think I will move to Afghanistan immediately. Another good comment….
Has anyone on this commission, or that angry woman, ever considered the representation based on the number of applicants by rage, gender, or whatever they want to place discrimination? Who cares that the majority of the positions are held by men? Is it not possible that 70% of the men who applied and 70% of the women who applied to the job were denied, but if more men applied, there would stand to reason that more men hold the positions?
Just food for thought here, but it has to be said: Angry Women of the World, this is for you, were the heterosexual men more qualified? Were there other men turned down? Quit crying discrimination when you have nothing to cry about except that someone different from you got the job. Besides, if you aren`t, you certainly came across as a heterophobic female supremacist, and that`s not how you win complaints in the real world. Wake up, there`s competition for jobs and sometimes people of different genders and colors get hired.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
What`s real news?
Translation of the news below - Norwegian feminists are getting worried that their funding and support are diminishing....
NewsTrack - Top News
Rape up dramatically in Oslo
OSLO, Norway, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- Rapes are becoming increasingly common in Norway's capital city, with the number of victims seeking help from Oslo's clinic doubling in a decade.
This year, the emergency clinic reports almost 300 victims have come in for treatment, Aftenposten reported. That's up from 235 last year and enough that Oslo's per capita rate of reported sexual assaults is higher than New York's.
"Our resources have been the same for the past 10 years, while the number of our patients has doubled, and continues to increase this year," said Endre Sandvik, the head of the Oslo Legevakt Hospital.
Sandvik said clinic staff are also taking more time with each victim to secure evidence for prosecutors.
"The growth in the number of rapes is dramatic," said Councilwoman Sylvi Listhaug. "It makes me angry, and worried about the young women of our city."
NewsTrack - Top News
Rape up dramatically in Oslo
OSLO, Norway, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- Rapes are becoming increasingly common in Norway's capital city, with the number of victims seeking help from Oslo's clinic doubling in a decade.
This year, the emergency clinic reports almost 300 victims have come in for treatment, Aftenposten reported. That's up from 235 last year and enough that Oslo's per capita rate of reported sexual assaults is higher than New York's.
"Our resources have been the same for the past 10 years, while the number of our patients has doubled, and continues to increase this year," said Endre Sandvik, the head of the Oslo Legevakt Hospital.
Sandvik said clinic staff are also taking more time with each victim to secure evidence for prosecutors.
"The growth in the number of rapes is dramatic," said Councilwoman Sylvi Listhaug. "It makes me angry, and worried about the young women of our city."
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Ambition management
This totalitarian feminists now want to engage in “ambition management”, after finding out that girls` ambition tend to taper down compared to boys` after certain age. In their uniquely feminine reasoning, achievement with regard to social status is a direct result of one`s ambition, and nothing else is a factor. Thus, in the spirit of achieving total statistical gender parity both in external social and economical status and internal emotional and psychological realm, we would need to highten girls ambition, while at the same time lower that of boys, perhaps by imbuing them with the virtue of being a stay-at-home-husband.
Girls` ambition needs to be monitored so it remains sufficiently high to feminists` satisfaction, and so that they do not start dreaming about easy comfortable life as a housewife. Boys` ambition needs to be monitored so that it remains lower (this is an important point) than girls`, and so that at least certain percentage of them dream of becoming a perfect house-husband.
The author seems to wonder why girls` excellence in higher education is not mirrored to the exact proportion in the women`s status in political and economic realm. We can leave the speculation to feminists, and I`m sure they will come up with thousand ways in patriarchical society discriminates women to prevent the fulfillment of their full potential. But for the rest of us, it is good to know that not all the Fortune 500 CEOs come from the top universities, and not all the top graduates of Ivy League schools end up in top executive positions. It means that there is mobility in society and opportunity for second chance in life after college. You don` t need to graduate from top MBA schools to be a CEO of big company. You don`t need to spend your entire college life inside library and be a valedictorian to be a good politician. Bill Gates doesn`t even have a bachelor`s degree. It is good thing for most of us, except feminists.
Girls` ambition needs to be monitored so it remains sufficiently high to feminists` satisfaction, and so that they do not start dreaming about easy comfortable life as a housewife. Boys` ambition needs to be monitored so that it remains lower (this is an important point) than girls`, and so that at least certain percentage of them dream of becoming a perfect house-husband.
The author seems to wonder why girls` excellence in higher education is not mirrored to the exact proportion in the women`s status in political and economic realm. We can leave the speculation to feminists, and I`m sure they will come up with thousand ways in patriarchical society discriminates women to prevent the fulfillment of their full potential. But for the rest of us, it is good to know that not all the Fortune 500 CEOs come from the top universities, and not all the top graduates of Ivy League schools end up in top executive positions. It means that there is mobility in society and opportunity for second chance in life after college. You don` t need to graduate from top MBA schools to be a CEO of big company. You don`t need to spend your entire college life inside library and be a valedictorian to be a good politician. Bill Gates doesn`t even have a bachelor`s degree. It is good thing for most of us, except feminists.
Washington D.C. polce chief 2
Just one day after the Washington Post and other mainstream media rushed to extol the history-making, first-ever (fulltime) female police chief in Washington D.C., concerns over the way in which the new mayor-elect chose the woman were raised. Looks like gender-based appointment went too far. Expect soon feminists complaining “if a man was chosen, there wouldn`t have been such concerns. It`s discrimination!!”. Just amazing to see the extent to which, by ignoring all key advisors, this new young mayor-elect would go to bypass all the eligible male candidates for the police chief post and appoint a woman, who were far down the list. As the newsstory noted, Ms. Lanier is likely to be confirmed despite all this media hype, because she is a “woman”. Of course, nobody wants to risk being labeled as “anti-woman”, however such labeling is unfair and not based on facts.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
D.C. police chief
Recent politically-correct fever of appointing women as chief of security units, traditionally thought as a male bastion, is sweeping the Washington D.C. as well. In an article about this blatant, nothing-but gender-based appointment, Lanier recounts that “…and as a woman in the department, she said, her path has not always been smooth. She doesn't expect it to become any easier when she's chief….” Are you kidding? The only reason you are chosen as the chief of D.C. police is because you are a woman. Wake up!
"Just for being female"
The male columnist mourns the fact that a report on violence against women released by the United Nations was greeted with “collective yawn” in mass media.
Why is it? How can liberal media NOT rush into judgement and indict all men on earth guilty of discrimination against women? Is it because there have been too many of this kind of agenda-driven, advocacy researches, with identical conclusions and recommendations (more women in political position is by far the perennial number one in the latter category) that even liberal media is getting tired of this?
Is it because in this chivalrous male columnist`s view, anything less than days of consecutive top-page coverage by all major media outlets on the issue amounts to willful ignorance by male-dominated media? (We already have enough of this kind of advocacy media reporting, don`t we?)
Or is it simply because the article and the UN report itself doesn`t stand close scrutiny?
Maybe all of the above.
The examples cited by the columnist and others mentioned in the report are indeed awful, but do they represent “war against women all over the planet” Here touches of ideological feminism creeps in. A “war against women all over the planet”? That`s a quite a statement to make, isn`t it? In order for an accusation “war against women all over the planet” to hold true, it has to pass many hurdles. First, it has to exist on every part of the world, not just in some limited regions of the world or cultures. Second, these misdeeds need to be carried out with the explicit purpose to execute “war against women all over the planet” Third, the level and pervasiveness of violence and its negative effect are in such proportion that it constitutes a “war”.
The author mentions that in the United States, “homicide was the second leading cause of death for girls 15 to 18” and that “8 percent of all the homicide victims in the study had been killed by an acquaintance or intimate partner” While the statistic looks horrible indeed, until you actually start to use your brain and take into account the fact that women suffer far, far less violence from non-acquaintance / intimate partners than men suffer, thereby proportionally raising the percentage.
What does the author means by “just being female”? Thousands of women are killed in India for unacceptable reasons. OK. But because just being female? Then how about the crime of “just being female” for the rest of 5 billion female in the country? Are they burned? Of course not. However horrible the reasons these women were killed for, you smell the sulfur, or, the smell of militant feminism and professional man-haters when one starts asserting that those women were killed for “just being female”.
If a group of men beat up a man in a bar because the poor bumped into one of the guys` arm and spilled cocktail all over the guy, isn`t he also punished just for being male? Women spilling cocktail on other men will most likely not going to be punished, but be rewarded and wooed. And how about thousands of men, many of them conscripts, who die in war all over the world every year?
The real motive behind this kind of advocacy-study-through-feminists-mouth-piece-UN and chivalrous commentators is obvious. By focusing world`s attention solely on women victims of violence, which is already far fewer than male victims, they want to tilt feminists-owned political landscape even further in favor of women species. They are also sending out a clear message that men do not deserve any attention or resource; only women do.
Why is it? How can liberal media NOT rush into judgement and indict all men on earth guilty of discrimination against women? Is it because there have been too many of this kind of agenda-driven, advocacy researches, with identical conclusions and recommendations (more women in political position is by far the perennial number one in the latter category) that even liberal media is getting tired of this?
Is it because in this chivalrous male columnist`s view, anything less than days of consecutive top-page coverage by all major media outlets on the issue amounts to willful ignorance by male-dominated media? (We already have enough of this kind of advocacy media reporting, don`t we?)
Or is it simply because the article and the UN report itself doesn`t stand close scrutiny?
Maybe all of the above.
The examples cited by the columnist and others mentioned in the report are indeed awful, but do they represent “war against women all over the planet” Here touches of ideological feminism creeps in. A “war against women all over the planet”? That`s a quite a statement to make, isn`t it? In order for an accusation “war against women all over the planet” to hold true, it has to pass many hurdles. First, it has to exist on every part of the world, not just in some limited regions of the world or cultures. Second, these misdeeds need to be carried out with the explicit purpose to execute “war against women all over the planet” Third, the level and pervasiveness of violence and its negative effect are in such proportion that it constitutes a “war”.
The author mentions that in the United States, “homicide was the second leading cause of death for girls 15 to 18” and that “8 percent of all the homicide victims in the study had been killed by an acquaintance or intimate partner” While the statistic looks horrible indeed, until you actually start to use your brain and take into account the fact that women suffer far, far less violence from non-acquaintance / intimate partners than men suffer, thereby proportionally raising the percentage.
What does the author means by “just being female”? Thousands of women are killed in India for unacceptable reasons. OK. But because just being female? Then how about the crime of “just being female” for the rest of 5 billion female in the country? Are they burned? Of course not. However horrible the reasons these women were killed for, you smell the sulfur, or, the smell of militant feminism and professional man-haters when one starts asserting that those women were killed for “just being female”.
If a group of men beat up a man in a bar because the poor bumped into one of the guys` arm and spilled cocktail all over the guy, isn`t he also punished just for being male? Women spilling cocktail on other men will most likely not going to be punished, but be rewarded and wooed. And how about thousands of men, many of them conscripts, who die in war all over the world every year?
The real motive behind this kind of advocacy-study-through-feminists-mouth-piece-UN and chivalrous commentators is obvious. By focusing world`s attention solely on women victims of violence, which is already far fewer than male victims, they want to tilt feminists-owned political landscape even further in favor of women species. They are also sending out a clear message that men do not deserve any attention or resource; only women do.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Divorce rights to unmarried couples??
There are a few ways to look at the new proposal in the UK to extend the divorce rights to unmarried couples.
One is to see it as an attempt by divorce industry to find new clientele, as one of the comments pointed out.
Second is to see it as an extension of efforts to protect or “empower” one party of the unmarried couple, and of course I am referring to a female party (why would government even bother about males?). Married women are now sufficiently protected under current divorce laws - they can now file for divorce, get the house, alimony, custody of children and child support from men - all of them by simply flinging the accusation of child abuse or domestic violence, no question asked and the government will guarantee she will get the as much as possible. But poor unmarried women still do not enjoy these splendid benefits courtesy of anti-male government.
Third is to see it as a continued effort by anti-family feminists to trivialize the status of marriage vis-a-vis other form of intimate arrangement or cohabitation, by bringing up the level of legal protection of these to that of formal traditional marriage. By extending same legal benefits to cohabitation, formal marriage will become more undistinguishable from couples living together and will become just one of any different types of cohabitation.
New 'divorce' rights for unmarried couples
Clare Dyer, legal editor
Tuesday October 31, 2006
The Guardian
One is to see it as an attempt by divorce industry to find new clientele, as one of the comments pointed out.
Second is to see it as an extension of efforts to protect or “empower” one party of the unmarried couple, and of course I am referring to a female party (why would government even bother about males?). Married women are now sufficiently protected under current divorce laws - they can now file for divorce, get the house, alimony, custody of children and child support from men - all of them by simply flinging the accusation of child abuse or domestic violence, no question asked and the government will guarantee she will get the as much as possible. But poor unmarried women still do not enjoy these splendid benefits courtesy of anti-male government.
Third is to see it as a continued effort by anti-family feminists to trivialize the status of marriage vis-a-vis other form of intimate arrangement or cohabitation, by bringing up the level of legal protection of these to that of formal traditional marriage. By extending same legal benefits to cohabitation, formal marriage will become more undistinguishable from couples living together and will become just one of any different types of cohabitation.
New 'divorce' rights for unmarried couples
Clare Dyer, legal editor
Tuesday October 31, 2006
The Guardian
It`s in women`s advantage
If the stats are in their disadvantage, they will shriek and scream discrimination, if the stats are in their advantage, they will gloat and try to turn it into a foundation for establishing matriarchy - and of course we know feminists are only fight for “equality”, right?
While lamenting the relatively small pay gap between men and women which is about 19 point gap, they gloat over women`s huge advantage (women influence 90 percent of purchase, control 80 percent of every consumer dollar spent, make 70 percent of all travel decisions, etc.) - any call for equality here, ma’am?
While lamenting the relatively small pay gap between men and women which is about 19 point gap, they gloat over women`s huge advantage (women influence 90 percent of purchase, control 80 percent of every consumer dollar spent, make 70 percent of all travel decisions, etc.) - any call for equality here, ma’am?
Musings from Sweden Part 1
Here are compilations of interesting stories from the feminists` wonderland a.k.a Sweden…
After the shocking defeat in general election, some party members of the outgoing Social Democrat which ruled the nation for years have manufactured and echoed convenient "consensus" that next leader of the party should be a woman because, “man will not be able” to beat the new ruling party, which is run by, alas, a man. May I ask why it has to be a woman, since there seems to be nothing in the article which backs such a claim (other than militant feminists` chest-thumping that you can read from between the lines)?
Feminists, not only in Sweden, but across the world are busy creating this kind of convenient “consensus” among general public that political leaders “should be” women, not so subtle shift from their original egalitarian position of “equal” rights for women to be elected political leaders. In recent race to succeed Kofi Annan as the next Secretary-General of the United Nations, feminists from across the world have asserted that next SG should be a woman, saying that “gender barrier” has to be taken down. But if you ague that only woman can become next SG, then who is it that is setting up gender barrier? While most non-feminists would like to judge candidates on their own merit, feminists would want to see gender as the first sifter to ensure that a man would not get the job.
Though barrage of op-ed pieces and sympathetic liberal western media who accepted them to print, feminists try to hypnotize public into thinking that choosing a man for a top job is somehow immoral and also an obstacle to furthering women`s rights. They partially succeeded in manufacturing “consensus” that next SG should be a woman, at least a consensus among liberal elite.
I`m not sure if the ex-minister for equality and deputy prime minister (no less) was regretting the fact Sweden has become too gender-equal as, according to her, it actually prompted men to be more violent against women. If that`s true, that would be quite a hard choice for feminists to turn back the clock and reinstate patriarchy to reduce violence against women or enjoy current care-free feminists utopia and see high rate of violence? But one need not ponder this question seriously as long as the statement is coming out from the mouth of gender feminists who based her argument on study done by - as it turned out, a fellow feminist. Swedish feminists seem to be not much behind their American cohorts in manufacturing and hyper-boling hysteria about statistics concerning women - she inflated percentage of women who experience violence from three percent to forty percent! That`s 13 times more than original figure!
The fact is that for these feminists and their pet industry to survive, there needs to be a growing or at least a continuing “crisis” for women, otherwise their raison d`etre will disappear and the huge government subsidies and other goodies they receive will dwindle.
Once I heard a feminist say that her dream is to see a true gender-equal society so that committed feminists like her will not have to fight for equality any more and retire. Looks like they`ve gotten accustomed to and even addicted to the perks and power that were conferred upon them as a representative of women are not willing to relinquish them.
After the shocking defeat in general election, some party members of the outgoing Social Democrat which ruled the nation for years have manufactured and echoed convenient "consensus" that next leader of the party should be a woman because, “man will not be able” to beat the new ruling party, which is run by, alas, a man. May I ask why it has to be a woman, since there seems to be nothing in the article which backs such a claim (other than militant feminists` chest-thumping that you can read from between the lines)?
Feminists, not only in Sweden, but across the world are busy creating this kind of convenient “consensus” among general public that political leaders “should be” women, not so subtle shift from their original egalitarian position of “equal” rights for women to be elected political leaders. In recent race to succeed Kofi Annan as the next Secretary-General of the United Nations, feminists from across the world have asserted that next SG should be a woman, saying that “gender barrier” has to be taken down. But if you ague that only woman can become next SG, then who is it that is setting up gender barrier? While most non-feminists would like to judge candidates on their own merit, feminists would want to see gender as the first sifter to ensure that a man would not get the job.
Though barrage of op-ed pieces and sympathetic liberal western media who accepted them to print, feminists try to hypnotize public into thinking that choosing a man for a top job is somehow immoral and also an obstacle to furthering women`s rights. They partially succeeded in manufacturing “consensus” that next SG should be a woman, at least a consensus among liberal elite.
I`m not sure if the ex-minister for equality and deputy prime minister (no less) was regretting the fact Sweden has become too gender-equal as, according to her, it actually prompted men to be more violent against women. If that`s true, that would be quite a hard choice for feminists to turn back the clock and reinstate patriarchy to reduce violence against women or enjoy current care-free feminists utopia and see high rate of violence? But one need not ponder this question seriously as long as the statement is coming out from the mouth of gender feminists who based her argument on study done by - as it turned out, a fellow feminist. Swedish feminists seem to be not much behind their American cohorts in manufacturing and hyper-boling hysteria about statistics concerning women - she inflated percentage of women who experience violence from three percent to forty percent! That`s 13 times more than original figure!
The fact is that for these feminists and their pet industry to survive, there needs to be a growing or at least a continuing “crisis” for women, otherwise their raison d`etre will disappear and the huge government subsidies and other goodies they receive will dwindle.
Once I heard a feminist say that her dream is to see a true gender-equal society so that committed feminists like her will not have to fight for equality any more and retire. Looks like they`ve gotten accustomed to and even addicted to the perks and power that were conferred upon them as a representative of women are not willing to relinquish them.
Friday, October 27, 2006
False rape accuser
I don't know why this habitual false rape accuser is in such a whinning
mode...
If you are going to knowingly make false accusations, and completely ruin
the accused men's life with them, you better be prepared for the
consequences when the false accusations are exposed as well.
Instead, this woman is reported to be "devastated" and feel like the "whole
world fell apart"! For what? For her lies being exposed in the public? This
women's fake emotional devastation shows the state of arrogance and
complacency women have reached as a result of all the rape-sheild laws and
rape victim industry and sympathetic media toward alleged victims. These
women take it for granted that they can wantonly make false accusation about
rape, while their privacy and identity being tightly proteted by law, and if
lucky get huge settlments award or benefits from the government. They come
to forget that lieing is bad, especially the ones that are done with a
malicious intent to ruin innocent people's entire life. They have also
become unaccostomed to the fact that one has take responsibility for their
own acts. Oh, but this "poor' women was abe to get none of these "benefits"
because her lie was exposed and now she is utterly "shock"ed...my sympathy
goes to her......
Or is it just another way of her continuing to cling to her beloved "victim"
status? Now that her initial claim of being victim of rape no longer does
the trick of duping the public, she changed her tactic to play some feeble,
sensitive woman who is "devastated" by such heinous act as exposing a lie in
public...
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
"Gender-specific" law
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FOR_MEN_ONLY?SITE=NYONE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
If the exposure law in California is considered to be gender specific since
the reference in the law is masculine "his", then I think the original
provisions in the Constitution for the eligibility to run for the US
President and other political seats are also gender specific, no? and of
course, All "men" are created equall......
bye bye, Hillary and what are all these women doing in the Capitol Hill?
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
High heel as instrument of oppression Part 2
Follow-up to yesterday's entry...
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20639690-5006029,00.html
if women are subjected to oppresive dress code, why don't they just buy
shoes that doesn't have high heels? We are told that women now make
somewhere between 80 percent or more of all purchase dicisions (doens't Pru
want to investigate into this "inequality"?), and with all the money they
have at their disposal, and they still cannot stay away from high heels?
How deeply entrenched the oppresive western dress code for women are!
Why so many high heels are still on market, many of which actually being
designed by felow women? Are they co-conspirator in men's oppression of
women? if high heel is considered to be oppressive tool against women, and
since we live in a world where issues affecting women receives the UTMOST
(and only) IMPORTANCE, why don't Pru take one step ahead and lead the
banning of sale of any shoes for women taht have heels higher than, say, one
inch? - with imposition of penalty to departments and stores that carry high
heels and throw the owners into jail (if they are men of course)
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Stephen Hawking vs. gender feminists
How would card-carrying feminists and women`s organization react to the domestic violence that Professor Hawking has suffered for over a decade? It should be one or the combination of the following;
1. Professor Hawking made her do it.
2. Patriarchical society made her do it.
3. Men deserve it, simply because they are men.
4. Because Professor Hawking didn`t share half of the housework. If it`s in Spain, he would have been criminally prosecuted under the new law.
5. The abuses that Elain, the (former) wife of professor Hawking suffered when she was a kid, or from her previous marriage made her do it. (The Dailymail can come with one instantly, if necessary.)
6. male-dominated mass media cooked up and perpetuated the story.
And to be followed by screaming for more women-only DV shelter and empowering legislation….
1. Professor Hawking made her do it.
2. Patriarchical society made her do it.
3. Men deserve it, simply because they are men.
4. Because Professor Hawking didn`t share half of the housework. If it`s in Spain, he would have been criminally prosecuted under the new law.
5. The abuses that Elain, the (former) wife of professor Hawking suffered when she was a kid, or from her previous marriage made her do it. (The Dailymail can come with one instantly, if necessary.)
6. male-dominated mass media cooked up and perpetuated the story.
And to be followed by screaming for more women-only DV shelter and empowering legislation….
High heels as an instrument of oppression
Australia`s cabinet minister still in mold of 60`s bra-burning feminists・she said that western women are “subjected to oppressive dress code” by “torturing” feet with high heels"... then why don`t enlightened western women simply not wear them and wear instead running shoes or sandal or whatever you like? (in fact many women wear sandals and other very relaxing shoes at offices, while men`s choice is still mostly limited to dress shoes) With all the education and money and title western women have acquired over the years through affirmative actions, gender quotas and litigations, etc, are they still unable to choose their own shoes? Or do we need some new laws or governmental agencies regulating what kind of shoes women should wear?
Husband's opinion infuriates Goward
Email Print Normal font Large font Sarah Smiles, Canberra
October 23, 2006
Husband's opinion infuriates Goward
Email Print Normal font Large font Sarah Smiles, Canberra
October 23, 2006
Israeli president
The biggest headline-grabbing opportunity for sexual harassment industry is unfolding...
I do not know if ever the head of state was accused of sexual harassment (except Clinton for whom the industry made miraculous about-face and went for all-out defense for him).
The bigger the fish, the bigger the publicity effect for your agenda. Charge against one low or middle ranking military officer wouldn`t get any media attention and simply become part of statistics, a charge against the head of states, however ceremonious the post may be in Israel, is a slum dunk for the sexual harassment industry.
In addition to the publicity effect, it could lend voice to somewhat self-serving argument made in some quarters of feminist groups that those high level post should be filled by a woman, not a man, because; a woman in high position, almost by definition if you take the industry`s version of it, is immune from such vague yet devastating charges.
And as Israel has been following the example of the United States who opted to go for a “kindler, gentler military” with more positions close to combat opening up for women and more gender-norming in training and operation being made mandatory, no wonder the Israel military had difficulty defeating Hizbollah? With the overwhelming dominance of its military might over any other nation in the world, the United States can placate the gender feminsts by going “kindler, gentler military” to some extent without much real disadvantage, Israel, who is surrounded by hostile nations with large standing armies and whose margins of military superiority to others is nowhere close to that the United States enjoys, doing the same could prove devastating for them.
I do not know if ever the head of state was accused of sexual harassment (except Clinton for whom the industry made miraculous about-face and went for all-out defense for him).
The bigger the fish, the bigger the publicity effect for your agenda. Charge against one low or middle ranking military officer wouldn`t get any media attention and simply become part of statistics, a charge against the head of states, however ceremonious the post may be in Israel, is a slum dunk for the sexual harassment industry.
In addition to the publicity effect, it could lend voice to somewhat self-serving argument made in some quarters of feminist groups that those high level post should be filled by a woman, not a man, because; a woman in high position, almost by definition if you take the industry`s version of it, is immune from such vague yet devastating charges.
And as Israel has been following the example of the United States who opted to go for a “kindler, gentler military” with more positions close to combat opening up for women and more gender-norming in training and operation being made mandatory, no wonder the Israel military had difficulty defeating Hizbollah? With the overwhelming dominance of its military might over any other nation in the world, the United States can placate the gender feminsts by going “kindler, gentler military” to some extent without much real disadvantage, Israel, who is surrounded by hostile nations with large standing armies and whose margins of military superiority to others is nowhere close to that the United States enjoys, doing the same could prove devastating for them.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
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?).
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
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
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
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
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Monday, September 18, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
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
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
Thursday, August 31, 2006
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)