discrimination, BREAKING NEWS!!
MEN EARN ONLY 80 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR WOMEN EARN!!
At least this would be a logical conclusion that one would get from the study on income gap of young men and women in Dallas, if you were to employ the same method of women—earn-xx-cents –to-every-dollar-men-make myth (you can insert in any number you want in xx, it’s just up to feminists’ whim)
But of course everyone, at least men and most of women who are not infected by feminists disinformation and who could do some basic math (which feminists can’t – remember, women, or feminists, are not good at math) know that this kind of argument is completely fraud. Interestingly (and quite expectedly) feminists didn’t resort to this fraud math tactics this time, though the famous figure is still being recycled here without shame.
Instead, just like a broken record, feminists know to do only one thing - cry discrimination. How to cry discrimination in this kind of seemingly impossible situation (to cry discrimination) you ask? Pretty easy, if you are seasoned feminist.
One sayS, “middle-class black and Latino women who are making similar advances in income but are dealing in many cases with much more deep-rooted male prejudices.”
Another goes;
“When she comes back (from giving birth and child-rearing) she will find herself a year or two behind the rest of the workforce in terms of training, or might have missed on wage increases. In other words, the so-called "mommy trap" remains largely intact - and is waiting to ensnare the new batch of urban and educated 20-something women when they do decide to marry and raise a family, just as it has their predecessors.”
So the conclusion of this study inevitably is;
"The root causes of the pay gap between men and women still exist and could kick in later. This is not an occasion to stop talking about this problem."
In other worlds, their message is clear; don’t be complacent women, keep working and do not get married and take time off from career, outearn men and beat in promotion race, and tear down patriarchy!”
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Girls more likely to suffer concussion than boys
I don’t know why the New York Times, usually a reliable promoter of women and girls as strong, independent, stereo-type defying, trail-brazing amazons, reverted to this kind of article that would surly prompt some people to say, “I TOLD YOU SOOOOO…. Girls are too feeble and just not good for competitive sports.”
In the article, even faced with the super-obvious, the doctors chose to play dumb;
“Doctors are also uncertain as to why documented rates of concussion among high school girls are consistently higher than among boys in the same sports.”
Perhaps the doctors are the only people who cannot understand the reason, or maybe along with die-hard feminists, why women and girls suffer more concussion than men and boys while playing the same sports. I think even 10 year-old kid can understand it instinctively.
Their dumbness gets worse as they try to come up with politically-correct explanation which allow them avoid admitting the obvious physical weakness of females compared to males, and even give some credits to females for their honesty in reporting one’s own physical conditions;
The primary theory is that girls might be more honest in reporting injuries — though experts are confident that many girls, just like boys, hide injuries either because they are not aware of the risks or because they simply do not want to miss playing time.
But in the end they seemed to have realized that not mentioning even as mere “possibility” of the obvious reason that everyone else know is too damaging to their credibility;
Other rationales include the fact that girls’ neck muscles are less developed than boys’, providing less shock absorption during impact.
It is just one of the “other rationales”, of course….
Perhaps the writer at the NYT could not take the fact that attention is mostly on boys when it comes to concussions in school sports any longer, so he decided to highlight the plight of female athletes, just to “level the playing field”.. After all, we live in the Title IX world, where everything (except negative) needs to be shared equally by men and women…
In the article, even faced with the super-obvious, the doctors chose to play dumb;
“Doctors are also uncertain as to why documented rates of concussion among high school girls are consistently higher than among boys in the same sports.”
Perhaps the doctors are the only people who cannot understand the reason, or maybe along with die-hard feminists, why women and girls suffer more concussion than men and boys while playing the same sports. I think even 10 year-old kid can understand it instinctively.
Their dumbness gets worse as they try to come up with politically-correct explanation which allow them avoid admitting the obvious physical weakness of females compared to males, and even give some credits to females for their honesty in reporting one’s own physical conditions;
The primary theory is that girls might be more honest in reporting injuries — though experts are confident that many girls, just like boys, hide injuries either because they are not aware of the risks or because they simply do not want to miss playing time.
But in the end they seemed to have realized that not mentioning even as mere “possibility” of the obvious reason that everyone else know is too damaging to their credibility;
Other rationales include the fact that girls’ neck muscles are less developed than boys’, providing less shock absorption during impact.
It is just one of the “other rationales”, of course….
Perhaps the writer at the NYT could not take the fact that attention is mostly on boys when it comes to concussions in school sports any longer, so he decided to highlight the plight of female athletes, just to “level the playing field”.. After all, we live in the Title IX world, where everything (except negative) needs to be shared equally by men and women…
World Tourism Day is a day to....
Just like any other governmental agencies in any Western developed countries, this international organization called the United Nations is completely and thoroughly brainwashed by ideologies of gender feminism. You would think that the World Tourism Day is a day to promote more tourism, or raise awareness about the eco-tourism, if we were to follow the trend in the industry.
NO.
Once it come under the purview of UN and its affiliate agencies, of which the World tourism Organization (WTO) is one, it cannot escape the feminists dogma; it needs to be reinterpreted in the liking of gender feminists. So the day has been transformed (or hijacked) into a day when people are forced to celebrate “on-line photo contest to show women in leadership roles in the tourism sector.” - in the familiar vein of power-hungry UN feminists number –one obsession; taking more leadership positions.
Note that there is not even a call for, for example, more women-friendly travel accommodation, transportation, etc., which is more modest but still a “feminist” enough argument, but they went straight to demand more leadership position in tourism sector, as if they don’t even have a patience to hide their true intent.
And empowerment of women and education for girls? What exactly do these two have to do with tourism? Again, not much with the tourism itself. But they help the aim of women trying to attain more senior position in business industry, I guess.
NO.
Once it come under the purview of UN and its affiliate agencies, of which the World tourism Organization (WTO) is one, it cannot escape the feminists dogma; it needs to be reinterpreted in the liking of gender feminists. So the day has been transformed (or hijacked) into a day when people are forced to celebrate “on-line photo contest to show women in leadership roles in the tourism sector.” - in the familiar vein of power-hungry UN feminists number –one obsession; taking more leadership positions.
Note that there is not even a call for, for example, more women-friendly travel accommodation, transportation, etc., which is more modest but still a “feminist” enough argument, but they went straight to demand more leadership position in tourism sector, as if they don’t even have a patience to hide their true intent.
And empowerment of women and education for girls? What exactly do these two have to do with tourism? Again, not much with the tourism itself. But they help the aim of women trying to attain more senior position in business industry, I guess.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
men too good for women - It's a dsicrimination!
I’ve been emphasizing that the real motive for feminists’ so-called quest for gender equality has nothing to do with gender equality but simply a carefully disguised attack on males.
This article, also found on insidehighered.com, which I have been enjoying reading for the last few days, maybe one of a spinoffs from Linda Hirshmann’s article that provoked quite a controversy some time ago.
Anyway, excerpt from the article;
“why not simply require faculty fathers to produce half again as much (teaching, scholarship, whatever) at each step of the way that the faculty mothers do, rather than lowering the requirements for the women? Demanding of these pampered fellas that they work as hard, over all, as their female counterparts do would add a salutary dash of reality to their perceived superiority to women in the workplace, level the playing field and create some job opportunities for ambitious women who want to do a little extra. A modest proposal.”
So Linda openly advocates and thinks it “A modest proposal” to restrict men to produce half as much academic work as women do, to compensate for the fact that women cannot produce as much as men.
It is interesting. Employ any means necessary to achieve gender parity on paper. If women is lagging behind, first, give them a few extra hand. If women are still behind, keep men from going so far ahead so that women can catch up and, alas, men and women are the same and therefore equality achieved!
I think the feminists have come to grudging realization (though they never would admit to it) that men are simply superior and more productive in academic field and their s no way or women to trully catch up with them, and thus their focus has shifted from how to empower and give a few extra points for being a woman, to how to restrict or control men’s uncontrollably superior ability compared to women.
Thus feminists’ new gender-equality mantra is defined.
1. Men are too good for women to catch up – it’s a gender discrimination!
2. How we could restrict men’s ability so that women could catch up?
I think this could be called “negative equality” - an attempt to control everyone’s ability or outputs so that everyone’s outputs are equal and no one fall behind, as opposed to “positive equality”, where all people can exercise their full potential on a level playing field.
After decades of pursuing gender equality on the assumption on the latter positive equality, when feminists believed that men and women’s potential are the same, they have finally saw the reality, that it is not. But they haven’t given up the ‘gender-equality” game, or “gender-sameness” game, and I'll bet those militant feminists soon will be hell-bent on restricting men’s ability.
This article, also found on insidehighered.com, which I have been enjoying reading for the last few days, maybe one of a spinoffs from Linda Hirshmann’s article that provoked quite a controversy some time ago.
Anyway, excerpt from the article;
“why not simply require faculty fathers to produce half again as much (teaching, scholarship, whatever) at each step of the way that the faculty mothers do, rather than lowering the requirements for the women? Demanding of these pampered fellas that they work as hard, over all, as their female counterparts do would add a salutary dash of reality to their perceived superiority to women in the workplace, level the playing field and create some job opportunities for ambitious women who want to do a little extra. A modest proposal.”
So Linda openly advocates and thinks it “A modest proposal” to restrict men to produce half as much academic work as women do, to compensate for the fact that women cannot produce as much as men.
It is interesting. Employ any means necessary to achieve gender parity on paper. If women is lagging behind, first, give them a few extra hand. If women are still behind, keep men from going so far ahead so that women can catch up and, alas, men and women are the same and therefore equality achieved!
I think the feminists have come to grudging realization (though they never would admit to it) that men are simply superior and more productive in academic field and their s no way or women to trully catch up with them, and thus their focus has shifted from how to empower and give a few extra points for being a woman, to how to restrict or control men’s uncontrollably superior ability compared to women.
Thus feminists’ new gender-equality mantra is defined.
1. Men are too good for women to catch up – it’s a gender discrimination!
2. How we could restrict men’s ability so that women could catch up?
I think this could be called “negative equality” - an attempt to control everyone’s ability or outputs so that everyone’s outputs are equal and no one fall behind, as opposed to “positive equality”, where all people can exercise their full potential on a level playing field.
After decades of pursuing gender equality on the assumption on the latter positive equality, when feminists believed that men and women’s potential are the same, they have finally saw the reality, that it is not. But they haven’t given up the ‘gender-equality” game, or “gender-sameness” game, and I'll bet those militant feminists soon will be hell-bent on restricting men’s ability.
Insidehighered. No. 3
Insidehighered.com, hillarious article serios No. 3
Simple question; “overt discrimination was disappearing — but that its disappearance didn’t necessarily translate into women rising to the top ranks at the college or in departments.” – why the disappearance of (overt) discrimination automatically needs to result in more women at top ranks? Disappearance of discrimination only, if any, ensure that so-called playing field is leveled, but doesn’t guarantee promotion of people who were previously said to have been affected by the said discrimination. To gain promotion, you strive for it. You work for it. But it won’t be sent to your doorstep in a gift wrap or handed out to you by government or institution (actually it will in our current political climate)
“Three sociologists at the University of Arizona presented a paper on the impact of specialization on the academic careers of men and women.” What are those sociologists main research field? Maybe gender discrimination in their own university. It seems that the university hired ‘diversity officer” or “gender ration enforcement officer” when it really should be hiring sociologists. If the hiring committee of the university were less obsessed with meeting diversity goal or under less pressure to correct gender imbalance in its faculty makeup, they would have had hired ‘the best qualified candidate”, maybe male sociologists, who would be doing some real “sociological” study instead of pursuing narrow agenda that would only benefit their own chance of promotion. But I guess it really doesn’t matter; who cares whether sociologists were concerned about social phenomena that affects the society at large, or their interest is limited to advancing their own agenda (and their position) in faculty.
Another excerpt from the article; “The study found, for example, that departments routinely had smaller shares of women than could be found among younger members of their disciplines.” -Why the gender ratio (women professors) needs to mirror exactly the wider body (women’s ratio of Ph. Ds). It is obvious that the Title XI mentality is at play here. Whatever positions (usually women playing in college varsity teams in the Title XI world but in this case women professors) that feminists deem desirable or enhance women’s standing in feminists’ worldview (leadership role or non-traditional roles for women), at least needs to match the gender ratio of a wider body that happens to be in women’s advantage. Even if the logical connection between the two is hazy or difficult to establish definitively, (feminists could circumvent this by castigating the questioner male chauvinistic pig) it doesn’t matter, if the two gender ratio don’t match, it automatically becomes a ground for launching allegations of gender discrimination.
Simple question; “overt discrimination was disappearing — but that its disappearance didn’t necessarily translate into women rising to the top ranks at the college or in departments.” – why the disappearance of (overt) discrimination automatically needs to result in more women at top ranks? Disappearance of discrimination only, if any, ensure that so-called playing field is leveled, but doesn’t guarantee promotion of people who were previously said to have been affected by the said discrimination. To gain promotion, you strive for it. You work for it. But it won’t be sent to your doorstep in a gift wrap or handed out to you by government or institution (actually it will in our current political climate)
“Three sociologists at the University of Arizona presented a paper on the impact of specialization on the academic careers of men and women.” What are those sociologists main research field? Maybe gender discrimination in their own university. It seems that the university hired ‘diversity officer” or “gender ration enforcement officer” when it really should be hiring sociologists. If the hiring committee of the university were less obsessed with meeting diversity goal or under less pressure to correct gender imbalance in its faculty makeup, they would have had hired ‘the best qualified candidate”, maybe male sociologists, who would be doing some real “sociological” study instead of pursuing narrow agenda that would only benefit their own chance of promotion. But I guess it really doesn’t matter; who cares whether sociologists were concerned about social phenomena that affects the society at large, or their interest is limited to advancing their own agenda (and their position) in faculty.
Another excerpt from the article; “The study found, for example, that departments routinely had smaller shares of women than could be found among younger members of their disciplines.” -Why the gender ratio (women professors) needs to mirror exactly the wider body (women’s ratio of Ph. Ds). It is obvious that the Title XI mentality is at play here. Whatever positions (usually women playing in college varsity teams in the Title XI world but in this case women professors) that feminists deem desirable or enhance women’s standing in feminists’ worldview (leadership role or non-traditional roles for women), at least needs to match the gender ratio of a wider body that happens to be in women’s advantage. Even if the logical connection between the two is hazy or difficult to establish definitively, (feminists could circumvent this by castigating the questioner male chauvinistic pig) it doesn’t matter, if the two gender ratio don’t match, it automatically becomes a ground for launching allegations of gender discrimination.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Insidehighered.com No. 2 Productivity disproportionately affects women
hillarious article No. 2 on insidehighered.com.
Note that as time goes by, feminists’ allegation of gender discrimination is getting more and more specific. Before it was a discrimination against women in higher education. Period. Now it is, in “higher learning institution”, in the field of “academic medicine”, women suffers disproportionately by the “raising expectation” and they “get “consistently fewer” competing renewals grants than men” and “for every dollar a male primary investigator receives, women get 80 cents”. (in the last one they even succeeded in throwing some elements of “gender pay gap” trick.)
It may be true that men get promoted faster in academic medicine field and that men churn out more academic papers and work more productively, but the reason for that maybe is not because of the gender discrimination (when did the latter become evidence of discrimination by the way?) but because since simply men are better in general, and that superiority manifests itself in every aspects of academic career and life. You can keep on discovering almost infinite number of areas where “women are disproportionately affected” or in other words, “women are not as good as men’ in this or that area. Maybe men on average write better papers, better quality of research, better reviews, better at finding and collaborating with other researchers, better at finding opportunities to present their researches, better speech and presentation skills at conference., etc. etc., the list can go on and on. And my guess is that all of this, according to feminists, could be elements that can “disproportionately affect women.” Maybe men are better at more basic academic skills, such as writing composition, researching online, use of computer, use of library and lab, and these of course, would “disproportionately affect women”. Women, isn’t it time to simply admit the obvious?
I am still amazed that the author cites among the “bars” of rising expectation, “number of publications, numbers of collaborators and of graduate students and postdocs, invitations to speak and to present at national and international conferences”. In most people’s view, these would easily viewed as objective evaluation criteria on one’s productivity and excellence. In other words, productivity or excellence disproportionately affects women. I am very sorry.
Note that as time goes by, feminists’ allegation of gender discrimination is getting more and more specific. Before it was a discrimination against women in higher education. Period. Now it is, in “higher learning institution”, in the field of “academic medicine”, women suffers disproportionately by the “raising expectation” and they “get “consistently fewer” competing renewals grants than men” and “for every dollar a male primary investigator receives, women get 80 cents”. (in the last one they even succeeded in throwing some elements of “gender pay gap” trick.)
It may be true that men get promoted faster in academic medicine field and that men churn out more academic papers and work more productively, but the reason for that maybe is not because of the gender discrimination (when did the latter become evidence of discrimination by the way?) but because since simply men are better in general, and that superiority manifests itself in every aspects of academic career and life. You can keep on discovering almost infinite number of areas where “women are disproportionately affected” or in other words, “women are not as good as men’ in this or that area. Maybe men on average write better papers, better quality of research, better reviews, better at finding and collaborating with other researchers, better at finding opportunities to present their researches, better speech and presentation skills at conference., etc. etc., the list can go on and on. And my guess is that all of this, according to feminists, could be elements that can “disproportionately affect women.” Maybe men are better at more basic academic skills, such as writing composition, researching online, use of computer, use of library and lab, and these of course, would “disproportionately affect women”. Women, isn’t it time to simply admit the obvious?
I am still amazed that the author cites among the “bars” of rising expectation, “number of publications, numbers of collaborators and of graduate students and postdocs, invitations to speak and to present at national and international conferences”. In most people’s view, these would easily viewed as objective evaluation criteria on one’s productivity and excellence. In other words, productivity or excellence disproportionately affects women. I am very sorry.
Insidehighered.com
I found an interesting website where very high-educated women to gather to spew their misguided hatred against men and society. It is "insdeihighered.com. Actually if you want to go to a site of this sort, you can simply go to the website of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) or the National Organization for Women (NOW) if you prefer more general topic not necessarily specialized on issues rlated to higher institutions.
Anyway, below are some hillarious excerpts from this website;
From march 28 article;
“We found that women weren’t getting information about things as simple as timelines to becoming full professors. They didn’t know how to start the process.”
Women Ph.D don't even know those things? Or they don't even have a slightest motivation to research that on their own? How did they get Ph.D in the first place? Surely it would be very very hard to find, recruit, retain and promote such women. That's why feminist machinery has to be in a fll throttle to get more women in the profession to raise the gender balance. I feel sympathy for the author. My guess is that those women are too used to being treated like a pampered baby, as their big feminist sisters took care of them in all aspects of their academic career - from choosing the field in the first place, pursuing it, exam prep, recruitment, etc. Now their promotion will be taken care by their big sisters.
Another way to react to above quote is; uhh, do these women know how to write cover letters? uhhh, do they know how to use computer?
Anyway, below are some hillarious excerpts from this website;
From march 28 article;
“We found that women weren’t getting information about things as simple as timelines to becoming full professors. They didn’t know how to start the process.”
Women Ph.D don't even know those things? Or they don't even have a slightest motivation to research that on their own? How did they get Ph.D in the first place? Surely it would be very very hard to find, recruit, retain and promote such women. That's why feminist machinery has to be in a fll throttle to get more women in the profession to raise the gender balance. I feel sympathy for the author. My guess is that those women are too used to being treated like a pampered baby, as their big feminist sisters took care of them in all aspects of their academic career - from choosing the field in the first place, pursuing it, exam prep, recruitment, etc. Now their promotion will be taken care by their big sisters.
Another way to react to above quote is; uhh, do these women know how to write cover letters? uhhh, do they know how to use computer?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Women punk rock need to be put on pedestal
Yet another sub-section of vast discrimination cry-wolf industry– this one is on women punk rock! Now I admit that I am not a big fan of punk rock and I do not know much about it, but whining about discrimination and lecturing about patriarchy in the same manner as unhappy feminists in college women's study course isn’t exactly what I expect the (women) punk rockers to look like. Or perhaps this is exactly the reason why women punk rockers never rock, and need the punk-rocker-turned-ardent-feminists to feature them in a book, and the willing cooperation of left wing newspaper, to have any visibility in the media.
Beer for women
Just promote anything to women…and it is suddenly so fashionable (at least in the politically correct cultural standard).
Childless women's manifesto
The woman who penned this article looks quite beautiful in the photo, too bad her brain is intoxicated with man-hating brand of feminism…
After going through a few reasons why an option of not having children is good for women, (including for environment), she came to the same-old feminists line about men and society that are at the roots of the problem.
“But until men are warned not to put their careers first, and have to listen to constant dirges about time's winged chariot, I will continue to see this as a sexist discussion.”
hey, just keep shedding off your feeling of guilt (of not having children) by stoking up anger in you and your disgruntled sisters by blaming men and society. By infusing some feminists ideology of gender-relations and gender-struggle, she easily elevated her child-less free-wheeling life (and some guilt that comes from it, if any), into a noble cause.
In the end the author recounts the joy of playing with her niece. Just be thankful that her sister or brother wasn’t in the same mode of thinking as hers, otherwise she will have no niece to play with. And as she succeeds in promoting her ideology, there will be fewer and fewer nieces, nephews and children to play with. But I guess that is not necessarily bad for the environment.
After going through a few reasons why an option of not having children is good for women, (including for environment), she came to the same-old feminists line about men and society that are at the roots of the problem.
“But until men are warned not to put their careers first, and have to listen to constant dirges about time's winged chariot, I will continue to see this as a sexist discussion.”
hey, just keep shedding off your feeling of guilt (of not having children) by stoking up anger in you and your disgruntled sisters by blaming men and society. By infusing some feminists ideology of gender-relations and gender-struggle, she easily elevated her child-less free-wheeling life (and some guilt that comes from it, if any), into a noble cause.
In the end the author recounts the joy of playing with her niece. Just be thankful that her sister or brother wasn’t in the same mode of thinking as hers, otherwise she will have no niece to play with. And as she succeeds in promoting her ideology, there will be fewer and fewer nieces, nephews and children to play with. But I guess that is not necessarily bad for the environment.
Bourne Ultimatum - feminists' response
Somewhow there was a torrent of articles written by equal-opportunity feminists who attacks the movie "The Bourne Ultimatum". I know that there is a coterie of such feminists who demand every inch/space of movie review section in papers and on web to denounce all movies that feature men in positive or main roles, but I thought this one was a little over the top even by their standards.
Why does the author think that in all movies, women and men have to play EXACTLY equally important, equally meaningful roles (at least to feminists)? I hope the author will advocate giving more positive role for men in such classic man-hating movie as "Enough", in which men were only portrayed as abusers, and the general hatred against men were not only evident but the main theme of the movie.
The Bourne Ultimatum already gave a senior CIA officer's role to a woman - you can see that the screenwriter have already partially caved in to incessant feminists attack like the author to feature more women in politicaly correct roles-, this may be an accurate reflection of reality by the way as more and more women are affirmative-actioned into senior posts in real-life CIA. (points for the Talibans and islamic exremists!)
And exactly how not giving equal time or exposure or positive portray of women as men are labeled as "misogyny", then almost all the movies shot by women are examples of extreme anti-male, miandric flicks, but I guess the author don't care about those.
Why does the author think that in all movies, women and men have to play EXACTLY equally important, equally meaningful roles (at least to feminists)? I hope the author will advocate giving more positive role for men in such classic man-hating movie as "Enough", in which men were only portrayed as abusers, and the general hatred against men were not only evident but the main theme of the movie.
The Bourne Ultimatum already gave a senior CIA officer's role to a woman - you can see that the screenwriter have already partially caved in to incessant feminists attack like the author to feature more women in politicaly correct roles-, this may be an accurate reflection of reality by the way as more and more women are affirmative-actioned into senior posts in real-life CIA. (points for the Talibans and islamic exremists!)
And exactly how not giving equal time or exposure or positive portray of women as men are labeled as "misogyny", then almost all the movies shot by women are examples of extreme anti-male, miandric flicks, but I guess the author don't care about those.
Monday, August 20, 2007
A woman victimized by the guilt of killing her husband
It is simply amazing to see how low men’s status in this country could get. Newsweek is happy to discuss whether the woman who killed her so-called “abusive” husband (standard label for all men who were killed by wives in the US) could recover from PTSD that allegedly caused her to commit the action. Note that the entire article is filed with concern for Mary Winkler and how she could cope and recover from PTSD after walking free from prison. Gaining custody of her children and normal return to society are their next goals for Mary. Not a word on the man killed by the woman allegedly suffering from PTSD.
Uber-feminist-friendly Newsweek even notched up its feminist-friendly credential by showing its concern that the very act of killing a human being - husband – could add to the stress that murderer would feel. Get this - FEMINISTS EVEN WANT TO SAVE WOMEN FROM THE STRESS OF KILLING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS – maybe they can start a new programme in the women’s shelter, on how to kill husbands without any remorse or emotional consequence – just like killing a fly! – and feel good about, feel empowered by it.
Uber-feminist-friendly Newsweek even notched up its feminist-friendly credential by showing its concern that the very act of killing a human being - husband – could add to the stress that murderer would feel. Get this - FEMINISTS EVEN WANT TO SAVE WOMEN FROM THE STRESS OF KILLING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS – maybe they can start a new programme in the women’s shelter, on how to kill husbands without any remorse or emotional consequence – just like killing a fly! – and feel good about, feel empowered by it.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Usual "New York Times" - thing
You know that the New York Time is just doing their usual “New York Times” -things when you see articles that picks up and discusses every moves and words uttered by Hillary Clinton, both old and new, or articles that focus on daughters
and wives of male Presidential candidates; I mean any female relatives of the candidates, so that the main subject of the news is women, but not men. People in New York Times (mostly power-hungry women and their male sevants) are getting increasingly averse to the idea of featuring men in the news. Their sense of self-confidence is impaired by too much covering of male candidates in the Presidential election, and they cannot stand it anymore. So women and their servants have decided that the bulk of news must be either on Hillary or women surrounding the rest of the male candidates, so that "SHE" is the subject of the new, not "HE". (in NYT the only legitimate place for featuring "HE" is in crime section)
At the same time, they do not forget to lay a groundwork for pummeling of Giuliani as the likelihood of his winning the Republican nomination is getting higher and may eventually face Hillary (-they would certainly hope). Expect more of the same in coming months.
and wives of male Presidential candidates; I mean any female relatives of the candidates, so that the main subject of the news is women, but not men. People in New York Times (mostly power-hungry women and their male sevants) are getting increasingly averse to the idea of featuring men in the news. Their sense of self-confidence is impaired by too much covering of male candidates in the Presidential election, and they cannot stand it anymore. So women and their servants have decided that the bulk of news must be either on Hillary or women surrounding the rest of the male candidates, so that "SHE" is the subject of the new, not "HE". (in NYT the only legitimate place for featuring "HE" is in crime section)
At the same time, they do not forget to lay a groundwork for pummeling of Giuliani as the likelihood of his winning the Republican nomination is getting higher and may eventually face Hillary (-they would certainly hope). Expect more of the same in coming months.
Japanese career women
So the New York Times, a newspaper of career women, by career women, for career women, set out to investigate their sisters' conditions in other parts of the world with pre-determined conclusiond. If they wish, they could continue this campaign for the next 190 days, the number ofcountris in the world according to the United Nations, to cover all countries in the world; since in feminists’ worldview, there is no country where true gender equality exists (even in Norway or Sweden – just listen to what feminists in these countries are saying, if anything, they are even more vitriolic than their counterparts in other parts of the world).
You can notice that feminists have capitalized on the problem of shrinking population as their newest weapons to push for gender equality (read: more women in managerial positions).
The argument that by not utilizing the talent of women, the society “…is losing half of its brainpower as it faces a labor shortage.” is so bogus. There are many problems with statement like this. First, it assumes that there will be total employment of all people who are capable of working (meaning total elimination of unemployment) and that every one is able to maximize their potential in the work. Second, all women are to engage in occupations that utilize brainpower, not a muscle power, as in managerial positions. Obviously these assumptions are patently wrong. In fact, many Japanese companies are not suffering from shortage of brain power; managerial positions in these companies are always in very short supply, and competitions to get those positions (mostly internally) are very competitive. It is not as if these positions are left vacant in drove with many women staying at home and not willing to come out to work, as feminists want to have you believe (this is not the case unless, of course, you have government-imposed gender quota, just like those in Norway, that sets aside certain number of positions only for women). These positions have been filled mostly by men, however feminists hate the idea, who are very competent, talented and dedicated, and who have been primarily responsible for Japanese economic growth.
The void slogan for cultivating women’s talent is without a merit unless feminists could prove the concrete merit of it. What would be the merit? Because they bring in “feminine touch” to the job? I think now it is a criminal offense in some parts of the world to reinforce such sexist stereotype. Because they have different capacities, e.g. ability to multitask and attention to details? Though this is touted even in some liberal circles, again this is contrary to strict feminist orthodoxy which holds that men and women are exactly the same. Which brings me to the next question - if they are exactly the same, why society or company has to invest extra money and energy to recruit people with the exact same talent and capability, but who happen to wear skirt instead of pants?
Career Women in Japan Find a Blocked Path
By MARTIN FACKLER
Published: August 6, 2007
You can notice that feminists have capitalized on the problem of shrinking population as their newest weapons to push for gender equality (read: more women in managerial positions).
The argument that by not utilizing the talent of women, the society “…is losing half of its brainpower as it faces a labor shortage.” is so bogus. There are many problems with statement like this. First, it assumes that there will be total employment of all people who are capable of working (meaning total elimination of unemployment) and that every one is able to maximize their potential in the work. Second, all women are to engage in occupations that utilize brainpower, not a muscle power, as in managerial positions. Obviously these assumptions are patently wrong. In fact, many Japanese companies are not suffering from shortage of brain power; managerial positions in these companies are always in very short supply, and competitions to get those positions (mostly internally) are very competitive. It is not as if these positions are left vacant in drove with many women staying at home and not willing to come out to work, as feminists want to have you believe (this is not the case unless, of course, you have government-imposed gender quota, just like those in Norway, that sets aside certain number of positions only for women). These positions have been filled mostly by men, however feminists hate the idea, who are very competent, talented and dedicated, and who have been primarily responsible for Japanese economic growth.
The void slogan for cultivating women’s talent is without a merit unless feminists could prove the concrete merit of it. What would be the merit? Because they bring in “feminine touch” to the job? I think now it is a criminal offense in some parts of the world to reinforce such sexist stereotype. Because they have different capacities, e.g. ability to multitask and attention to details? Though this is touted even in some liberal circles, again this is contrary to strict feminist orthodoxy which holds that men and women are exactly the same. Which brings me to the next question - if they are exactly the same, why society or company has to invest extra money and energy to recruit people with the exact same talent and capability, but who happen to wear skirt instead of pants?
Career Women in Japan Find a Blocked Path
By MARTIN FACKLER
Published: August 6, 2007
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Reverse "pay gap" Part I
Much has been already said about the article in NY Times in readers’ comments section… I failed to make comments since they stopped accepting comments at 5PM on the next day…
Anyway here is my take on the article as well as on comments by readers.
Where is the outrage on this?? Of course there will be no such thing as long as it favors women; instead they will ponder how this women’s advantage could be poured into other areas of society so that women could establish general superiority over men.
It’s a faulty research, as are all researches done on this topic. When feminists want to stress their victim status, they will use data on AVERAGE wages of all men and women, and disregard any factors that are very relevant to determining one’s wags, such as experience, number of hours worked, etc. When they want to boost their self-confidence, they will use the data on MEDIAN wages of all men and women, again regardless of educational background, etc. (Age will be by definition considered, I guess).
Why?
Because if you use AVERAGE wages, the figure will factor in the wages of ALL men, including those men who are corporate CEOs, high-flying lawyers, who are “outliers” in statistic terms since their extremely high salaries will skew the average salary figures. Since most CEOs and top layers are men, it will inevitably raise the average in men’s favor, and then you have it; data that “proves” pervasive societal discrimination against women.
On the other hand, if you use MEDIAN wage, you can exclude all these statistical outliers from the calculation, and the salary of a man who happens to be in the exact median (if there are 10,001 men, the man with the 5,001st highest/lowest salary) will be used as a figure. Because of a large number of less-educated men in urban areas who do mostly physical labor and for a less pay, the data will look suddenly in women’s favor, thus boosting the self-image of feminists.
Reading the article, many femi-Nazi readers loudly proclaimed that “at last the merit-based, fair pay is achieved..”…What? Why is it that if things turn in women’s favor it is fair and pay is strictly merit-based and when the data was in men’s favor, it was undeniable evidence of sexism in patriarchal society?
It is the exact opposite. Okay, just think a little bit more carefully; young women today are given all kinds of gender-based, exclusive protection and preference, from hiring to promotion to all other career advancement goodies, and corporations bending over backwards to change their corporate culture and evaluation criteria for hiring/promotion to fit feminists’ theories and women’s needs, rather than those required to compete in free, dynamic market – while young men are facing the exact opposite situation in every aspect; their resumes tossed out because of their male first names, their promotion denied because of informal gender quota imposed by management, etc.
If young women’s median pay is higher under this condition, is it a merit based or result of social engineering by feminists? You tell me.
Anyway here is my take on the article as well as on comments by readers.
Where is the outrage on this?? Of course there will be no such thing as long as it favors women; instead they will ponder how this women’s advantage could be poured into other areas of society so that women could establish general superiority over men.
It’s a faulty research, as are all researches done on this topic. When feminists want to stress their victim status, they will use data on AVERAGE wages of all men and women, and disregard any factors that are very relevant to determining one’s wags, such as experience, number of hours worked, etc. When they want to boost their self-confidence, they will use the data on MEDIAN wages of all men and women, again regardless of educational background, etc. (Age will be by definition considered, I guess).
Why?
Because if you use AVERAGE wages, the figure will factor in the wages of ALL men, including those men who are corporate CEOs, high-flying lawyers, who are “outliers” in statistic terms since their extremely high salaries will skew the average salary figures. Since most CEOs and top layers are men, it will inevitably raise the average in men’s favor, and then you have it; data that “proves” pervasive societal discrimination against women.
On the other hand, if you use MEDIAN wage, you can exclude all these statistical outliers from the calculation, and the salary of a man who happens to be in the exact median (if there are 10,001 men, the man with the 5,001st highest/lowest salary) will be used as a figure. Because of a large number of less-educated men in urban areas who do mostly physical labor and for a less pay, the data will look suddenly in women’s favor, thus boosting the self-image of feminists.
Reading the article, many femi-Nazi readers loudly proclaimed that “at last the merit-based, fair pay is achieved..”…What? Why is it that if things turn in women’s favor it is fair and pay is strictly merit-based and when the data was in men’s favor, it was undeniable evidence of sexism in patriarchal society?
It is the exact opposite. Okay, just think a little bit more carefully; young women today are given all kinds of gender-based, exclusive protection and preference, from hiring to promotion to all other career advancement goodies, and corporations bending over backwards to change their corporate culture and evaluation criteria for hiring/promotion to fit feminists’ theories and women’s needs, rather than those required to compete in free, dynamic market – while young men are facing the exact opposite situation in every aspect; their resumes tossed out because of their male first names, their promotion denied because of informal gender quota imposed by management, etc.
If young women’s median pay is higher under this condition, is it a merit based or result of social engineering by feminists? You tell me.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Militant feminist film directors
Smell of testosterone-laden militant feminists all over this article…This has all the ingredients of card-carrying militant feminists rage….first the number game (women make up…percent of whatever), then breaking stereotypes (women making love-comedy movies), and feminists paranoia (“It's a fight sometimes to be taken seriously as a director."), search for symbol of phallus (Oscar), and do-you-really-want-that-to-happen? sort of thing(“I wish we could, and I also wish we could make our movies without people saying, `And she's a woman director.”-then why don’t you stop writing this kind of article?).
The biggest reason is that the products of movie directors are out there for everyone to see. Unlike senior positions in large media companies where you can install skirt-wearing type to mollify feminists relentless bashing for a while, movies that directors make, both male and female, are by definition out there for everyone, including critics and regular moviegoers, to see and judge. And unlike senior female execs who do not stand close scrutiny of public and who can dodge the responsibility when companies are not performing (-that’s men’s fault, right?), while taking all credits for good news (women power!!), if women director make movies, and if it is a bad one, it is extremely difficult to dodge the responsibility for making such a crappy movie.
Perhaps the only hope for feminists to see their gender-neutral film industry is to keep churning out this kind of man-hating articles and impose gender quota for a number of directors who could exist, who could take movies in each category (action, love comedy, or traditionally male-oriented or female-oriented) , the number of Oscar or “Oscarette” which could be awarded to directors of each gender. And maybe you also need “awareness-raising” or mind-control programe for moviegoers who still subliminally rejects women directors.
The biggest reason is that the products of movie directors are out there for everyone to see. Unlike senior positions in large media companies where you can install skirt-wearing type to mollify feminists relentless bashing for a while, movies that directors make, both male and female, are by definition out there for everyone, including critics and regular moviegoers, to see and judge. And unlike senior female execs who do not stand close scrutiny of public and who can dodge the responsibility when companies are not performing (-that’s men’s fault, right?), while taking all credits for good news (women power!!), if women director make movies, and if it is a bad one, it is extremely difficult to dodge the responsibility for making such a crappy movie.
Perhaps the only hope for feminists to see their gender-neutral film industry is to keep churning out this kind of man-hating articles and impose gender quota for a number of directors who could exist, who could take movies in each category (action, love comedy, or traditionally male-oriented or female-oriented) , the number of Oscar or “Oscarette” which could be awarded to directors of each gender. And maybe you also need “awareness-raising” or mind-control programe for moviegoers who still subliminally rejects women directors.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Women's progress
This shows the psyche of gender feminists today…
They are so proud that they cannot take care of themselves….and some women can call it a “progress”…Apparently feminsts cannot distinguish between "progress" and "regress"
They are so proud that they cannot take care of themselves….and some women can call it a “progress”…Apparently feminsts cannot distinguish between "progress" and "regress"
Women more stresed by insomnia
Help! Women disproportionately affected by insomnia, …..as by any other illness, symptom, phenomena that affects humankind….
If you bring this non-sense to the extreme end, you will inevitably come to this classic feminists joke: “News! The world to end tomorrow! Women disproportionately affected!”
If you bring this non-sense to the extreme end, you will inevitably come to this classic feminists joke: “News! The world to end tomorrow! Women disproportionately affected!”
Every man is abuser
So is it men’s responsibility to ensure that the women he is paying to have some… is not a poor women trafficked from some remote Romanian countryside, but independent, strong women who chose the professions on their own will? It doesn’t make much sense legally but for seasoned gender feminists like Harriet Harman that is the least of her concern. As long as she can score points as posing as an advocate of trafficked women, her primary objective is achieved. Oh, but no just that, she so easily succeeded in portraying all men, including your fathers, brothers and neighbors as abusers of trafficked women! With no consequences and repercussion whatsoever. Just brand all men as abusers and you walk free.
Just brand all men as abusers, tarnish the image of as many men as possible, obviously, since men are "class enemy" in Harmans' point of view.
Just brand all men as abusers, tarnish the image of as many men as possible, obviously, since men are "class enemy" in Harmans' point of view.
Gender quota in the Vatican City
Event the Vatican City proved that it is not immune from the collective enforcement of “gender quota” in all walks of life but ESPECIALLY in leadership positions in political, economical and social arena.
What are they thinking? Do they really think that it would help address the top priority problem ion their view, namely the “rampant secularization”? Or will it simply serve to accelerate it, by bringing in the policy that is an epitome of secularism, pet policy of radical left wing liberals, namely the gender quota?
It’s bizarre to see a senior Vatican official seemingly reading straight from the radical feminists’ talking point; “give women more space and more importance”. It looks like the radical feminists have already successfully infiltrated into the Vatican City’s ranks.
What are they thinking? Do they really think that it would help address the top priority problem ion their view, namely the “rampant secularization”? Or will it simply serve to accelerate it, by bringing in the policy that is an epitome of secularism, pet policy of radical left wing liberals, namely the gender quota?
It’s bizarre to see a senior Vatican official seemingly reading straight from the radical feminists’ talking point; “give women more space and more importance”. It looks like the radical feminists have already successfully infiltrated into the Vatican City’s ranks.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Women better than men in small business?
What if we start to count the number of ways in which men are better at business? Would it be a nice little article to be featured on New York Times? Or will you be fired and thrown off to streets after immediately being labeled as “chauvinist pig” or “neandelthaal”, possibly along with some phony sexual harassment charges from 50 plus old, 180-pound, unhappy feminist type in other department?
It can only be a nice little article when you are discussing ways in which women are superior. Not other way around. Never.
Maybe there is really some grain of truths that women are in some ways better at small business, especially if you limit to consider only certain aspects of owning small businesses. (you know, skills like pick up nuances and juggle work-life balance) But maybe the same reason that gives women some edge over men in small business maybe causing women to fall behind men in the race for climbing corporate ladder. Running small business and running large, multi-national corporations are quire different matters, which require different skill sets and attributes to succeed. Does the author of this article want to discuss that? I bet he doesn’t. But at least he is smart enough to figure out that he will be safe in this PC world as long as he is pandering to feminists.
It can only be a nice little article when you are discussing ways in which women are superior. Not other way around. Never.
Maybe there is really some grain of truths that women are in some ways better at small business, especially if you limit to consider only certain aspects of owning small businesses. (you know, skills like pick up nuances and juggle work-life balance) But maybe the same reason that gives women some edge over men in small business maybe causing women to fall behind men in the race for climbing corporate ladder. Running small business and running large, multi-national corporations are quire different matters, which require different skill sets and attributes to succeed. Does the author of this article want to discuss that? I bet he doesn’t. But at least he is smart enough to figure out that he will be safe in this PC world as long as he is pandering to feminists.
Victimized through camera
Apparently there seems to be no limit as to the ability of women to feel victimized, anytime, anywhere, directly or indirectly, real or imaginary. I think women are by nature more likely to feel victimized or voice victimization than men, and men more likely to brush off such feeling of victimization, but that tendency has been put on steroid by gender feminists who trumpeted the idea to all women that all unhappiness or uncomfortableness, or anything short of full happiness in life is due to patriarchal oppression. Women have been “trained” by these feminists to find seeds of victimization and to feel victimized at the slightest provocation. And the politically-correct institution, including the courts, are more than happy to endorse, through punishing males, women’s feeling of victimization.
Harley Woos Female Bikers
What if Harley goes only a little further to introduce “pink” Harley? Would feminists go on banana again for Harley’s stereotyping women into pink color? So far no visible objection has been raised to Harley making smaller, less intimidating models tailored especially for women, the decision of which of course is based on (sexist?) assumption that women are smaller and has less physical strength to haul big bikes.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
"Glass cliff"
Yes. Of course, it’s always men’s fault, and the entire patriarchy is conniving to set women up -by making them CEOs!!!
How much special considerations and treatments do these supposedly “superior sex” need? For radical feminists infatuated with bottomless sense of gender entitlement, simply giving women priority consideration for lucrative jobs (as do most Western countries) or setting up government-mandated gender quota (such as in Norway) are not enough, but also need to make sure that the companies women are affirmative-actioned into are successful, profitable companies - so that those women could keep getting those fat checks (presumably to balance the so-called gender pay-gap?) and take all the credits (to prove their gender’s superiority?) when the companies do stay on track and keep making profits independently of newly hired affirmative action CEOs in tight skirts.
Women who are candidates for CEO positions no less can’t even figure out if the companies they are applying are in trouble, and ready to whine and blame it on patriarchy when it indeed fail? They are worse than 22-year old college glads (boys). Hey, do we really still need female CEOs?
What’s the next new entitlement for women? A quota for women CEOs in well-to-do business, instead of failing ones? Mandatory appointment of men in these failing business? (to tarnish male CEO’s reputation in general)
Once the entitlement is conferred upon to one demographic group, it will be taken for granted by them and the demand for further entitlement will grow, instead of efforts by them to try to get on their feet.
How much special considerations and treatments do these supposedly “superior sex” need? For radical feminists infatuated with bottomless sense of gender entitlement, simply giving women priority consideration for lucrative jobs (as do most Western countries) or setting up government-mandated gender quota (such as in Norway) are not enough, but also need to make sure that the companies women are affirmative-actioned into are successful, profitable companies - so that those women could keep getting those fat checks (presumably to balance the so-called gender pay-gap?) and take all the credits (to prove their gender’s superiority?) when the companies do stay on track and keep making profits independently of newly hired affirmative action CEOs in tight skirts.
Women who are candidates for CEO positions no less can’t even figure out if the companies they are applying are in trouble, and ready to whine and blame it on patriarchy when it indeed fail? They are worse than 22-year old college glads (boys). Hey, do we really still need female CEOs?
What’s the next new entitlement for women? A quota for women CEOs in well-to-do business, instead of failing ones? Mandatory appointment of men in these failing business? (to tarnish male CEO’s reputation in general)
Once the entitlement is conferred upon to one demographic group, it will be taken for granted by them and the demand for further entitlement will grow, instead of efforts by them to try to get on their feet.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Who needs female baseball umpire? (and which fish needs a bicycle?)
I always wonder, what happen if male players bark at female referee? Would it constitute “gender violence”? – since yelling is also a form of gender violence, as we are told (with one proviso that it is directed against women by men of course, if it is directed against men by women, it is 100% legitimate form of self-defence) Or is it a workplace harassment? Maybe as a result, the tender ref would not have high self-esteem. Maybe she will feel not welcomed or that players are hostile to her. Maybe he is not just protesting the ref’s judgment, maybe he’s trying to embarrass the ref in front of large crowd to make his point that this female ref should not be here.
And let’s not forget that even if, for the sake of the argument supposed that- a female umpire starts calling games in MLB (hope it never happens), feminists are not going to stop there. In fact, they will NEVER STOP at anything. Once one female umpire “shatter the ceiling”, then there will be calls for more female refs (until the ratio reach their favourite 5-50) and arguments on female umpires not being able to call opening games or playoffs or world series, etc., etc. Don’t let the feminists floodgate open by not letting them in at all in the first place.
And let’s not forget that even if, for the sake of the argument supposed that- a female umpire starts calling games in MLB (hope it never happens), feminists are not going to stop there. In fact, they will NEVER STOP at anything. Once one female umpire “shatter the ceiling”, then there will be calls for more female refs (until the ratio reach their favourite 5-50) and arguments on female umpires not being able to call opening games or playoffs or world series, etc., etc. Don’t let the feminists floodgate open by not letting them in at all in the first place.
Battle of sexes in tennis
I remember a few years back when the money earned by top female tennis pros in tournament prizes toped that of top male pros for a brief period (I am not a big tennis fan so I don’t remember when exactly), there was no voice from the same crowd calling for “equal pay for equal work”, but newspapers and politically-correct sports journalists were quite triumphant and ecstatic about women’s superior earning power in tennis. But that was then.
What can you expect from people who have no problem glorifying Ms King’s victory over male (ex-) champion in the battle of sexes and lionizing it as one of the proudest moment in the history of women in sports? What will happen if Nadar or someone around that level play against over-aged, fat, retired female tennis champion? Would he barely edge out after an exhaustingly long match or win without even breaking a sweat? Actually the King’s match should be listed as one of the dark moment when the reigning female champion had so much difficulty in beating old, retired male champion.
What can you expect from people who have no problem glorifying Ms King’s victory over male (ex-) champion in the battle of sexes and lionizing it as one of the proudest moment in the history of women in sports? What will happen if Nadar or someone around that level play against over-aged, fat, retired female tennis champion? Would he barely edge out after an exhaustingly long match or win without even breaking a sweat? Actually the King’s match should be listed as one of the dark moment when the reigning female champion had so much difficulty in beating old, retired male champion.
Female college coach in need of salvation by Title IX-style gender quota
When even die-hard feminists find it rather difficult to grumble about today’s women’s collegiate sports, and before leisurely start crushing down yet another male sports in pursuit of statistical gender equality (ummm, what will be next target – wrestling again?), they started to complain about the status of female coach in the collegiate sports. Even though title IX was intended to help female students, in other words, kids, feminists don’t bother expanding the scope of the law to include female coaches, or adults, as long as it benefit them. Talk of a jump-wagon mentality. Well, since Title IX in feminists’ worldview was not merely meant to increase the number of women in sports at college level, but rather to introduce sweeping change in the patriarchal structure within universities, I guess it’s alright to use it as a weapon to advance their agenda. But still I think feminists may wish to stop infantilizing female adults and treating them like students or kids who need kid-glove treatment from large bureaucracy just to keep their existence, or otherwise male coaches will start seeing female coaches in the same level as students, who are and in the constant need of multiple layers of protection by multiple layers of bureaucracies (Federal, State and university). And I guess feminists don't want that to happen, right? Indeed my guess is that they will yell at men in shrieking voice again if that happens.
Look how hard it is to sack female coaches once they are installed in the position, valid evaluation of female coaches’ poor performance would not matter a bit in the eyes of feminist lawyers, as they can always present female coaches’ unsubstantiated allegations as evidence and paint the college as an institution that is “sexist”, a magic word that blow away any logic or reasoning. This is a point that anyone who is in a position to hire someone for a position should keep in mind – firing of affirmative action employees will be much, much harder than of non-affirmative action employees. In addition to the prospect of facing almost-certain lawsuits by feminist, they will get constant pressure from affirmative action office for meeting certain gender/racial quota for positions.
Look how hard it is to sack female coaches once they are installed in the position, valid evaluation of female coaches’ poor performance would not matter a bit in the eyes of feminist lawyers, as they can always present female coaches’ unsubstantiated allegations as evidence and paint the college as an institution that is “sexist”, a magic word that blow away any logic or reasoning. This is a point that anyone who is in a position to hire someone for a position should keep in mind – firing of affirmative action employees will be much, much harder than of non-affirmative action employees. In addition to the prospect of facing almost-certain lawsuits by feminist, they will get constant pressure from affirmative action office for meeting certain gender/racial quota for positions.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Edward's wife in the limelight (because NY times wanted so)
Why is this article appearing in NY Times? Because feminists in NY Times needed to boost their self-confidence by featuring women in the main in a positive light. If men start to dominate the news, those male-hating type would feel depressed. If there aren't any other women to feature in Presidential race other than Hillary, then you just invent one. That's why sometimes Obama's wife needed to be pulled out of closet and be cast as if she is the one who counts just as much as, if not more, as her husband.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Lesbian family superior?
I wonder why do these lesbian people want their "mariage" or "family" be seen as normal. I thought in their worldview, family are the souce of all evil = patriarchy in the world. Family in traditional form is all evil but lesbian family is just as normal as traditional family??? Not just normal, but sometimes superior (when raising boys), and the whole society needs to promote lesbian "family"??
It looks like first these lesbians wanted to be left alone, and then treated as normal, then demands recognition of being superior in some aspects, then what next?
It looks like first these lesbians wanted to be left alone, and then treated as normal, then demands recognition of being superior in some aspects, then what next?
Monday, May 07, 2007
Emergency! We do not have enough black females in ballet!!!help! Help!!
Affirmative action mentality in every nook of the world series... this time astounding shortage of black females in ballet!!!
Thursday, May 03, 2007
"Man tax", America style
I remember that there was a same kind of tax, simply labeled differently, proposed in Sweden but shot down by immediate public outcry. In Sweden it was named “man tax” ( I am not sure if this is exact translation from Swedish but this was the name I saw). A tax that was to be levied only against men because of their sin for born into a wrong gender that is guilty of oppression of the other gender until the latter half of last century. You might imagine that in a country where men are increasingly legislated into pee like women, there would be enthusiastic support for such a tax, both from women and men (with feminists` guns behind their back). But instead their was immediate public denunciation of such a sexist legislation. Seems like even Sweden still retains a bit of sanity. But not in America. Even this kind of blatantly discriminatory bill could be phrased and couched in benign terms by the hands of (or the tongues of, or the pens of ) gender feminists.
What a surprising article!
Is the author of this feminists-dogma shattering article still not banished? Is the editor of the Slate still not sentenced to mandatory gender-sensitivity training? If not, good for them. Hope it will continue to be so but I am not so optimistic.
Why diversity training does not work? Ask the right question
Of course it doesn`t. and it should not work. But the bigger, underlying issue is, why care? Diversity advocates would say all the nice, feel-good stuffs about promoting diversity in corporations, and will conclude that it would boost companies` profits. Really? Is there any statistics to prove that? Any statistics that is controlled for all the external variables that would affect companies performance and that can point to the pure economic benefits of promoting diversity? I`ve never seen that.
Most of the articles on this topic simply tout the virtue of having more women in senior jobs and praise how it boost companies` performance, but almost always without hard statistic to prove that. Even if they show the stats and they seem to support the claim, you need to be careful and need to consider a few points;
Did the performance gain occur after the gender affirmative action proramme was instituted or did it take place before?
Is the performance gain a direct result of gender quota or was it brought about by different factors, e.g. improved management, cost cutting, etc. and that gender quota programme simply coincided with the period of performance gain?
These kinds of hard questions may not really be amenable to feminists-inspired advocacy articles.
The most interesting thing about this kind of article for me is not that nobody really ask this kind of hard-nose question. It is rather that the initial question (why diversity training does not work) is not considered at all in the article, but quickly transformed into brainstorming session on how to increase women and minority at senior levels. The diversity training and gander/race balance are not the same; the latter is only one of several benefits that the former is supposed to bring, according to official party line of diversity advocates. But now you know what they care about the most (or the onky thing they care about) when advocates tout virtue of diversity.
Most of the articles on this topic simply tout the virtue of having more women in senior jobs and praise how it boost companies` performance, but almost always without hard statistic to prove that. Even if they show the stats and they seem to support the claim, you need to be careful and need to consider a few points;
Did the performance gain occur after the gender affirmative action proramme was instituted or did it take place before?
Is the performance gain a direct result of gender quota or was it brought about by different factors, e.g. improved management, cost cutting, etc. and that gender quota programme simply coincided with the period of performance gain?
These kinds of hard questions may not really be amenable to feminists-inspired advocacy articles.
The most interesting thing about this kind of article for me is not that nobody really ask this kind of hard-nose question. It is rather that the initial question (why diversity training does not work) is not considered at all in the article, but quickly transformed into brainstorming session on how to increase women and minority at senior levels. The diversity training and gander/race balance are not the same; the latter is only one of several benefits that the former is supposed to bring, according to official party line of diversity advocates. But now you know what they care about the most (or the onky thing they care about) when advocates tout virtue of diversity.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Feminist terrorists
I found an interesting article on a feminist guerilla group…yes, of course, if guys can do it, gals can do it too, …only better! Maybe we should also mention feminist groups that raided Miss USA pageant and forced the event to be cancelled way back in the 1960’s or 70’s? Or maybe they should be called a feminist mob?, as the terrorist label for them would be a bit too much. Anyway, they too showed that physical violence is well within domains of newly liberated, empowered women.
Note how this second article treats Rote Zora in sympathetic light. I have to mention that this article was originally posted on website for anarchists (no, really!). Forget the anarchists’ website for a while, and maybe part of the reason why the group is cast in such a positive light and their physical violence aspect is downplayed is because the group was composed of women…? Wait, does it means that feminist terrorists have to even fight against sexism in anarchists’ writings?
Note how this second article treats Rote Zora in sympathetic light. I have to mention that this article was originally posted on website for anarchists (no, really!). Forget the anarchists’ website for a while, and maybe part of the reason why the group is cast in such a positive light and their physical violence aspect is downplayed is because the group was composed of women…? Wait, does it means that feminist terrorists have to even fight against sexism in anarchists’ writings?
Monday, April 23, 2007
Gender pay gap
Here goes again a periodic (maybe annual) ritual for this gender-feminist organization called AAUW to publish this self-serving report about gender wage-gap, and politically-correct media is more than happy again to become a mouthpiece for AAUW every time this cookie-cutter report is released.
There are a few ways to look at the issue.
1. Society is fair in paying less for people who feel no qualm about comparing apples and oranges and paint them as scientific study.
2. Society is fair in paying less for people who have little analytical capacity as to believe this kind of propaganda-filled, objective-analysis-free report is true.
Well, by now we should already know that this is a propaganda piece routinely put up by feminist organizations and being paraded as truth by liberal media. That is a FACT. We now have to move beyond that. Move beyond simply pointing out that this is a propaganda, etc, etc, and think about what we can do about this feminist-PC media collaboration.....
There are a few ways to look at the issue.
1. Society is fair in paying less for people who feel no qualm about comparing apples and oranges and paint them as scientific study.
2. Society is fair in paying less for people who have little analytical capacity as to believe this kind of propaganda-filled, objective-analysis-free report is true.
Well, by now we should already know that this is a propaganda piece routinely put up by feminist organizations and being paraded as truth by liberal media. That is a FACT. We now have to move beyond that. Move beyond simply pointing out that this is a propaganda, etc, etc, and think about what we can do about this feminist-PC media collaboration.....
Katie Couric is almost out
The end of the "first solo-female anchor of major network's nightly news" seems to be just around a corner....
But some women prefer to still stick their heads in the sand...
Connie Chung says, "Katie should be given as much time as it takes. . . . I'm flabbergasted that anyone would sound some sort of death knell now."
Yes, Connie, right, let Katie Couric keep her job and five years from now we'll be hearing a good news; in addition to attracting more women between age of 18-49 as she does now, Kate has attracted 99.9% of self-identfied gender feminists. Oh, another news, CBS nightly news rate has further dropped to mere 50,000. That's approximately equal to number of women belonging to NOW, AAUW, Feminist Majority, etc....
I could understand the reluctance of people at CBS talking about the issue, espeially if you are men in CBS and being heard complaining about Katie, feminists will have no hesitation in branding them as "enemy of women" or "Neandethaal males who want to keep women in kitchen"...
Despite these overwhelming negative views about Katie's stint at nightly news, my guess is that unfortunately CBS will be stuck with Katie for some time still. You could expect the powerful intervention from women's interest group to keep her on the job just because she is a "woman", and feminist censorors and thought-police would soon be in a full swing to hunt down any negative views on Katie...
But some women prefer to still stick their heads in the sand...
Connie Chung says, "Katie should be given as much time as it takes. . . . I'm flabbergasted that anyone would sound some sort of death knell now."
Yes, Connie, right, let Katie Couric keep her job and five years from now we'll be hearing a good news; in addition to attracting more women between age of 18-49 as she does now, Kate has attracted 99.9% of self-identfied gender feminists. Oh, another news, CBS nightly news rate has further dropped to mere 50,000. That's approximately equal to number of women belonging to NOW, AAUW, Feminist Majority, etc....
I could understand the reluctance of people at CBS talking about the issue, espeially if you are men in CBS and being heard complaining about Katie, feminists will have no hesitation in branding them as "enemy of women" or "Neandethaal males who want to keep women in kitchen"...
Despite these overwhelming negative views about Katie's stint at nightly news, my guess is that unfortunately CBS will be stuck with Katie for some time still. You could expect the powerful intervention from women's interest group to keep her on the job just because she is a "woman", and feminist censorors and thought-police would soon be in a full swing to hunt down any negative views on Katie...
Sunday, April 15, 2007
She is such a geek
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.
“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.
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 it痴 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 it痴 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)