Best article on feminists' whining on Hllary's defeat

Wow. This is one of the best articles written by anyone in the media about the never-ending feminists whining. I am somehow relieved to learn that people could still voice their criticims of women and feminism -I thought it was criminalized years ago-oh that was in Sweden, feminists' paradise? Or was it in Spain which introduced law forcing men to do housework and the only political news from the country is that pregnant young woman becoming the defence minister, just for the diversity's sake? The next prime minister has to do even more acrobatic appointment, like appointing three-legged half-human, half-sheep as foreign minister to further elevate the country's record on "diversity"...Sorry, back to the point, Hitchenson rules!!!

NOW's reaction to the death of a reporter

This from NOW's press release: "Our condolescences goes out for Tim Russert's family, but we never forget that he was the one who effectively put an end to Hillary Clinton's history-making run for the Presidency, with his pronouncement on TV that Hillary's chance is essntialy zero, on the night of her "big" win in Indiana and a "close" showing in North Carolina. Now the number one priority for NBC is to fill his position with a woman, any woman, so that "she" can be a role model for millions and millions of women and young girls. It is a high time to break the monoploy of an anchor position of an influential TV program by white males.

Consolation prize for feminists

Katie, just like Hillary, is obviously trying to capitalize on the so-called sexism charges to her salvage her standing and her show which is stuck at the bottom. It seems now that drumming up the charges of sexsim is her only hope. Hopefully there is enough dummy people to believe it.

Feminists in media are just plain furious at Hillary’s loss, and since their worldview direct them to blame every misfortune and wished did not come true on men, Hillary’s loss could not be attributed to her bad campaigning or anything else, but only to the sexism in media and society.

Now, as the second consolation prize of prospect for veep spot for Hillary is also fading away, feminists are trying to drum up the charges of sexism and start national dialogue on sexism, as their third consolation prize. Now we know that it is not only Hillary, but the entire feminists in media, who are zombies.

Here goes Hirshman again

Yet another cookie-cutter article from Linda Hirshman. This is an article in which old white feminist come to rescue another old white feminist. It;'s quite symbolic and the most salient feature of the Hillary campaign. Of course to most feminist, any negative description or portrayal of women is a product of patriarchy.

Given this display of old-fahioned, man-hating feminism on full-frontal display everywhere, among Hillary's surrogates (mostly old white women), among her staffs(ditto), among her supporters(ditto), the question now is why blue-class white men are voting for her. That is the biggest mystery in this race. They should realize what die-hard feminists like Hillary, who so far did not ostensibly display that side of her during this campaign - as it ironically turned out that it was "white male" votes that count (much to the chigrin of feminists like Hirshman)-, really think of males. When is the last time she showed concern for men? When did she adressed issues specific to men? Equal pay? Health care reform? "The highest glass ceiling" non-sense? I don't think so. All are based on old, tired feminist dogma that put men as a culprit of all evils in the world. Neanderthall males fearful of modern, ambitious, capable women disriminates against them in wages in an effort to keep them as child-bearing machine. that's how Hirshman and Hillary think of men.

In her feminist utopia, men have no place to live or breathe except as servants of emanicipated femalekind or punching bags.

Obama boys' "sexism"

On the eve of big Pennsylvania primary, when it is becoming increasingly evident to everyone, including even the most ardent Hillary supporters, that Hillary’s (so-called) history-making run for President is coming to a close, younger generation of women are resorting to tactics now that have been preferred by their older sisters.


Those younger generation of women/feminists' tactics-as told by arche-type of older generation of feminist linda Hirshman is:

-Blame Obama-boys for sexism. It doesn’t matter whether you can point out evidence or not; as usual, women’s “gut” feeling, plus a simple fact that these Obama boys are not voting for a woman, is unmistakable sign of sexism. I thought women are better at describing their feelings, with all their superiority in language and literatures etc., but all these women can do is to say that they have this sort of “gut feeling” that sexism is alive and well, and this is the reason Hillary’s candidacy is now in the tank. And she keep repeating stories of those young women who have never heard their male colleagues or friends, families say anything explicitly "sexist", even by today's very low threshold for judging everything "sexist", all of them knew there's something about those men that tell them that they are closet "sexist" and try to make readers into believing that the sheer number of those "gut feeling", their collective weight, is somehow genuinely the evidence of "sexism". it shows that women are not good t logical thinking or have a sound reasoning; "gut feeling" will become a "fact" if it comes in large numbers; at some point there is no more a need for evidence or proof.

The articles (Hirshman's and the two articles mentioned in her article) also show that women, both old and young, are not accustomed to, or not mature enough, to distinguish between criticism and their imagined attacks by males based on (of course) sexism (what else?). They are simply not used to be on the receiving end of criticism or harsh words. they think that simply by throwing all-utility killer questions, "Is she being criticized because she is a woman?"(version 1), or "If she was a man, would they riticize in the same way?"(version 2), somehow men would be too scared to continue question/criticize women. It is a good, battle-tested tactic; nobody would be able to answer such purely hypothetical question definitively, and simply by not being able to answer definitively, the doubts were somehow substantiated; yes, "it is because she is a woman" that she is being criticized. The questions throw men off balance. The questions, once uttered, magically stops men from further questioning, women will have breathing space and time to recover.

In the lady-first western culture, women get used to having men do everything for them, give credit for them, and on top of that, take all the blames for them. before daydreaming that there will be vagina warriors in the oval office, femnists should first get used to women being question and criticized, becuase that's what's supposed to happen to people in power. The questioning of people in power is sfunction of healthy democracy. Feminists conveninently forget this very basic principel of democracy and think that all positions of power are to be offered to women just becuase they are women, and no question asked, and with no accompanying responsibilities. I think they will need 40 or 50 more Hillary-like politicians getting pummeled and scrutinized,and be mentall prepared for harsh but legitimate criticism.

The sad thing that become apparent from these three articles is that, with all the options and opportunities that were made available to them, women still decide which candidate to vote for on the basis for who their mothers vote for,(and will vote for opposing candidate as a way of saying "I hate yoou mommmeeee!!") and what their “gut feeling” tells them about the dark interior motive behind males voting pattern so that they can vote for the opposing candidate (again). And politicians are supposed to woo these voters. And media loves to portray women having decidedly big say in election, as a large voting bloc, swing voters, as a good, progressive thing.

The problem is not that consciously or unconscious sexism by Obama-boysm, as the author claims. The real problem is the mentality (unconscious) among those young women who simply can’t live with the fact that a woman politician could come with so much dirty political baggage. After all, they were taught all their lives in schools (especially in universities) that women are fair creatures, source of all goodness in the world while all the evil in the world are brought on by men, and that behind the sins of all the women who do bad things, there are men or male dominate society at large who caused women to do such bad things. They cannot stomach the fact that women politicians could be incompetent, or liar, or simply power-mongers. if they (are taught to) belive in the unbonded possibility of women, why are they so reluctant to belive in the women's possibility to be a horrible public figures?

Gee, I hate this article, we need more women (in powerful positions, of course)!!

Why women like Ms. Pollitt thinks that just seeing an article she dislikes appearing in the Washington Post is a good enough justification for gender quota in the editorial room, etc.? It will be good for her and her less-talented sister journalist to get ahead of more talented male colleagues, but should life be that easy for women (or for anyone, for that matter)?

Old white women's dying wish

It is quite interesting that quite a large number of very old white women innocently and almost pitifully say that they wish to see a woman President before they die.

We all want to help very old women, right? When we see them having trouble crossing a street, or carrying heavy stuffs, we stop whatever we are doing and help them first, right? And when these very old women, whose days on the earth are limited, have a wish that they want to see happen before they die, we want to do everything in our power to make it happen, right? And these old women want to see Hillary as president – what kind of a bastard would do anything that would remotely make that prospect smaller? We should be spend all our off-hours online-donating, volunteering, calling up voters, caucusing and voting for HER, right?

Maybe very old white men might have kissed their racist past goodbye and might have voted for Obama but many of them have died already. Most of the senior citizens are women. For them, they do not have to worry about race guilt, because they have another victimhood to hide under; women. It doesn’t matter that some of them might have been, or still is, very racist, and even might have been guilty of, especially in the South, accusing innocent black men of raping her (or just staring lusciously at her), and have white brothers beat them up back in the 50s and 60s when nobody questioned white women’s innocence and black men’s guilt.

But if you are very old citizen, and if you worry even a least bit about your grandkids or future generations, you should not be so selfish and impose Hillary on the rest of us. Allow me to be very blunt, (and impolite), but to put it directly, old people may die soon, even before HER inauguration, but all the rest of us, young and not so young and kids under voting age, would have to suffer the consequences of old people’s dyng wish for four / eight years. Is it fair? Is it the legacy that you want to leave for the succeeding generations? If you lived all your life being selfish, can’t you stop being selfish for a moment and think about your grandkids? If you lived all your life always being nice and fair, thinking about others, that is very great; can you do one more, final favour?

Another feminist orgy in Newsweek

What is all this feminist orgy going on in Newsweek? Obama could never had such a lopsided coverage in favour of him even after 11 consecutive wins, but Hillary does, even with one not-exactly-landslide win in predominantly white, old, blue-color State and barely holding onto a popular vote win (and possibly losing out on a delegate count) in what was once her firewall State. It looks like all the old, white female writers in the Newsweek came out from hiding from the long and disappointing February and chanting feminists roar. February must have felt like forever for these ladies who were frustrated by black men utterly clobbering old white woman in Presidential nomination race (it didn’t help that there was an additional day in the month). Gee, in old days, white women in the South could accuse innocent black men who they don’t like of rape and have their white brothers beat them up. That was only 40 years ago. What a difference time makes, now all they could do was their feminist heroin and her campaign fumbling. ( I wonder how many of those very old white women who innocently say “I want to see a woman President in my lifetime”, actually are guilty of accusation of false rape against black men in the 50’s and 60’s.)

Why is this feminist media orgy, and no party for Obama? Let’s see how many African-Americans are in Newsweek, as writers, staffers, etc. I don’t see many (in fact none of the opinion writers are black). Now let’s see how many women are there? Many. I don’t know how many more junior writers and staffers are women, but I suspect a lot of them. Those old white women in the Newsweek, just like in Ohio or Texas or almost all the States who had primaries and caucuses, are just expressing their preferences. As old feminist guards, they practice what they preach. They are writers and staffers in the Newsweek, one of the preeminent weekly magazines, and it is read by millions of people, Their articles and coverage have influence on what people talk and how people think. They use there position to advance their agenda. If their heroin sister finally got a moment to shine a little, blow it out of proportion. If it is for a good cause, such old and tired media principle as a balanced and objective reporting could wait a while. Plus, March is a women’s month, so what’s wrong with it? Plus, this is not the first time Newsweek’s women hijacked entire issue. It’s funny how Hillary whine about media bias, when in most of the media, Newsweek and others, you will see so many old white women type, well-educated, pant-suit wearing, shoulder-pat feminists.

My comments on yesterday's mini Super Tuesday, or Super tuesday II...

Now most mainstream media talk as if the next Pennsylvania primary is going to be a key battle for for both Hillary and Obama. ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Obama only needs to stay comfortably close to Hillary and then it's his de facto strategic win, since he's so far ahead in the delegates count. Don't be duped into Hillary's raising expectation game...PA is Hillary's State, because of its demographics and all major power players in the State, most notably the governor himself, is relentlessly campaigning for her. The State was heavily titled for her (20% and more) and the gap is now closing.

It is like saying Mississipi is a key State for Hillary to keep momentum and she absolutely need to win, if she's to be able to make inroads in Blacks, but nobody's saying that. (well, it's much smaller state but the point is that every state has demographic characteristics that favour one candidiate). But media are already in the mindset that if Hillary could keep PA, by even a small margins like 5 points, that proves Hillary is on her way to coronation! - What a non-sense. You set a bar so low that you are very likely to pass it, but spin it as a major, major victory.

The narratives of 2 weeks ago, right after Wisconsin blowput for Obama, was that Hillary needed to win Texas and Ohio, BOTH and in both VERY BIG. Now did she achieved that? Of course not!!! She only narrowly beat Obama in TX, by 3 %, and delegate pickups are minimal. (Could be noen depending on the outocme of the caucuses) In OH, you could barely call it a "big" win, if "big" win eans double-digit victory. 10 is the smallest double digit. Remember, in both States, Hillary was up 20% just a few weeks ago, and OH and TX were both Hillary States to begin with, for its demographics (OH) and Bill's popularity among Hispanics (TX). Actually, to be honest, I was also surprised to see Obama went down in TX, but that actually proves how much he had made inroads in just a few weeks to became a heavy favourite there. Another point, Obama lost his edges among independents, trailed badly again among women, Hispanics, low income voters, and older voters in TX and OH. This looks familiar, losing its base or coalition"? When hillary got her base eaten in Winsonsin by Obama, she was pummelled in the poll (17 point). But when Obama got his base eatne, he still nearly tied in TX (only 3 %, baby). Tell me who is doing better and winning.

Neanderthals and gender roles

The most interesting part of this new book "Logic of Life", written by Tim Hartford, a bestselling author of "Undercover Economist", is the theory on the reason why Neanderthals died out, losing competition to Homo sapiens. Neanderthals did not have division of labor, while Homo sapiens did. And the division of labor here specifically means division of labor between MEN and WOMEN. Division of labor, come to think of it, is such a basic social arrangement which improves work efficiency dramatically and has been employed since the earliest time in history.

But in the 21st century, in the name of gender equality, Western societies are trying feverishly to do away with any division of labor between men and women. They argue that division of labor between men and women, a.k.a. traditional gender roles, is what kept women at home and hindered their fuller actualization / realization as a human being. But just ask why would anyone want to force clumsy, smelly, hairy men to take care of newborn babies? Their skin is coarse, unsanitary, and their voices low – not something that babies usually like. And why would anyone want to put women in military special forces, when they can't lift heavy weapons by themselves? Their maybe some valid biological reasons, why across all societies and all ages, women are the ones who take care of babies, and men are the ones who went to fighting. Maybe, just like Neanderthals were, 21st century Western countries are on its way to extinction.

Old white women's dying wish

Leading article from NY Times (on the web), a night after Obama’s another comprehensive win in overwhelmingly white and blue-collar state.

One woman’s response to often-repeated line by many old white women that justifies Hillary’s candidacy; ‘I want to see a woman president before I die,”

Her response; “But you know what? That’s a selfish reason to vote for a president just because you want to see a woman before you die,” she added. “What about the kids coming up? I feel we should vote for the young people.”

Good point. Right. Those old white ladies would die soon after Hilary became President, if their wish comes true. All the younger generations (probably anyone who are under 70?) will be stuck with old white ladies dying wishes for 4 years. Is it fair? They will leave the suffering and burden of Hillary presidency to all the rest of us and they will rest peacefully in the grave. Since when Presidential election became a means to grant old women’s dying wish?

Hillary is NOW NY Part 2

People should realize that sending another Clinton into the White House means "empowering" these militant feminists. The army of militant feminsts that Hillary would surely bring in with her would propose and push for far more one-sided, discriminatory man-hating legislation, policies, etc.

Right now these lunatics are just part of civil societies, NGOs, capable of issuing statements once in a while or staging a rally or demonstration few media would pick up. But the advent of the Hillary adminisration will turn these militant activists into "government officials", "buraucrats" and "policy advisors" who will have real power in turning their man-hating agenda into public, government policies that will be implemented and enforced, without mercy, on a national scale.

This is an urgent qake-up call to do anything you can do in your poewer to stop Hillary.

Even under the supposedly conservative, right-wing Bush administartion, we continue to see feminists-inspired legislation being passed, Title IX being continued, etc.. Just imagine what would happen if Hillary occupy the House. Just imagine what the rights and the staus of men would be under such a feminist administration.

Hillary is NOW NY

Whoa. This is just a MAINSTREAM FEMINISM speaking- anyone who do not back a woman candidate is an ENEMY of women. And Hillary's ideological roots and NY NOW women's ideological roots are the same. In other words, Hillary IS NY NOW chapter women and NY NOW chapter women ARE Hillary. They are from the same school of thoughts.

If, god forbid, if we were to have Hillary as the next President, you will see many people like them gaining power in Washington; the shrill, hysteric, man-hating militant feminists. They will be calling the shots and influencing important decisisons in the capital. People who are ideologically not so different from NY NOW President will be filling cabinet posts in the second Clinton administration. Their pals in women's studies course are filling upper echerons of federal bureaucracy and enforce their feminist utopia.

Just imagine having some of the loony heads from NY NOW chapter in key government positions - yet that is exactly what is going to happen when the Clinton wins election! She will bring in tons of people who are associated with NOW and other similar loony militant feminists oprganizations, scholars from women's study course in her administartuion to fill cabinet and other key posts and in many senior posts in the government.

Anyone with a least bit of intelligence could see to it that Hillary is not running for US President to solve Middle East crisis, boost economy, etc, etc ... All those pesky "policy issues" are just adds-on to her most central agenda - establishing a gender-free society, a feminist utopia. She is running to satisfy her onw ego to be the most powerful women in the world.

"Subprime Crisis Snags Women"

Of course only women are, or women are “disproportionately affected” by, Subprime loan crisis…Not because the actual data suggest so, but because, to some people, men simply do not matter – if men suffer from Subrprime loan crisis or from whatever other causes, they deserve it, because they are men.

You know, newspapers pages are too precious to be expended on plight of men. they have had good times for thousands of years already. There are plenty of other issues that affect women, or plenty of women’s perspectives that need to be introduced and prioritized over others on any important issues that affect the country, I guess.

Wonder Woman gets women's voice

It is such an important milestone in women’s lib movement that both New York Times and the Newsweek magazine reported. Is it progress or regress, exactly? There is nothing else significant to report in this week’s feminists’ scorecard?


Anyway, my huge congratulations for all womankind out there for finally breaking the “glass ceiling”, or whatever “ceiling” they want to call in this case, of boys’ comic club…I

n this latest frontline of feminists’ constant struggle to tear down patriarchy, feminists celebrate that the comic “Wonder Woman”, after 66 years into existence, will finally have some feminine touch..

Help! there is a dearth of top female chefs!

I’ve always wondered why most of the top chefs in the word are men, even though most of the home cooking, throughout the world and history have been done by women. This article in the New York magazine tells you that it is because of a blatant sexism.

Perhaps the author of the article graduated from Women’s Studies programme just a few months ago, and employ a pure gender-feminist style analytical framework - The author knows the answer to the low number of top female chefs already – so she does not stop just because “ the chefs we spoke to were at first reluctant to cite sexism as the reason there aren’t more women among the city’s elite chefs .”. Instead she pushed, cajoled and guided the women until she get desired answers and arrived at a pre-set conclusion “ it became clear that gender bias is still an issue.”

So you round up seven of not-exactly-top-tier chefs in New York restaurants, who, to a various degree, are holding anguish and resentment against their male colleagues who pass them over for whatever reasons, real (not as good as male colleagues) or imagined (I am discriminated against because I am a woman), and spit out their rants against male colleagues and patriarchy in consciousness-raising-group-style interview.

Off course food cooked women is better since;

“It’s more from the heart and more from the soul.” And

“more accessible, it’s easier to understand, it’s friendlier, it’s more comforting, and it doesn’t get bogged down in all these nutty freaking trends. And

“because it’s comfort food or it’s very nurturing."

Wait, is this a feminists-approved line?

Anyway, I think the reason why there is a dearth of top-female chefs is the same for why there are fewer top female politicians or scientists or whoever rose to the highest level in whatever fields, compared to males. Men put extraordinary energy and determination to rise to the top. You cannot just do the same job as every others do and wait for someone to promote you over the others. You have to be better than others and have an edge that differentiates between you and the rest of them.

Feminists have now become too accustomed to the idea of just doing ordinary job and waiting for the government or media to pick up on you and push you to the top of the ladder due to your specific demographic character. That complacency (“I am a woman, and I WORK (as opposed to EXCEL), THEREFORE I need to be promoted) seems to be slowly spreading to the chef world too.

Maybe it is not too long before some feminist organizations would start screaming “discrimination” against women in the restaurant business, call for immediate government action and file a string of multi-million dollar sexual harassment lawsuits. It would be soon followed by Five-year government or industry action plan to affirmative- action women into more top chef posts – only then they could see their number increase. Bottom line; they can never rise to the top on their own merit, they need government / industry backed affirmative-action plan to rise to the top.

True face of gender-feminist warrior

WOOOOOWWWW…

Do men (and women) want this face to be on TV, newspaper and all over the media for the next four or eight years telling you to do this and do that, and preaching that men should be more like women and other her feminists nonsense? Do we REALLY want that?

In Asia (and many other parts of the world) people say that the face gives insights to the inner mind of the people. Hillary looks OLD (indeed really, really OLD) in the picture, but it’s not just being old that make most people feel awfully disgusted. I think the picture shows a true FACE of a person (happens to be a woman, yeah!) who have been pursuing unbridled power and control over other people, a true face of radical gender feminist warrior and petit-totalitarianist.

Even though feminists still want to spin this to their advantage as much as possible; e.g. this is a new female face of power, people should challenge their inner unconscious sexism that make them want to vomit to this image and instead embrace it, need a sensitivity training to old female leaders’ faces or the society is generally hard on women because of sexism and this was the result, etc. etc., the undeniable fact throughout history is that people prefer younger, fresh-looking face over tired, exhausted, senile face.

Why did Nixon lose to Kennedy in 1960? Is it sexism against men? Why Ronald Reagan had to wear make up in front of camera? Do face and style never matter in politics? What, are you living in 19th century?

Managing and projecting good (and young, fresh) images is an important pillar of modern-day political campaigning. That’s why many campaigns hire scores of image consultants, stylists, etc. But when a woman stumbles on this one time, and all of a sudden there is huge cry of sexism?

I remember long time ago, in one of the late night talk show (I forgot which show, but it was many years ago), the guest was Sting, who was famous for his tireless efforts to save Amazon rainforests and the host said that if Sting could finish his guest appearance that night without uttering a word “Amazon rainforest”, the host would give him some small prize. I think he didn’t get the prize, because, you know, he was an activist.

Likewise, I want to offer feminists some small gifts if they could see this picture and hold the urge to scream out the word “sexism”. But I bet they cannot, because they are ‘feminists”. Their brains are wired to remote a computer in feminists world headquarter where they are programmed to scream the word “sexism” at least three times per minute when they see a picture of an old, haggard woman. The feminist programmer meant to program one scream per minute but since she was not so good at computer (she only joined her computer class after the Women in Math and Science programme at her school compelled her to take the class and her grade was padded to atone for past injustices against women in science field)

Althouse: That picture of Hillary on Drudge right now.

Immodest Proposals: The Most Significant Photo of 2007 . . .

Stay-at-home mom

At the hands of able writers in the NYT, even a stay-at-home mom was portrayed as a well-traveled, influential and efficient campaigner ……. just a small spin, and indeed as a wife of one of the serious contenders in the race of President, she might be just so, but at the same time in the way they title and frame the whole article I can see their hatred against stay-at-home-mom and their desire to “rescue” such moms from their abject circumstances through spin…..

Sexual harassment between politicians in Canada

This is what happens when you have loads of, or to use feminists' favorite line, "critical mass" of female politicians. She is doing merely what her ideology tells her to do; reduce male politicians as much as possible, since, nothing is more important than increasing women's share in politics, or, in other words, again to use their catch phrase, "empowering women". In their eternal fight to reduce men's presence from any socially significant arena, the charges of sexual harassment only becomes yet another tool.

Thus, it doesn't matter whether the male politician was only looking at his private computer, or whether the female politician was in fact violating his privacy, or whether in fact the material he was looking at was sexually explicit or not. The only thing that matter in this case, at least to politically-correct mainstream media, ,was that the female politician "felt" that there was something wrong in his computer, and the fact that sexual harassment complaint was made. And they were looking only for one thing: to kick another male out from the Canadian legislature, and possibly replace him with ‘a woman”, to drive up female gender ratio a notch. And in the way, they might have figured that they would even be able to highlight the issue of sexual harassment again, focusing this time on sexual harassment by high-ranking men, and against high-ranking woman, as well as against women well past their prime age.

The definition of sexual harassment has been on the constant expansion; gone were the days when strict traditional “quid pro quo” type was the definition and now we are entering the time when vindictive women or women with agenda would go all the way, even sneaking into men’s private computer or correspondence to see the slightest hint of “sexism” and claim that they were victimized by it.

Women and alcohol

One has to wonder, after reading yet another gender one-sided article by the Newsweek; so this time what kid of new, special treatment exclusively for women do Newsweek recommend? Special studies on effects of alcohol on women? Special treatment plan funded by government? Special awareness raising programme about women and alcohol and special programme to counter negative stereotype associated with women and alcohol?

We can pass a legislation limiting alcohol consumption by women, for example raise the age limit from current 21 to 25 or 30 for women only, or limit the sales of alcohol to women (say, no more than one glass per female customer) or ban consumption of alcohol by women altogether. Is it a discrimination, or simply trying to "protect" these extremely vulnerable creatures?

Female DJs

Blind celebration of women in stereo-type defying role continues in the New York Times. This time, a gender-bender in…DJ.

Just look at these fem-ideology loaded words that seem to be lifted directly from a textbook in some women’s studies programme; They cannot shake off feminists’-crusade-against-patriarchy mentality even when discussing DJs.

“The barrier was high for females trying to enter an essentially male-dominated field, ”

“D.J.-dom has definitely been a boy’s club, a kind of cabal,” …… It is a club, she noted, that women are only now penetrating in significant numbers.”

Of course, they cannot help but do the bean-counting…otherwise how can you come up with xx-year plan to achieve 50-50 gender parity?

“Today, women are less intimidated, Mr. Principe said. In 2002, when the school was established, 10 to 15 percent of applicants were women. Now that figure is closer to 40 percent.”

Female football reporters

I have some comments on the entry by Glenn Sacks in his blog on the subject of female reporters in the football..


When women comments on male sports like football, it is NOT JUST" a qualified, knowledgeable expert commenting on the sport and that person just happens to be of female gender" NO, life is not so simple today.

In our politicaly-correct society, that knowledgeable person is not simply commeting on the plays and players and fulfilling her personal dream or ambition as a sport commentator, but wittingly or unwittingly she is an accomplice in promoting supposedly greater and noble cause just by her sheer gender, - breaking stereotypes, increasing visibility of women in media and sports, empowering female viwers, etc., etc. This is what media who hires female reporters want to push for, and the companies that sponsors such sports sprogrammes on TV wants to see. And it is precisely this kind of politically correct plot, disguised as a qualified, knowledgable persons's quest to make comment son TV, shoved down our throat even in our comfort of watching our favourite sports, that is causing some men to resent.

There are now fewer and fewer places in this society were men could be free of the forces of political correctness and constant male-bashing, and you are reminded that one of the last bastions of those gender-feminist-free, stereotype-breaking, tailbraizing women-free world is being breached when you see "women" commenting on men's football games.

Reverse pay gap - borad directors

Uhhhh… where’s the outrage?? Where is NEWSWEEK’s 20-page special report on appalling wage discrimination against male corporate directors who were so discriminated against that they earn only 87 percent of what female directors earn?
I also looked through New York Times, Washington Post and the Time magazine for any special reports, article, or op-ed that bring the nation’s attention to this outrageous discrimination, but I found none. And then I realized, - oh, yes, it is WOMEN who is outearning men, not the other way around – of course in this case the whole media would go silent.

But why is the disparity? I could speculate a few reasons behind this.

Maybe the board has to put token women director in senior posts, which would come with higher compensations than the rest of directors – this would be understandable as corporations would naturally want to advertise their diversity efforts by putting the token hires in more visible, senior positions.

Also, a larger corporation are more likely to have additional financial resources to place token directors, who cannot contribute to substantive works but could contribute, by their very presence, to meet diversity goals and satisfy diversity-compliance monitors, and one could expect that compensations for directors at large corporations are higher than that of smaller corporations who may not have much room for diversity hires.

Of course, these are my mere speculations and do not have nay data to back up, but looks quite plausible. Maybe I should look into the data someday.

Coffee shop discrimination

I am always amazed by feminists' bottomless ability to find/cook up gender discrimination in every place imaginable. According to this article, it seems that women are discriminated against literally in every aspect of life, even in coffee shops, which to me seems a rather women-friendly world, with all the “double-macchiat,, blah, blah, blah,….. I don’t even pretend to understand those things on Starbuck’s menu. But one can definitely say that it is more feminine and women-friendly than, say, dive bars.

Is it a really discrimination that on average it takes longer time for coffee shops to serve women? Or is it because male employees spend more time to make sure that cups of coffee or cappuccino for female customers are made to exact recipes and taste perfect, while they don't bother to do so with orders by male customers because they couldn't care less about what male custmers think of them and thier coffees? Now it is discriminaton against whom? Do people really belive that the guys making cappuccinos, upon receiving orders from another sales asscoiate and upon knowing that the orders were placed by female customers, intentionally take another 20 seconds or so off just to remind them of women's place in society?

A few questions popped into my mind as I read the article;

Should Starbucks ban hiring of male employees, to preempt lawsuits by feminist lawyers?

And more importantly, do anyone even care about discrimination anymore? Now the new frontier in a battle for compete gender equality is formed in reducing waiting time for female customers at Starbucks. WHO CARES? Isn’t their any other pressing issues in this society than trying to spare 20 or so seconds of snobbish female customers who have a luxury of patronizing Starbucks?

And on Tim’s last point, it’s interesting to note that the McDonald in Japan has already introduced “women-only” floors, where only women customers are allowed to get in. While they didn’t ban men from getting into their premise entirely, this may be one way to pander more to women customers while not alienating male customers too much.


http://timharford.com/2007/11/smell-the-discrimination-undercover-economist/

Korean feminists

Oops, it was a “wrong” kind of woman, in the light of gender feminists’ approved ideal women model, because - she was a motherly, traditional woman. Trained in western man-hating brand of feminism, Korean feminists are up in arms against the recent government’s decision to put a woman on the face of its national banknote for the first time, and they are not going to be happy until they see trail-brazing, lesbian militant feminist-type in politics or military or large corporations (in other words, THEIR role model) adorn the banknotes.

In the western media (BBC) the “row” is rather simple and one-sided, a gender feminists’ rant against the decision of the government dominated by reactionary males, but local media (English version) reports a more complicated affair, with another feminist supporting the government’s decision by saying that the woman was actually a modern, western-type independent woman who was unfortunately portrayed as a “motherly” figure as a result of patriarchal conspiracy to keep women barefooted and pregnant, and that restoration of the woman was necessary. Very complicated indeed.

Anyway, if feminists were not happy with the public celebration of a historical woman in national banknotes, why not scrap it altogether? Who needs a little gender-mainstreaming and affirmative action in bank notes? Who wants to be reminded everyday as they reach for money in their wallets a result of gender feminists’ relentless push for affirmative action?

In some other countries (or regional organizations, to be more precise), they could not even celebrate any historical personality, however great their contribution to humanity and history might have been, because - it would discriminate against women. If they start putting faces of historical figures in banknotes, feminists argue, it would be almost all-male affair (understandably, of course). And since nothing carries more weight than feminists’ whims and words in the modern European life, the Euro banknotes do not to adorn any human faces on their notes. Quest for gender equality banned people from celebrating historical (male) personalities. It would not be long before that history would be dead in Europe because of feminism. But I guess they wouldn’t bother because they want to replace history (“his-story”) with “her-story”.

Operah Winfrey school

Note that the perpetrator of this sex crime is a WOMAN! But of course we cannot blame women for anything in this society, since women are the victims of patriarchal oppression . So the article tries to shit blame to society and (men, of course);


"perhaps because of the sexually freer environment that girls and women are experiencing and the portrayal of women as sex objects. "

But maybe even this female author sensed that shifting blame to soceity and men do not fly in this case, so she desparately try to muddle the issue....

"Most also come from extremely difficult, disorganized circumstances in which affection, love and relationships are deeply rooted in sexual behavior."

Typical Newsweek job.

Hillary's woman defence

So now it’s official that in the Democratic field for the Presidential race, we have six contenders, who discuss policy issues, trade questions and criticism at each other and could be and held responsible for one’s words and actions, and one who would only announce her policy and intentions but is above any criticism or question.

It portends what Hillary Presidency will look like, if it ever going to happen; she will only announce what she wants to do, or what her policy would be, and any criticism against her decisions or policies would be judged sexual discrimination and silenced by her cronies and liberal mainstream media. Maybe we should think again about whether America should elect someone only for the sake of achieving a diversity milestone and feel good about ourselves or if we want to elect someone who could be held accountable, who do not hide behind gender (or any other identity politic’s) victim card. U.S. Presidency is much, much more important than simply being a trophy for diversity movement. After all, isn’t it the cornerstone of democracy that citizens freely elect some one who is accountable to their constituents?

In a way Hillary is smart in letting her cronies do all the work of playing gender victim card, while she herself keep away from that kind of cheap trick. She could appear strong, statesmanlike, rising above the cheap gender card, all the while ensuring that her opponents and the media will think twice before leveling any criticism against her in the future. And it’s also a rare time that Ferraro could get a media spotlight, after her historic landslide defeat as a token woman candidate for Vice President of the U.S. She surely knows how to play the gender victim card very well because she was the foremost expert on this, in fact it is her only expertise in politics to this date, and her only qualification for VP candidacy was that she was a woman.

CIA, feminized

Espionage and intelligence collection ain’t what it used to be – just like any other organizations, public or private, CIA is not immune from relentless onslaught by litigation-happy gender-feminists. America’s battle against terrorism and other threats just got a little more complicated with adventure-seeking trail-brazing women types who see career advancement in the world’s foremost intelligence organizations as a part of their self-fulfillment and self-actualization. And when they are done with bean-counting of men and women at the rank and file and investigating subtle gender discrimination and hostile working environment, which they do when they are not doing their jobs as case offices or intelligence analysts, they are ready to launch a sexual discrimination lawsuit so that, the intelligence agency could proud itself as being at least gender-sensitive even when they are not winning its battle against terrorism and other threats.

Patriarch Verlch: The Biggest Anti-Feminist Known to Man!: A Tribute To the Much Maligned American Male!#links

Patriarch Verlch: The Biggest Anti-Feminist Known to Man!: A Tribute To the Much Maligned American Male!#links

Feminists want to control your perceptions

I don’t know exactly when it started, but from sometime in the late 20th century, feminism began to explore ways to regulate and control human’s mind at both conscious and unconscious levels. This was actually a quite a large shift in their focus from their previous emphasis on ensuring equal rights and opportunity in the external social and political settings (this endeavor seems to have ended by the 1960’s), to seeking statistical sameness in the behaviors of two sexes and working of inner minds of human being. This, needless to say, originates from their hypothesis that continuing non-existence of statistical parity in political and economical powers between the sexes (also termed as “gender discrimination” by some) and in their endless quest to achieve such statistical parity, in other words, equality of results. Subtle, even unconscious or sub-conscious bias of otherwise perfectly PC people may be hindering women’s progress in workplace, as they do not value masculine women who exhibits anger and aggressiveness, which is understood as a necessary elements to be successful in today’s cutting-edge, dog-eats-dog world of business and politics. What’s need to be done?

Maybe more researches need to be done to look into the psychology of human beings, and how they perceive gender roles and stereotypes. And subsequently more researches may be in order to rectify such biased perception of the people.

People’s inner mind, which many people would understandably consider to be the most private of all private lives, free of any governmental or outside control, could no longer be out of bounds, if biases in inner minds were “proven”, by some untouchable feminist advocacy groups, to be hindering women’s workplace progress.

Trying to regulate people’s inner mind poses fundamental challenges to ideas and principles of individual liberties and freedom. But such concern could be easily overrun by much larger societal need to urgently ensure the absolute statistical sameness between men and women.

After all, of course, these notions of individual liberties and freedom were created long long time ago, when women didn’t have a right to vote and when there was no affirmative action and gender quota, by a bunch of old men who kept their sorry housewives to mandane lives of domesticity while they engage in esoteric discussion on rights and freedom. Right, feminists?

Nancy Peloci

Look what happens when you give too much power to women. They would savor it, abuse it, in a scale that would even eclipse the worst of male-kind.

It is even exacerbated by the fact that a gang of blind supporters who would respond with shrill cry of sex discrimination at the slightest hint of criticism on any actions, statement made by people born with XX genes.

Feminization of a profession

This is quite an interesting article. By the way, both for and against the original idea by professor Clark - that feminization of medicine profession could lead to losing of influence and status - could be labeled as pro-women, and therefore, of course, anti-women. It depends on the gender of the speakers primarily and also on which side of the political spectrum you are coming from. Thus, men can always be labeled “sexist” whether you are for or against the original position – if you agree with Prof. Clark, you are sexist since you think that occupations consisting primarily of women have less stature, and if you oppose her view, you are denying the fact that those feminine fields are regarded in lower status than predominantly male profession, thus wanting to perpetuate the inequality.

Anyway, there is also a feminists’ favorite line that teachers’ salaries are low because it is a predominantly female occupation. I wonder if they ever care to consider some facts and numbers (which maybe difficult for women as Lawrence Sommers explained);

-Do the salary of teachers decline in real terms since the time when it was primarily male occupation?

-Or is it when compared to private sectors that teachers’ salaries are considered to be low?

-Or is it when compared to other public, government sectors?

-Would local governments be able to afford to pay law firm or hedgefund companies-like salaries to teachers?

-Do teachers and schools make huge financial profits from which they could be reimbursed as their salaries and bonuses?

-What are the qualifications of teachers and difficulties of getting in the field?

But of course, crunching numbers and talking data would not be as sexy and has as much headline-grabbing potential as simply shouting at the top of their voice that “Teacher’s salaries are low because of gender discrimination against predominantly female profession!”



http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/412

Karen hughes failed

It is intresting that all 3 persons charged with the task of promoting the US public diplomacy in Arab world after 9/11, including Karen Hughes herself, the perons who is subject of this article, are WOMEN. And all FAILED MISERABLY. Of course it is not all attributable to the fact that they were women (in fact maybe far from it), but for the record, it must be noted that these WOMEN failed. Because it is easy for many poeple in the liberal circle (and of course among feminist sisters) to get selective amneisa and recall only the achievements of women in senior roles and somehow start believing that women are better in politics and diplomacy.

It is also intersting to see that Hughes was not taken very well among Arab women. Here the Republican's uncharcteristic foray into Democrat-style feminist-pandering has failed. They should know that they shouldn't be playing by gender-feminist playbooks. It seems that even the so-called "oppressed Arab women" know that American-style militant feminism, characterized by its hatred against men and children (boys) and most of all, against family and family values, is not what they want.

In fact, there is something unsettling about the supposedly conservatie Bush admnistration's blind pursuit of diversity in its administration. The administration was even credited by some liebral media as the most diverse administration in history, but it seems that many of the "diversity" appointments have backfired (Gonzales, and now Hughes)

Immigrant women

A typical “You go, girl” advocacy article, with a hint of “what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine” mentality el Latino version.

Of course what husbands earn in foreign countries in hard and often dangerous labor remitted back home should totally belong to women, so that they can make important financial and household decisions, which may have been traditionally done by men, and thereby “empowering’ women, when these women do go to work in foreign countries, money is not going to flow to men back in their home countries, but of course, to other women, women relatives or friends. To put it simply, “Men’s money is mine, and my money is mine, or in the temporary custody of other female members of the family.” This is justified by one study done by some obscure organization that belongs to feminist-pandering United Nations (upon closer look it is an UN research institute that deal exclusively with women’s issue - so much for independent, objective study) since men are lazy and tend to squander money on unworthy things.

Wait, the radical feminist is not done with her one-sided gender bashing yet, she went on to complain that those men who are left behind do not take up new role of child rearing, in the mold of feminists’ ideal “new feminine-men”, and laments that the gender wage gap in “comparable works” (these words sound familiar, don’t they?) is persistent even in country like Argentina who is otherwise happy to elect the wife of current President as a new President and establish gender quota for women in the parliament. Their goal: use whatever resources and social phenomena, including men’s remittance from abroad, more female immigrants, to re-engineer society in the image of feminist utopia.

What's troubling here is this kind of gender-feminist's proponsity to look for every opportunity to "empower" women and blame patriarchy. If men work in foreign countries, it is not seen as sacrifice by men to earn money for families back home (by the way, "families" include not only wives, but children also, remember!), but opportunity to be capitalized, with the money men remit,and the void in household decision making authority. And if women work abroad and need to remit home, money is to go to female members of families, so that these women and the women immigrant themselves when they return home could use the resource as basis for further women's economic empowerment. What is entirely lacking throughout in the article is a viewpoint of, and the need of, "family", but in radical feminist's myopic world where outdoing men gets the ONLY priority, economic empowerment of women by whatever means takes precedent.

HELP!! - there are too few women rappers!!

Yes, of course, it is one of THE major issues facing UK, US and perhaps other western democratic countries, along with global warming and Darfur genocides and myriad of other problems – an APPALING DEARTH of female rappers. (British feminists like use the "appalled" whenever they discuss gender balances that are not in their favor - although they did not use the word this time) Even more troubling, according to this author, is that even when these endangered species that is female rappers do get rare media exposures, they often have to play up to stereotyped views of women, and appear sexy and adjust their lyrics to fit that stereotypes, rather than doing what they really want to do. There is nothing more that feminists hate than being stereotyped, maybe even more so than lack of gender balance.

TOO BAD that women aren’t given equal chance to yell “f..K” and ”ni...er” and other expletives as loud and as freely as men do.

But I’m sure that a small sub-section of radical feminists who work on women and media (or music or rap) issues are working around the clock to correct this "unacceptable" problem, carefully counting all the albums released and sold by men and women by all the record labels, do some “wage-gap” check on income of all male and female rappers, and keep all related statistics as they do when creating gender-discrimination hysteria in any other field, because that is what feminists is all about.

I guess this is also an area where "girl power" needs to be asserted. I remember one feminist very fondly reacted to a recent satistic on increasing violence by young women as a good sign that females are breaking stereotypes and asserting their own powers. Leaving aside the question of whether rappers are a good role model for young people or the kind of influence their music, lyrics and lifestyles bring on to young people, it is another area where MEN RULE, and according to feminist dicta, men's rule has to be challenged and destroyed anywhere, anytime. So much for a moral judgment but a pure display of hatred against men.

Being a man bad for the environment

Here is an article on a study that looks into a critical link between two of the most (politically-correct) issues today – environment and feminism. Now that these two are “proven” to be inter-linked, (it’s vouched by non other than the government of Sweden and the United Nations – no more “discussions”, but only “actions” are allowed - ) it is now official that persecuting men is good for the environment. Nature and women will join hand in hand to attack their enemy – men.



Come to think of it, not only men drive 3 out of 4 cars in Sweden (really?), but men owns most of the car companies, and other industrial manufactures and factories, large corporations that utilities (assuming that Sweden is still not tainted by Norwegian women-must-make-up-40%-of-boardroom law) that causes environmental havoc.

Wait, if we continue our current women-promotion and gender-bender programmes and increase women in boardrooms, champion women in untraditional roles like drivers, and meat eaters, would it increase women’s part in environmental destruction – do we need to start persecuting women also? No! Remember that women ARE the environment, the mother nature!

Very bureaucratic execution of a man

I don't know if the female judge closed the court at 5PM because the inmate was a man. But if the inmate was a woman, it would have been on her mind for a whole day, because the media wold have been reporting it for days, as "the first women to be executied in...." and run sympathetic stories after stories about her, how childhood abuse by father,stepfather, brothers or abusive spouse have caused her to commit the crime..usual "woman defence", and the female judge would have never though about closing the office at 5PM.
I'm also sure, as a woman, the judge had to leave at 5PM to tend to her family, beause as feminsts repeatedly tell us, that even career women are burdened with "double-shift", while men can simply focus on work and slouch in the couch rest of the time. So in a nutshel, it is men's fault, right?

Looking at women = illegal

This incredible new proposed bill from New York - my home town!

Why don't you simply make it illegal for men to BREATH? That's the fastest and easiest way to get rid of all men from the street, if that's what women and feminists want. Instead of proposing, debating, amending and passing thousands of new laws that are designed to criminalize various activitiesof men and ensnarle more and more men into prisons, why not just have one comprehensive bill? It will save lots of time, energy and resources that would have been otherwise spent on considering numerous anti-male bills. It is good for environment and saves cost.

Criminalizing prostitution

Here is an interesting line from the far-left Guardian….

“In some parts of the UK, up to 80% of the women working indoors are from other countries, but only a minority of them are trafficked. According to Lithuanian anti-trafficking police, even trafficked women often know that they are coming to the UK to work in the sex industry. They make the decision to come because they are living in poverty.”

This would weaken the case presented by feminist groups on anti-trafficking (plus some conservative groups as well), who want to imprint the image that ALL women from foreign countries are TRAFFICKED, and trafficked AGAINST THEIR WILLS. Ooops, how could Guardian editorials missed this line which contravene their official line? I don’t know.

I’ve always had impressions that, however pitiful their plight may be, it is hard to understand that those trafficked women did not know anything about the actual work that they had to do (prostitution) when they were recruited in Romania or Hungary or elsewhere…even though they are young and maybe mostly uneducated, at least they’ve got to have some sense of what’s going on, especially if it such a widespread phenomenon as feminists claim…

While experience and studies have shown that criminalizing prostitutions does not work, that does not matter to ideologically-driven feminists (and again, right-wingers, too). The reality needs to fit their ideology, not the other way around.

“Such a law was introduced in Sweden eight years ago, but research has shown that instead of wiping out street prostitution, it has simply become more hidden, placing the women involved in it at greater risk of violence from punters. The most socially marginalised women who work on the streets have suffered most. Meanwhile, sex for sale on the internet has increased.”

Women's soccer

Just rambling thoughts on women’s soccer. Like many other women’s sports, women’s soccer is not just a form of entertainment, but a noble political cause in itself. To play, to watch, to root for and to cover the games in media all are acts of noble political cause that elevate the status of women in sports and the agenda of feminism. The better the quality of the game, the more fans pack the stadium, the more viewers tune in, the more coverage it gets in the press, the standing of the women’s soccer increase vis-à-vis men’s soccer and in the whole sports. Thus ensues mainstream media’s understandable (in a politically-correct atmosphere) rush to exhort plays in the Women’s World Cup, when most of the male soccer fans know the level of play is quite dismal, (especially those of keepers), give more-than-deserved time in TV broadcast and space in printed papers, and treat some of the female players like true heroes who should be treated in the same vain as way as male star players. It’s all about equality, isn’t it?

Equally rampant are self-congratulations about how the sport is growing, how it help’s girls’ self-esteem, how it empowers women, how it help defy gender stereotypes, etc. etc. all the usual litany of feminists' hyperboles. At the same, interestingly enough, when the women’s sport is supposedly doing superb, media also wail on the sorry state of the sport, e.g. how it is held in low regard, how little support it gets from sport’s association compared to male counterparts, how little (or none) they are being paid, etc. etc., - this is where feminists' adrenaline and their man-hating instincts kicks in, and blast about how the male-dominated soccer associations in many countries, media, fans and society at large discriminate against women and girls.

Watching soccer on TV is not relaxing activities that you can enjoy while slouching in your couch on weekends. That is, when you watch women’s soccer. The experience might not be as relaxed and enjoyable, as you are constantly bombarded with female commentators’ political agitprops about the greatness of women’s game, and the plays you see on TV should rather belong to high school sports, but at least you can take comfort in the fact that you are participating in a noble act of empowering women, taking part in feminists’ crusade against men and patriarchy.

YOU MUST VOTE for the Madame President

Here is a peice that goes "YOU HAVE TO VOTE HILLARY BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!!".

I amazed that the author of this article actually went so far as to say that guys (Obama and Edwards) cannot and should not be the President because they are “guys”. I think it’s OK for him to say these things without fear of repercussion because, first, he is are discriminating against men and it is sooooo OK in this country, and second, he is also a black, which means that he is not going to be fired since the management will be in trouble for diversity non-compliance for one less black face in the editorial room.

But one thing he may got right is that women can only vote for other women, because, well, they are women and do not have ability to weigh pros and cons of each candidacy and see deeply into policy alternatives offered by different candidates. Maybe those analytical traits, fair and balanced, belong only to men. Maybe women are a kind of species that could only see the sex of the candidates, could note only whether they speak in high tone, wear skirts, wear pink or red clothes, and have breasts and bigger hips. And if none of the candidates have breasts or large hips, then maybe, maybe look at policy issues. Maybe women are so myopic in their visions and entrapped in a feeling-based, analysis-free thinking that could only care about being in a very, very good mood on November 2008 over the fact that a woman finally become the President, but could not and do not care to think about the political, economic and social long-term consequences that the Hillary presidency might bring. And these people now comprise majority of American electorates – isn’t it a tragedy?

if you endorse the author's view, then you agree with the above statement.

What media is trying to do here is to frame the Clinton candidacy as a sort of referendum on women becoming the US President. Instead of asking what Hillary has done in the past and what she would do in the future, and whether it is good or bad for America, the questions are framed as "whether Americans are ready for Madame President?" or "Americans are sexist enough to not vote for Hillary?" This is a very shrewd tactics. Of course if questions are framed in these ways, most Americans, who do not want to be caught saying politicaly-incorrect thing, would answer that they are ready to elect a female president - but that does not necessarily mean that they want Hillary to be the one. But the media hastily treat this as people's endorsement of Hillary as the next President. I don't know how long this kind of CHEAP TRICK would work.

I would imagine that as Clinton's campaign starts to flounder, and trail behind Guilliani, she and her mediA allies would resort to usual "women" defence. A kind of defence that were in full display when French female presidential candidate Ms. Royal sank behind THE eventual and WELL-deserved winner Mr. Sarkozy in the polls right before the election. You know, "The media, the society are sexist, biased against women", "I was unfairly attacked for being a woman", or "Men are still afraid of women in power", that kind of usual emotional rhetoric favoured by feminists.

MI5 calls for more woman applicants

Feminists are eager to cry discrimination and call for immediate remedies as soon as the women’s gender ratio in British intelligence agency drops to 44 %, - which wouldn’t be such a lopsided figure in the first place, but maybe quite a decrease from “more than half” that they were enjoying in the 1990s. Wait, let’s say that the “more than half” were, say, 55 or 56 percent, consequently men’s ratio would have been 45 or 44 percent respectively – that is same as the current percentage of women! Were there any outcry and remedial measures to correct the “gender imbalance”? Of course not! Gender-balance discussion is always only one-way street – how to increase ratio of women.

By the way, I think 44 percent, or above 40 percent is a range of gender balance that even Swedish feminists, who are in no way less militant than their British counterparts, view as acceptable, but evidently not British feminists.

Is there any correlation between the large percentage of women in the agency and the its recent intelligence failures, such as the London bombing? I know, it’s a question no one could ask without being held criminally responsible for bigotry and misogyny. If the intelligence agency’s central focus is on recruiting a kind of people who are most attracted by such socialism perks as two full year of maternity leave, then the prospect for winning the fight against terrorism and crimes are not really bright. It will only make the agency look more like a postal office or other sleepy bureaucratic office. And what if significant portion of its employees (don’t forget that women in their 40’s and 50’s get pregnant these days) take up to 2 years of consecutive leave – it will undoubtedly cripple the organization.

Quizz shows' lack of women

In US, there used to be shrieking demand by feminists to increase women in the hit TV quiz sow “Who wants to be a millionaire”, saying that the questions were biased against women, etc., etc. By doing so, feminists were showing their eagerness to enforce correct gender ratio in all spheres of social life, including in a hit TV show where people would simply want to relax and enjoy the entertainment. But the Big sisters weren’t so relaxed, as you know, one of their main goals is to monitor and counter pervasive gender stereotypes in mainstream media,..

Across the Atlantic, their sister feminists are doing the same….

Gas station for women

Go Sweden! A land of “man-tax” (proposed but didn’t materialize). I think its auto-maker Volvo has once assembled women-only team to build a car for women, which has all the essential needs for women (beggier mirros, etc.). Here comes a gas station for women….

"Gray rape" part 2

Part 2 on the "gray rape"


It looks quite strange that people who look most remote from chance sex encounters (such as sexual assault experts who may not have had one date when they were in college, busy attending women's study class or going to "take back the night" rally) are defining and determining for the rest of us what legitimate sexual encounters is and what is not (therefore automatically qualifies as a rape) it's as though people who never seen basebll and in fact hate it more than anything in the world trying to call the baseball games.

Also there are some strange males that appear in the original column, the so-called male actvisits against rape - those people may think that if they cry the feminist-approved slogan loudest, they would be exempt from feminists' persecution of men, but they should know that that kind of moral posturing would not save them from feminists ire.

There are a group of people who take responsibility for their own actions and words, and held to a higher standard - they are called MEN.

There are also a group of people who do not have to take responsibility for their own actions or words, who can change the mind after the thing happened, and who are held to a lower (or no) standard - they are called WOMEN. Oh, I also forgot to add in the latter category people like kids, teenagers, mentally-challenged persons, etc.

It is kind of strange to see gender feminists endorse my viewpoint - that since men are more capable, they should be held to a higher standard - men are totally up to that challenge, as we have done so in the past millenia.

"Gray rape"

First there was a rape, and then there was a "date rape" now let me introduce you to a newest form of rape, or rape 2.0 - it's dubbed "gray rape" - no it's not a rape of a gray woman by a gray guy (I don't want to think about that, do you? but this also may be a new frontier for gender feminists)

Read this article...in the NY Times City page...

One solution, just like minors under the age of 21, make it illegal for ALL WOMEN to drink alchohol. If they can not be held legally responsible for their actions, or if they cannot take responsibility over their own actions after drinking alchohol, then ban it altogether. If feminists want to treat women like kids, then so be it. Only men, but no kids and women, will be allowed to consume alchohol becaue they are the only ones who will take reponsibilities for their own actions.

If all-rights-and-no-responsibility womenkind are barred from drinking, then there wil be no incidents of so-called “gray rape”, (and no jobs for feminist experts citedin the article), no female “victims” as well as male “victims” who are painted as “rapist” under this new capricious (just like women) legal concepts. And no more fun of course. Welcome to Brave New Feminist World.

I think where we are heading to is a society where all forms of sexual intercourse is deemed a rape, as a prominent feminist once famously proclaimed. While many of the even die-hard radical feminists would on surface try not be associated with this radical notion, they believe deep in their heart that all forms of sexual intercourse is rape.

Perhaps, five or ten years down the road, this emerging new legal concept of “gray rape” will be imposed on us as a established leagl concept even though most of us think it absurd, supported by “research after research” (as feminists like to add to most of their spurious claims), and would move on to claim that even explicitly consensual sex is a form of rape, because in a strongly patriarchal environment women live in (as in present day U.S.), women will not be totally free of its evil patriarchal incluence that permeats every facets of society and even personal lives, and therefore cannot be said to have consented to the sexual acts on a completely independent, free will. Long live Andrea Dworkin!

Newsweek's annual women & power orgy

It is a time for Newsweek’s annual (?) celebration of woman, an issue when all the female writers, editors, etc in the Newsweek come out to celebrate themselves, dance around, and feel good about themselves.

It is the “special” among “special reports” in the Newsweek, with unusually large spaces, or pages in the publication devoted to the issue. No other cover stories, or “special report” are given such huge coverage, because it is a topic of “super-special” or “extra-special” importance, and it is easy to see the reason why – why wouldn’t female editors devote just a few extra pages on a cause that make them feel better about themselves, make prospects of their future promotion bigger (women in power is the future of organization!), and advance their cause? A shortcut icon will be left for almost forever in its website to signify its uniquely special status of the topic.

It is also an opportunity for female writers and editors at the publication to mingle with so-called “women leaders” through interviews, etc; and exchange stories about the subtle or not-so-subtle discriminations they both face, whine about difficulty of achieving work-life balance (if female staffers at the Newsweek were ever married) and exchange tips on how to get ahead of men in a career race – I am sure women in the Newsweek are wishing that magazine's all 52 issues in a year could be devoted to the same topic! It is almost like a mass group therapy played out on a mass scale, on the pages of national news magazine.

You see what happens when “women take charge” - they came out to celebrate themselves to feel better.

With a considerable lead Hillary has gained over other Democratic contenders and possible Republican candidates in the polls, the Newsweek will no doubt notch up this kind of “women-leader” hype, to safeguard this lead and condition people into thinking that it is better to have a woman leader for the country and for your lives. Expect to see more special reports and articles that will portray Hillary positively, and her opponent, especially Guilliani, negatively. Expect to see a barrage of brainwashing articles that whispers you, or hypnotize you into thinking that women leaders are not only ok or good, but better than men. In fact the current issue took a small jab at this by suggesting that women governors are better at bi-partisan politics.

Women small business failing

Prime example of equality of results mentality.

Gender feminists are not content with the fact that there is an equality of opportunity between men and women in opening up small business (actually women now far surpass men in terms of opening new small business by account of two to one), but they are demanding that result, the profit earned by those small companies by men and women, be same.

Gender feminists’ frenzied quest for achieving absolute equality, on paper, in statistical terms, in opportunity and in results never ends.

Once small business is opened, it is entirely up to the business owners’ ability to make it big or fail it. I don’t know how feminists think that it is possible to ensure that the outcome is same, that is, the earning by the small business operated by men and women are the same. The free market is competitive and relentless, as it may seem sometimes, but it is a fair system that rewards good business with increased profits and punish bad ones with decreased profits. Sorry if this reality is too harsh for gender feminists who’s been told by their bigger sisters that the world is theirs, is there to please them, and help them achieve maximum self-actualization. It is not.

Here again for gender feminists, individual choice or plan does not matter. While briefly acknowledging that women small business owner, by the very reason many of them started small business, would prefer more free time over profit, she quickly laid out myriad of plans to boost women business’ profits. In order to catch up with men, they need to be taught to “think big” and need lots of “coaching”. If women can’t still catch up with men, despite all these extra-helping hands (and don’t forget those government contracts that favor women and minorities), maybe feminists would want to cap men’s business’ profits at the level women business can reach. Then everybody will be “equal”, and happy.

By the way, I thought we were told by feminists that women are better at operating small business as they were more adept in “multi-tasking”, a requisite ability for small business owners and as small business address needs of common women. But after all these preferential treatments by government, special financial and incentive programmes exclusively for women, and extra-coaching, networking and mentoring for women, women still cannot catch up with men – what’s wrong with them?

Cheap publicity stunt

Spokeswoman for the Bloomberg got it exactly right. IT IS a publicity stunt and the ploy to extort more money. Nothing else.

What kind of people would think that they are entitled to 486 million dollars for the some discrimination? That’s 162 million dollars each!! For some phychological stress that those women alleged to have experienced for the alleged sexual harassment!! They must be super-prestine people since a small psychological stress on their inflated by ultra-fragile feminine ego could take 162 million dollars to fix. If they suffer a genuine psychological stress that many men suffer, as a result of false domestic violence charges, or phony sexual harassment charges flung as a tactical ploy like in this case, they should be receiving 900 trillion dollars each! (I don’t know the unit above trillion)

I think the money amount sought by the 3 women is to a large extent determined by how much these women (and their lawyers of course) think that the Bloomberg corporation is capable of paying. They must have looked at the financial book of the corporation. Not the amount that the women think would be appropriate to compensate for their own alleged suffering caused by the alleged discrimination. In other words, IT IS A EXTORTION.

Note that there is no quote attributed to Mike Bloomberg in the plaintiff’s document. Instead, they blamed “culture” that "fostered, condoned and perpetuated” hostile working environment for women. Wow, sounds very evil, uh?

Like many other bogus sexual harassment lawsuits against large corporations, the suit simply refers to corporate “culture” as a culprit. This is a smart tactical move, as it achieves two things. First, it makes filing of SH lawsuits dramatically easier as it does not require corroboration by hard evidence. It is a convenient charge when there is no evidence at hand to present, or when there is actually no such discrimination, but it allows you go ahead and press charge anyway. The affected women’s perception that such culture exists is everything, and believe me, women after huge financial gain could feel anything under any circumstances. And of course their feeling is absolute and final, and no one, especially men, are supposed to question it.

Second, it allows women to blame not only the person who may or may not have undertaken such discriminatory acts, who tend to be their immediate bosses and not very high up in the rank, but senior management, the president or owner of a company as well and ultimately the entire company, because a one can assume that the “culture” would permeate throughout the company and partly or wholly reflect the culture or thinking of top management. Thus it drastically expands the scope of the discrimination and rev up the compensatory money their could expect, from a range of thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars (in this case, hundreds of millions)

This is a charge that could be thrown only against men. Just as people started talking about the possibility of Bloomberg running as an independent candidate for US President, a cheap political ploy like this was leveled against him. Guilliani should keep in mind that as his Presidential prospects grow, and if he is chosen as Republican candidate, he could expect to face a barrage of gender-ideology based lawsuits (sexual harassment, or violence) who were bent on sabotaging his campaign and on installing the first female President.

NY Knicks, MSG and sexual harassment lawsuit

Triumph of feminism - First affirmative actioned, second, millionare by sexual harassment lawsuit!

Jurors' verdict was out on the famous sexual harassment (SH) lawsuit against New York Knicks coach.There are a few articles on NY Times, here, here and One more.

Well, actually the verdict was out when the moment the suit was filed as the plaintif was “black woman”, a demografic status that gives automatic win in laswuits in this politically corret society. From there the real focus was rather on how to trumpet this issue as evidence of enduring sexism in the workplace, how women are discriminated, and other usual feminism issues. The large payout to her is of course good for her (who doesn’t need money), but in grander scheme of things it facilitates redistribution of wealth from men (who owns and control MSG and NY Knicks) to a “woman”.

Why does supposedly strong, independent, and successful trail-brazing woman have to go so whiny and need more than 11 million dollars to heal her wounds (and 10 million more in the waiting), a dent on her super-inflated ego that is cultured as a result of being educated and living in this country which is filled with toxic influence of man-hating brand of feminism. The ego and self-importance of these so-called “strong, independent” women are so inflated, so much so that in their own fanatasy land, their own inability to live up to the requirement of senior positions that they were affirmative-actioned into are conveniently replaced with so-called gender-discrimination, and somehow become a rallying cry for more women in senior position.

Great financial bonanza for the plaintiff and her feminist lawyers. I guess they could use the money to set uo a fund or something to continue their moral crusade against men.

The large amount awarded to the woman plaintiff is to a large extent informed by feminist worldview that large corporations represnt maleness and therefore patriarhy, with all its hierarchy, structure, power and money, and therefore needs to be ripped of as extensively as possible as opportunity provides, and re-distribute to women, just to get little bit more “even” in financial terms in the ongoing gender war. I wonder how will they think if more and more women join large corporations as they do in recent days, would corporations still be targets of extortion through sexual discrmination charges or will their thinking change?

The charge of declining performace of the plaintiff will not stick in the court of course since in progressive liberal views, the criteria of evaluating perfomance would no longer be based on such male values as efficiency or productivity, but on more “women-centered” attributes, and ultimately, just being a woman and come to office.

That is already a super-achievement by itself because of the so-called “role-model” effect it will have on other women and girls. This should be valued above anything else, including such boring and worldly values as yielding more ptrofits or enhancing corporate productivity.

This is a truly remarkable, memorable day for gender-feminists. First, as a background, they have installed a black woman as a senior executive earning 260k per year in a large company just for born into right gender (and a race). Second they were able to rip over 10 million dollars off from MSG and thereby enriching the coffers of plaintiff and radical feminist law firms. (close to 10 millions more in sight). Third, they could play out the entire saga on public eye, and “raised awareness” on the issue of sexual harassment with most liberal mainstream media putting up op-ed and articles” regurgitating their righteous moral stance on the issue. The sexual harassment industry will no doubt welcome this publicity, and their list of clients (plaintiffs) and potential target companies for litigation/extortion will be miles long.

Reverse pay gap - opportunity for feminists!

This is a follow-up article on the study done by New York college professor that was originally brought up by the New York Times a while ago.

Earlier on the same issue I wondered why there is no outrage and call for governmental programe to correct the gender pay imbalances but of course there is going to be none as long as women are on the upper hand. There would be rather much pondering and scheming on how to spread that superiority of women in other areas of world so that matriarchy could be established. The outrage and call for governmental plan is heard only when women are in disadvantage.

Note how the usual compassion that NYT exhibits toward economically disadvantaged is totally lacking in the article throughout, and the overall tone implicit in the article is a sort of ”how to deal with the men’s ingrained main-breadwinner mentality that is a legacy of patriarchy and condition them into accepting women’s superiority and the role of subservient partner in this new matriarchy where women dominate economy?”

BREAKING NEWS!! MEN EARN ONLY 80 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR WOMEN EARN!!

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!”