Mr. Kristof - Part 3

Well, if the Wall Street had been estrogen-filled rather than testosterone-filled, actually I would agree with Mr. Kristof that there would not have been financial crash, since there would not have been rapid economic development in the first place! Remember what put you in an “prestigious” position to have a “crash”. You cannot have a financial sector “crash” in Rwanda (which by the way Mr. Kristof lauds for having highest female representation in politics) if all your possession is pigs and chickens and if there is no functioning financial market in the country. (Mr. Kristof, where are all the benefits that feminists' rule are supposed tobring in this poverty-stricken country?) Remember, testosterone is what made it possible for Mr. Kristof to woe about this crash on internet (who created internet?) in his comfortable office equipped with latest computer (who made his computer?) and other gismo in a high-rise office building (who built buildings?)

You could live in an alternative matriarchy universe in which technology and social, economical development is stuck in the Middle Age (no testosterone, no printing machines, no ocean-sailing ships, no gunpowder) where you don’t have to worry about financial meltdown, mortgage crisis and so on. And better yet, you don’t have to worry about global worming (no testosterone, no internal combustion engine) or nuclear war (no testosterone, no nuclear science).

Mr. Kristof - Part 2, my suggestions

I think the best thing Mr. Kristof could for advancing the feminist cause to which he so emphatically pander (although this quite advanced level of pandering is still not enough for some of more hard-core feminists: ), is to resign as a columnist of NYTimes. Rather than simply preaching the beauty and benefits of world ruled by women, in one move, he can;

-reduce the percentage of white, hetero-sexual, educated, middle-age, male.

Better yet, after resigning (or actually before resigning and while on the job) he can do something abhorrent like sexually assault one of the young female interns in NYT. In this way he can;

-Further damage the reputation of white-middle-aged man, which he tried so hard to tarnish over the years

-make it much more difficult for large companies to hire white males in respectable positions, columnists or editors or managers, etc., which perfectly suits his agenda of reducing proportion of white males in those positions.

I suggest that Mr. Kristof insists his position be taken over by;

black(or hispanic or Asian or Indian or any other under-represented minority group), homosexual, uneducated, disabled women (or better yet, transsexual person) so that there would be more “diversity” as diversity sounds like the single most important thing in turning around economy and make world a better place. If possible, it is suggested that this person is not only uneducated (can score high on anti-elitist point), but not brilliant/capable or even retarded or has mental problem (so that we can overcome prejudice against retarded person or people worth mental disability).

Mr. Kristof - Part 1

Mr. Kristof’s unending pandering to women is nothing new. When not calling attention of international community for man-made catastrophe (there is no “women-made” catastrophe as such, since anything women do is good according to his worldview) in Sudan or somewhere in Africa, “particularly” the plight of women (this “particularly” part is important as it actually means “exclusively”), he is busy these days kow-towing to man-hating feminists.

What are the possible reasons for this Mr. relentless cozying up to feminists? Here is a list of possible reasons;

a. It’s politically in vogue.

b. NYT senior management will see you in favorable light as you champion their favorite progressive cause.

c. It givers you a bump reader’s rating, mostly from progressive and female-heavy NYT readers.

d. He fancy a good place in an eventual world to be ruled by women (according to him), for embracing their cause from early on.

e. He actually it makes economic sense.


Now let’s analyze each of possible reason;

a. probably, could be one of the reasons

b. also probably yes

c. again, also probably yes

d. Does he seriously believe that men would have any place in a new matriarchy run by man-hating feminists? If so, I must say he must been deluded. The only possible exceptions in a new matriarchy are gay or trans-gendered person(male to female), I would think –but former may not be still technical and medically male, so they would be treated as any other “males”; even the latter is a XY choromosne holder at cell level so not sure about them either.

e. Please study economic 101

What’s the good terms for this kind of male-feminists, (defeatist?, femi-Nazi collaborator?) We need a name, a catchy one for this kind of people. And what could be the reason / motivation for these guys to pander to a group of people who think of you as nothing other than possible rxpist? Some possible reasons are listed above but there could be others. And how are the inner psychology of these men? Masochist?

Obama the first "feminist" President

Now let me psychoanalyze Eleanor Smeal and other feminists who pretend as if Obama is one of their feminist warriors...

1. Before 2008 election season starts, there was extremely (and I mean extremely) high expectation that Hillary will be a Democratic nominee and then eventually the US President.

2. Hillary lost a race for a party nomination, which was largely believed to be simply a coronation process, in a spectacular fashion, to a relatively inexperienced, young black “man”.

3. Eleanor Smeal and other feminists had no other place to park their extremely hyped-up expectation and hundreds of feminist agenda and policies that were supposed to be implemented as soon as Hillary was sworn in as the President.

4. Since they themselves stressed that they can "no longer wait" to assume the highest office of the land and since luckily the new president is not a macho, alpha-male type but rather a new-age liberal male, they decided to proclaim that "he" is actually the first feminist President, even though this one doesn't have breasts and has Adam's apple. In a way it is a bit like Hillary's husband being proclaimed as the "first black President" by black folks back in the 1990's. In this way feminists' can (at least partially) save their face for not being able to have the first women president when they had been pretending during most of 2008 that Hillary was such a shoe-in candidate and in fact a de facto President.

Still it must have been very difficult for people at Ms. Magazine to stomach this, as I would imagine that they would have preferred an authentic woman, a human being with XX chromosome, even with a "wrong” ideology or a party affiliation, like that gun-loving one from Alaksa, to be the President rather than a “feminist male” like Obama.

Women overtaking men in workforce - NYTimes

For feminist warriors and social engineers, anything that help or propel their agenda is good. Anything. Even one of the worst recession in the country’s history that is costing people millions of jobs. Especially that millions of job used to belong mostly to men.

Just like World War II is being remembered by feminists mostly not as a catastrophe that took millions of lives, or associated with holocaust, or atomic bomb, but a turning point or a historic opportunity in which women took over men's jobs at homefront which were usually dominated by men, such as factory assembly line, etc.

So this on-going large scale recession looked to those feminists as just another opportunity to push their agenda and gender role reversal. Their central focus is men to do more of cooking, cleaning, diaper-changing and free up women's time so that she can concentrate more on work and be more effective, so that she can outdo those few remaining men in workforce - so that more women in senior position, more women in workforce, more pay for women, less men in workforce, especially senior position and lower pay for men.

It's a bit scandalous to think that there are people who welcome and embrace this recession as once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to further their agenda, isn't it?

Does anyone wants to talk about how the current recession is “discriminatory” against men given that men were disproportionately high among those laid off recently? Anyone? Hello?

If it was women, not men, who were hit hardest by the recession, NYT will be running full-page article bemoaning gender discrimination and how society is stacked against women every single day, but since it is men who are getting the pink slips, it’s just the matter of how to utilize this opportunity to promote gender role reversal.

If you look at this recession from another angle, you can perhaps say that economy in which women share proportion of workforce is a slow and sluggish one. It is important to remember here that no country or society in history has achieved high growth and economic development by relying mostly on “women” jobs, such as teaching, nursing, providing health care, etc. If such “women” jobs are to represent higher portion of country’s economy in the coming days, then it is a bad news, since economy is simply not going to grow just by relying on people providing service to other people. It would naturally mean that country as a whole will become poorer, since those jobs aren’t high-paying job anyway, but this is nothing to do with the supposed gender discrimination. You would need people to “create” things, be it products or buildings or infrastructure, in order for economy to grow and society to develop.

The countries who are rapidly expanding and developing are the ones that value and utilize the talents of male workers, such as in hi-tech industry, manufacturing, construction, as you can see most clearly in countries like China and India. If you devalue or belittle male talents, the country’s economy will shrink

Sisterhood in workplace

Sisterhood in workplace, a call for women to stop sniping at each other (with other women) – sounds good, no?

Well, not really.

The author make it sounds like as if guys do not do this kind of stuff, but only women do (and they do only to other women), and therefore themselves becoming the last obstacle to gender equality in workplace. But the fact is that, men do it all the time as well.

Then what's the point of the article? Well, to begin with, office rivalry and sniping are not really the nicest thing to do to your colleagues, boss, subordinates, be they men or women. I agree, but then why an emphasis on working women? The true motive of the author's seemingly benign call could only be understood in the framework of a class struggle, a class struggle not between capitalisn and proletariat, but a class struggle between the two opposite sexes.

Let me elaborate; since it is important to break a glass ceiling and into a male-dominant world of corporate boardroom, it naturally follows that all the women of the world must unite. The enemy is not other, more successful, highly placed women, but men.

Only by viewing all men (in workplace) as a class enemy, the author's call will make sense. Office politics, sniping and backstabbing are commonplace in most if not all of workplace, and it happens between men, between men and women, and between women. However, the author thinks only the last case, women sniping at other women to be problematic.

If you replace a woman with another woman in the board, it doesn’t help bring up the percentage of women in the boardroom. The percentage will only go up if you replace a man with a woman. Therefore, immediate ceasefire among professional women is in order, while pretending that the problem concerns only women and let men continue fighting each other to their own detriment.

UN Children's fund or UN Girls' Fund?

You would think that the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) had changed its name to United Nations Girls’ Fund (UNIGEF?), if you take a look at the cover of 8 most recent annual reports published by the agency. All the cover photos of annual reports since 2000, are girls (2000, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2007), except in cases when babies (hard to tell the sexes of them) graced the front pages.

Actually this is perfectly in line with the policies and stances of all other UN agencies, who, informed by man-hating strand of virulent feminism, have determined to remake the world in their image (where women’s and girls’ interest are put first = where women and girls rule) and steadfastly rejected to help boys. In fact, ignoring the needy boys benefits feminists in achieving their aims; it will prevent diverting their precious resources away from its holy mission of assisting girls, and will help buoy girl’s competitiveness against boys in relative terms. The only thing they might worry about boy’s plight, if they ever do, might be its negative effect on girls, in the sense that troubling and delinquent boys may tease, bully, or sexually harass (all of which could be defined be feminists as “sexual attack” against girls) girls. Otherwise boys are not on UNICZEF and other UN agencies radar screen.

Working While Female (WWF) vs.Working While Male (WWM)

Another related post on the same site (my favourite XX blog in Slate)

Feminists have craftily adapted DHB (driving while black) into WWF (working while female).

Well maybe there is such a thing as WWF – such as promoted over other more qualified men (especially Caucasian men) into senior management positions, freedom to pick and choose the male targets of your sexual harassment charges, opportunity to file sex discrimination lawsuits against your company if you are in a mood of buying a new mansion or luxury cars, watches and precious stones, etc. threaten your boss that low performance review for you will bring a big trouble for him, for example, finding his name on one of the defendants of sexual discrimination case, etc.

The moment you start working for a company, all of the above benefits come with you as WWF. You think the above are exaggerated? No, many companies (especially larger ones that could become easy target of feminist lawyers) have de facto gender quota, or numerical target for female representation at senior positions, and evaluate managers performance by how many female workers he have promoted, hired, or evaluated positively. Not to mention many “women-only” career networks, study groups, career orientations, mentorship programs or counseling programs in the industry or inside company that benefits only women. These are certainly beneficial, although to much less dramatic ways than the above, and are mostly or exclusively available for women.

Now let’s imagine the benefits and risks of WWM (working while male)

Promotion being passed over because you are men – companies has numerical target for senior female managers to meet and you are so getting in the way!

24/7 risk of being accused by female workers of sexual harassment/discrimination/assault or whatever convenient charges women can haul against men.

Work in physically dangerous occupation that have much higher risk of getting injured than, say, cleaning hotel rooms, and at the same time vilified by feminists for out-earning blue-color women.

If you happen to be a manager in a large company, you will be living and breathing in a corporate and social environment that defines you and your presence as the relic of patriarchal past, and view your presence as the evidence of the company's lack of commitment to gender equality at the senior positions and hindrance to achieving women’s full empowerment

Sexual harassment is terrorism?

This should rank quite high in the list of hyperbolic rhetoric by feminists – “sexual harassment is a terrorism”. To be sure, the Slate’s XX bloggers are not the first one to employ the term “terrorism” to describe sexual harassment - there are many precedents – after all, feminists are the ones who are particularly prone to this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric among other leftist activists (I think some in-depth study and comparison on this topic would be interesting- who is the most militant in their verbiage – black activists, environmentalists, gay activists, animal rights activists, etc.?).

I guess feminists equate Sexual Harassment (SH) with terrorism since;

1) the trauma inflicted by SH to the women are so horrific and is on par with horror of real terrorism (the kind you see in Iraq and Afghanistan)

2) or just want to grab media attention to promote their cause by using the “T” word

On 1), I wonder if feminists are actually perpetuating “fragile women myth” by saying that women are so fragile that they are just as frightened by a few unwanted sexual advances are as they are frightened by roadside IED, etc.

Or may be it is that the feminsits who heard the story of another women sexually harassed are so shocked and distressed by the story that they are in the same mental state of victims of real terrorism, - who had IED blown off 30 yard away and see torn heads and limb flying in their faces. In other words, they are in perpetual state of paranoia.

Intersting line from the blog post:

“They'(Sexual harassment)re designed to keep women in the lower-paying jobs on the ladder.”

It’s good that you have another excuses or someone else (i.e. men of course) to blame for your low performance and non-competence which is really holding you back. It is also clearly an expression of deranged feminists’ paranoia. Because I’m not sure if these men who made unwanted sexual advances are doing so with a clear intent of keeping those women on lower paying job. If they wish to do so, they are other ways to do that.

Nissan's gender quota

Nissan's CEO Carlos Ghosn is a kind of superstar in an auto industry, as he had turned around a failing motor company into one of the most profiting ones, but hee too, as a Wester-educated CEO of this generation, is not immune from being contaminated by political correctness.

In a magazine interview he gave some years ago, he set a goal of having 5% of senior managers women.

Good. But it begs a lot of questions for this legendary guy whose life was portrayed in a popular comic book.

First, if having women as senior managers is so important, why this wasn't the first thing Mr. Ghosn did when he took over the job at Nissan? Instead, he waited until the company's performance turned around and got firmly on track for further growth. What does it mean? To me, it only means that "affirmative-actioning" women into senior positions is a luxury that only a few large companies could afford. You can make a political gesturing like this only when company is in good order.

Second, he seems to exhort other auto companies to do the same,but it strikes as odd, as if getting more women into senior positions is the success for suto company, you would rathr NOT other companies to do the same, since in this way, you can be rest assured that only Nissan will benefit from the supposed benefit derived from the increased female managers, while other companies do not. Why do you want to reveal key for success in trade, and ask that competitors follow suit?

Actually what is going on here is that Mr. Ghosn know that affirmative-actioning more female managers, and setting numerical target and gender quaota, will put his company in disadvantage, as 5% of the managers will be sub-standard ones, who are articifially promoted for their jobs. If its rivals pack their senior manager posts with 100% compitent people who won their posts on merit, guess which one has more compitent manager team as a whole? Nissan, with 95% managers chosen on merit and 5% filled in as quota, or Toyota, with 100% managers chosen on merit and 0% quota people?

In this sense, it might not be "fair", if other companies fo not set up the same 5% gender quota and fill it with sub-standard people. One analogy would be gender mixed sports that are a staple of intramural sports events. In these mixed sports, typically a ballgame like basketball or a volleyball, the number of men and women who can play in one team is strictly set. So, let's say, in volleyball, if the rule says one team should consist of 3 men and 3 women, then that raito has to be observed. You cannot field a team of 4 men and 2 women, because it will give an unfair advantage to such a team that have a higher ratio of men. In sports, obviously women's weaker physical fitness level is a liability, and therefore, to be fair, all teams must have equall number of women, not less. Similarly, in a corporate world, if one company wants to show chivalrish side and adopt a gender quota, in order not to be put in a disadvantegous position in a cut-throat competition in the market, that company will naturaly wish that other companies adopt similar measures.

Natural evolution of women

Those two articles that were published in the Times, are quite far apart in the subject matters they discuss and also chronologically (one of them was published two years ago, the other one just last month), but nonetheless I see some similarity, or a common thread, apart from the fact that both articles discuss women’s issues.

Would a (supposedly) natural evolution of women from submissive, multi-tasking mothers in the hunting ages into independent, strong political, economic and social leaders of the modern world, as happily and self-absorbedly described by power-hungry feminists at the one of the biggest feminists parties (a.k.a. Women's Forum for the Economy and Society) something akin to a theory discussed in the mid-1970’s by sports scientists?

Back in the 70’s people wondered, scientists examined, and feminists revelled at the idea that someday women may overtake men in (extreme) long-distance running (42km marathon or longer) because of the higher fat ratio in their bodies. Now, 30 years later, nobody in right mind seriously believes that. That 70’s extremely simplistic, linear thinking which held that simply because women have more fat than men, women can outrun men in the long distance, has yielded way to more rigorous analysis and studies, which found that that WILL NOT HAPPEN. (Unless we genetically engineer women into men, that is, and I guess there may be many feminists who might like that idea for the sake of no-excuse-allowed gender equality)

Much in the same way, the idea that simply women are better at empathy, communication and multitasking, and since modern world requires more and more of them, women will become natural leaders of the modern world, may be too linear and simplistic. (I am getting used to it, but sometimes still baffled by feminists who say that women and men are absolutely same in every way, and in the next breath say that women are genetically better at communication, empathy, multitasking and son on…) Wouldn’t modern world require more and more of scientific and mechanical knowledge, or more organizational and leadership skill, or more focused, in-depth knowledge on increasingly compartmentalized fields of expertise? Or will empathy such an important factor in getting ahead in the 21 st century career race? Or an ability to chat about boys and fashion and deserts for several hours straight a kind of communication style required in modern world? Is multitasking of feeding baby, washing dishes and cleaning floor same things as overseeing employees, preparing for important presentations, checking company’s balance sheet all at the same time?

Sexism in Israel, or so declared by feminists

It's apparent that since the prospect for Livni's taking over premiership is not as good as it originally appeared on paper, another woman writer tries to pre-empt any opposition or negative view of the woman as some sort of a "sexist" behavior. The data she cites, such as only 8 percent of Middle Eastern parliaments are women doesn't have anything to do with whether Israel is still a bastion of Neanderthaal macho men, since the figure include all Middle Eastern countries, including such feminists' paradise as Saudi Arabia and so on. And the fact that Meir is not so popular in Israel also have nothing to do with sexist attitude, it's her policy, as even the writer quotes, that make Israeli people not particularly fond of her. But to this author, any negative view of politicians, if they happened to be female, are automatically evidence of "sexism", end of discussion. Only criticism of male politicians are allowed. And since when calling other politician by a full name Tzipora become a sexist act? And what exactly Livni's advisor is whining about? Do they want to ban all meetings between two males in the country. As if they want to say, "from now on all meetings between more than two males are banned in this country as it is considered a subversive act against feminists utopia.". Don’t be surprised that when Livni failed to form a coalition government, the blame will be on sexism (even Israel had Meir and women heading parliament and supreme court), not on her dovish policies that are unacceptable to many Israelis.

New "wage gap"

People seem to be coming up with more and more new, creative and inventive ways to stigmatize men and corporations, and put the dead-old gender wage gap issue on the news.
It’s interesting to see in this article how Neandelthaal men actually out-earn egalitarian tree-hugging type male in the workplace. Forget all the circular and self-serving reasonings for this wage gap between traditional and egalitarian males that these scientists tried to come up with to cozy up to power-feminist type; may be one of the reason for this is that egalitarian male put brake on themselves - they might be thinking, “if I perform at my full potential, I would be so far ahead of women in the next performance review and that is so against my egalitarian view; I will perform on a par or below my female colleagues so that women will be promoted ahead of me, get higher wage, and I can show with my own example that women can be as good as men, or men can be as bad or even worse than women”.

Or the other reason would simply be that these egalitarian men are simply not as good as traditional men. Even if you control for IQ or education, you cannot control for their ability or performance; it may not simply be that these testosterone-ridden traditional males were aggressive during salary negotiations only, they may have been aggressive in their work also, aggressive in completing the task, achieving goals, etc., and these may have led to higher performance review, hence faster promotion and higher salaries. On women’s side, whether they have traditional or progressive views on gender roles would have little to do with their testosterone level (which is low across the board), and therefore resulted in little difference in wage-gap=performance gap between them.

Why do you have to assume that men (or women) with similar IQ or similar education, background will have identical performance?

Women bosses cause mor stress - and society needs to change!?

I’m sure there must have been a tremendous pressure (and temptation) to manipulate this experiments outcome to fit the current PC agenda, such as

-women feel much better and empowered and motivated and encouraged under female boss;

-women feel threatened and harassed under male boss (and actually were in many cases);

-men started to sexually harass female boss;

-men started to conspire with male boss on how best to preserve male privilidge, etc.

I give kudos for the researchers for at least not giving into those societal pressure or temptations.

But still it seems that they couldn’t resist the inner liberal-progressive urge to somehow attribute the results to discrimination again.

So according to them, women feel more stress under female boss than male boss, because-
Stereotype hold women to be more caring and women workers are surprised and stressed to find out that their female bosses are not like their stereotype-image of caring women and instead conforming to male archetype, or that female bosses themselves are under stress working in male-dominated business world and that stress trick down to female subordinates.

Good work. Very good imagination - they can be a card-carrying feminists from today. Only one explanation provided. No call to increase more male bosses who seem to cause less stress for both female and male workers, but only some pondering on how to change society so that these hated stress-causing female bosses could be more acceptable to both male and female workers. I’m sure if the results have been reverese, i.e. male bosses are found out to be more stress-causing for workers, feminists would be ecstatic (to the point of almost reaching orgasm!) and triumphant that this is the final and indisputable evidence why there should be less male bosses and more female bosses.

CEO's pay-gap

I don't how much the so-called "equality" or pay-equity at CEO's level would matter to most of the people. It is in any way an astronimical figures for most of the people which does not have much real meaning, whether women earn 10 million or men earn 20 million. It is so detached from the life of ordinary people and trying to portray this issue as such a huge gender discrimination issue is so ridiculous and makes a mockery of the entire discrimination issue. For these CEOs it is a differnce between one being able to buy 5 vacation houses around the world or only 2 vacations houses, and whether one can own 10 Rolce Royse or only 2 Ferraris - whao, life is so unfair!!!

The only issue here seems to be the old feminist's vindictiveness against men in general. When you care more about super-rich female CEO (most of whom are affirmative-actioned in the first place) earning several millions less (several millions!!) than male counterparts, than, say, thousands of homeless, jobless people on the streets (most of whom are men), you know that only hatred against men motivated this female author.

You can see that same-old same-old feminists lines being repeated here; the much-recycled Summers’ comment (he was talking about science, no!?), the so-called pay gap (21 cent less per dollar, which begs the questions of why companies do not stop hiring such expensive men to cut costs) very shaky and unscientific comparison of salaries without any regard to the size of company, profits, or title, citing one study done by – of course – women to back up a shaky claim, reference to “stereotypes” and exhorting readers (women only) to talk about successful women among themselves so that they can feel better about themselves - no talk about the ditched female CEOs except in the context of blaming male-dominated corporate society, because women CEO deserves only success, failure or not meeting targets or getting profits – is presumably a carefully plotted and disguised form of discrimination against women. She even tries to introduce a new criteria for gender discrimination – low expectation for women. If women fall under pressure for too much expectation- would that also be a “discrimination”?

It is easy to understand that the higher the position goes, the bigger the pay differences could become. It does not make much difference to companies’ overall earning or profits whether an entry level clerk or sales assistants, one of hundreds or even of thousands, do a terrific job or a mediocre job. But it would do make a difference if one CEO or one senior VP makes a big mistake, or make a very wise prescient decision. The pay will reflect that.

It will also be more difficult to assess whether the pay is fair or appropriate or not at more senior level than lower, entry level positions. Lower entry level positions’ jobs are usually more standardized, routine and could be done by any other equally qualified persons. It is much less so at the senior level where persons’ vision, leadership, strategic decisions influence the entire fate of the company.

A risk means a “risk” only when it entails probability for both success and failure. Feminists seems to want a societal guarantee for success for any senior female executives in their quest for higher career and risk-taking jobs, and flabbergasted when that “success” did not come in handy, and start a witch-hunt for those who are responsible for not delivering “success” to these female executives, such as Ms. Cruz or Ms Callan. In many cases, culprits are sexist corporate culture, media or, male colleagues - usual scapegoats who could never escape the eternal sin of being born a male. In other words, in the views of people like Ms. Dobrzynski, women getting CEO positions are “fair” but women not succeeding in their positions are “unfair”. Perhaps a good place to start is to ditch this kind of childish wishful thinking and confront the stern reality of business world where success, results are rewarded and whining are not.

Bulgaraia's women's ice hockey

Do these ladies know how to skate? Maybe not! Maybe they could barely stand up with skate shoes! That's the only way a team could possibly lose 82-0. That's more than 1 goal per minute, for the entire 60 minutes of play! I think even without any opponent at all standing in between your team and the goal, and one team playing by themselves, it may not be so easy to score that quickly and frequently. Imagine, place a puck in the center, play, shoot, goal!!, skate to the goal to pick up the puck, place in the center, play, shoot......!! keep doing this for 82 times!! it's a form of torture already!

Women's ice hockey should not be in the Olympics. With only 37 registered (female) players in the country and the country could still send a "national team" to the Olympic qualifiers. It's a joke!!

This simply shows the shallowness of women's sports, not juct ice hockey but sports in general, but because of some political pressure from FEMINISTS, we are supposed to treat these gals as if they are serious "athletes" and representing a nation. This is a huge insult to other serious male athletes who have played sports for years, endured hard training, and go through extremely competitive games to reach Olympics.

I guess that most of these Bulgarian gals must have just started ice hockey recently, because there were some incentive plan or pressure or laws to increase women's sports/teamsplayers in the country or because the gals thought it was an easy way to be on a "national team" and compete for the Olympics. If you are born a male in Bulgaria and play football, there is probably one in million chances that you would make it to the national team, but if you are a female and chose sport wisely, your chance of being in a "national team" and enjoy all the entitlements, fame, glory that come with it, is not just great, but it is automatically assured. Only 37 registered female players in the country.

Some thoughts on sports

The Beijing summer Olympic Games are over, and I will jot down some thoughts on sports and men and women's physical diffferences.

1. Bolt is great. The guy is great. Not just because he won three gold medals in track and fields, all in world records, but because he is now certified the fastest homo sapiense ever. Men's 100 meters sprint is special. It is different. Although the gold won by Bolt is same "one" gold medal as was won by, say, women's rifle, or whatever, but here I have to be blunt and discriminating. Men's 100 meters sprint is ranks one of the highest in the importance in all Olympic sports. Women's 100 meters sprint is just as great, you say feminists? NO!!! Because women's 100 meters ONLY decide who is the fastest WOMAN. The last qualifier "WOMAN" is extremely important here because otherwise boys who won in American state track and field championship may want to compete in the race just to get a gold medal worth ??? dollars and appear on international TV. For example, a boy who won the Oklahoma State high school track meet in May 2008 had 10.62' record. (why Oklahoma, just random pick!!)That 'll easily give him gold in the Beijing's women's 100 meters and the world record as well, if you discount the only one outlier record which is such a suspect for doping (maybe women faces less scrutiny than male athlete) No, that boy won't be allowed to compete, the race is resreved for 'lady" only, where records like 10.78" can get you a gold. that will barely give bronze in the above-mentioned oklahoma State track meet, boy division. Probably that 10.62 boy could get some scholarhsip for university, if lucky, but that's it.

Fussy feminists...

Feminists are just so good at inventing a new kind of "ceiling" one after another; originally there was a glass ceiling, and then "this" ceiling, then "that" ceiling and now a "mirror" ceiling...

And it is so hard to please feminists!! I mean there are so many variations of feminists that there are always one or two tiny factions of them left not 100% satisfied and who would start hauling "sexism" charges randomly.

I think at least recent (over) exposure of Palin in media must have satisfied feminsts who are; 1) hell-bent on counting the number of times women appear in the news, or more preceisly, a number of times women in leadership roles are portrayed positively by the media, and 2) whose only hobby in life is beancounting, countng the number of men and women in senior political positions. But Gosh there are more complicated, or spophisticated, die-hard feminists like Judith who are not happy until they see "their" kind of woman (meaning ultra-liberal) assuming the Office of the U.S. President (not number two and deputy to a man) while all the media (from liberal to conservative to major national media to local media to everything else) paint the woman in completely positive tone without the slightest hint of sexism (almost impossible feat given the astronomically high threshold for judging sexism).

Now look at Palin. Yes she is a WOMAN. She passed the first and the most important litmus test, but don't forget that there are hundreds of other litmus tests that the woman must pass... and let's see how she fares... She is conservative! a Republican! married! with kids! owns a gun! and cheered by men, especialy conservative, Republican, gun-toting men! for the reason JUDITH DISAPPROVES!!!

Palin failed all tests other than the first one and no wonder Judith is going bananas...

If Judith or feminists don’t like Palin to be on a Republican ticket, then I’m all for replacing her with a man, any man, but feminists out there don’t whine about Republican not giving woman a fair chance, blah, blah blah,

One --- away from feminists' ultimate dream

Now it is interesting to see that it is the Republicans who are playing the identity politics - by hiring a person who does not much appeal other than the fact that the McCain's running mate is SHE -A WOMAN!!!. I thought this kind of cheap political gimmick belonged only to the Democrats, but apparently I was wrong.

Does he ever thought how old he is? 72!!?? He might be a tough guy who loved brawls and survived torture by the North Vietnamese, but it is a kind of age when anything could happen without moment's notice. There is also a rumor that he might not seek the second term if elecetd because of his age. And he stil chooses this running mate at the last moment! Does he want to leave the United States with the least experienced vice-president(ial candidate) after 4 years or even less (could be one month, who knows, illness can strike senileperson anytime) of his presidency? How IRRESPONSIBLE is that!! All he could think abut was getting some votes from disgruntled old white women type who are irate over Hilary's defeat, so that those extra votes would put him over Obama at the general election. How near-sighted and irreponsible.

But it mut be real political bonanza for the old feminist-type. They wouldn't have imagined that McCain, the "man of integrity", would pander to political correctness. But it doesn't matter. If McCain get elected, they at least got a "consolation prize", and they are still only a "hearbeat away", or if I were to put it, one hearstroke away, one caridac arrest away, or one whatever-conditions that could strike senile men in their 70's away from the feminists' ultimate dream.

Feminist evangelist on counter-offence against science

Only a feminist, who has such a strong conviction that she occupies a moral high ground, and so self-assured of one's correctness (or political-correctness) on certain moral issues, can point to a growing number of people in solid science and biology backgrounds who are uncovering biological differences between men's and women's brains, and call them "evangelists". In a snobbish, high-brow world where feminists typically resides and where they howl loudest, the label "evangelists" or any other names associated with religion (Christian, that is) carries a sense of backwardness, people who try to promote creationist view which is scientifically bankrupt.

This feminist must have somehow thought that by labeling people whom she dislikes with the name "evangelist", she could discredit these people for trying to inbue unscientific, biblical fiction. Nice work. Except that most people could easily see that, it is this desperate feminist, who is trying to sell a now largely discredited ideology of men-and-women-are-exatly-the-s­ame-and-all-the-differences-ar­e-socially-constructed'" which came straight out of feminists textbook. WHO IS EVANGELIST HERE?

If people want to talk about variance, that's fine-let's look at the other, more unfortunate end of the "variance", by that I mean the lower end of the long spectrum of variance. Most people know (though hard-line feminists won't admit it or frantically try to change the subject) that most of the highschool dropouts, beggars on streets, prison population are male. Why people like Amanda want to spend so much energy and time and space on Slate trying to push women, who have ample opportunities to do everything else in the world, into science, or jettison second-rate female scientists into top-rudder, ahead of all male scientists who presumably (according to people who inhabit the Amanda-ville) reached their position only as a result of male privilege, than to reach out to those really poor (mostly) men who have to sleep on the streets or beg for changes?

In my view, it is one of the ultimate displays of man-hating to purposefully ignore those plights of men in the other extreme end of "variance" and instead try to stuff precious space of Slate with feminist propaganda.

Ms. Amanda shows by her own example that women are not good at scientific reasoning and are very emotional creature. If you have scientific mind, you should be very much interested in DIFFERENCES, however small, and explore the reasons why. Instead what she is doing is to deny - or half-deny, and compensate with unrelated stuff (women can be better with training, etc.).

Ms. Amanda also shows by her own example that women have problem with logical reasoning. She keep downplaying a few examples she chose to choose, (and even those she cannot completely refute), then cites even fewer number of arguments she think would buttress her argument. However those few examples seem to be outlier, not being replicated, and be easily refuted. We really need a special math and logic program for women.

Phoenix Country Club, the "new" Augusta national club

So Hillary has lost and nobody is dancing to the tunes of “Augusta national club is the hotbed of patriarchal conspirarcy” anymore, feminists at the NYT needed some new target to prey on and continue their feminists’ media campaign for creating the ‘women under siege” illusion. And there it is, Phoenix Country Club. Never mind that many public buildings and facilities seem to set up to favor women over men and therefore discriminates against men (New York recently passed a law stating that all new buildings need to install at least 2 public bathrooms for women for every one bathroom for male), one savvy female reporter find out that one room out of a many rooms that a private club in Phoenix, Arizona has, is for men-only. From that moment, her indomitable quest to portray it as the of center of power relations in all of Arizona, failure of becoming a member or of partaking in the ritual grilling in that particular room would be such a career-ending blow for all aspiring Arizonians (do they call that?), male and female alike. (but the governor and at least one US senator, who just happens to be the Republican presumptive nominee and possibly be the next US President, are not even members of the club) She does not forget to insinuate how that policy hinders women’s progress in the states of Arizona (wait, did the female reporter just mentioned that the states has female governor, secretary of state, chief justice, etc…..?) When the world and society are changing so rapidly, it is at least a bit comforting to know that at least there is one thing that remains the same, one media outlet that churn same propaganda piece in the same line like a broken record.


Nice Spot to Eat After Golf, but Women Are Barred

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