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.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
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.
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….
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….
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
"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.
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.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
"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!
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!
Monday, October 08, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
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?”
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!”
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!”
Girls more likely to suffer concussion than boys
I don’t know why the New York Times, usually a reliable promoter of women and girls as strong, independent, stereo-type defying, trail-brazing amazons, reverted to this kind of article that would surly prompt some people to say, “I TOLD YOU SOOOOO…. Girls are too feeble and just not good for competitive sports.”
In the article, even faced with the super-obvious, the doctors chose to play dumb;
“Doctors are also uncertain as to why documented rates of concussion among high school girls are consistently higher than among boys in the same sports.”
Perhaps the doctors are the only people who cannot understand the reason, or maybe along with die-hard feminists, why women and girls suffer more concussion than men and boys while playing the same sports. I think even 10 year-old kid can understand it instinctively.
Their dumbness gets worse as they try to come up with politically-correct explanation which allow them avoid admitting the obvious physical weakness of females compared to males, and even give some credits to females for their honesty in reporting one’s own physical conditions;
The primary theory is that girls might be more honest in reporting injuries — though experts are confident that many girls, just like boys, hide injuries either because they are not aware of the risks or because they simply do not want to miss playing time.
But in the end they seemed to have realized that not mentioning even as mere “possibility” of the obvious reason that everyone else know is too damaging to their credibility;
Other rationales include the fact that girls’ neck muscles are less developed than boys’, providing less shock absorption during impact.
It is just one of the “other rationales”, of course….
Perhaps the writer at the NYT could not take the fact that attention is mostly on boys when it comes to concussions in school sports any longer, so he decided to highlight the plight of female athletes, just to “level the playing field”.. After all, we live in the Title IX world, where everything (except negative) needs to be shared equally by men and women…
In the article, even faced with the super-obvious, the doctors chose to play dumb;
“Doctors are also uncertain as to why documented rates of concussion among high school girls are consistently higher than among boys in the same sports.”
Perhaps the doctors are the only people who cannot understand the reason, or maybe along with die-hard feminists, why women and girls suffer more concussion than men and boys while playing the same sports. I think even 10 year-old kid can understand it instinctively.
Their dumbness gets worse as they try to come up with politically-correct explanation which allow them avoid admitting the obvious physical weakness of females compared to males, and even give some credits to females for their honesty in reporting one’s own physical conditions;
The primary theory is that girls might be more honest in reporting injuries — though experts are confident that many girls, just like boys, hide injuries either because they are not aware of the risks or because they simply do not want to miss playing time.
But in the end they seemed to have realized that not mentioning even as mere “possibility” of the obvious reason that everyone else know is too damaging to their credibility;
Other rationales include the fact that girls’ neck muscles are less developed than boys’, providing less shock absorption during impact.
It is just one of the “other rationales”, of course….
Perhaps the writer at the NYT could not take the fact that attention is mostly on boys when it comes to concussions in school sports any longer, so he decided to highlight the plight of female athletes, just to “level the playing field”.. After all, we live in the Title IX world, where everything (except negative) needs to be shared equally by men and women…
World Tourism Day is a day to....
Just like any other governmental agencies in any Western developed countries, this international organization called the United Nations is completely and thoroughly brainwashed by ideologies of gender feminism. You would think that the World Tourism Day is a day to promote more tourism, or raise awareness about the eco-tourism, if we were to follow the trend in the industry.
NO.
Once it come under the purview of UN and its affiliate agencies, of which the World tourism Organization (WTO) is one, it cannot escape the feminists dogma; it needs to be reinterpreted in the liking of gender feminists. So the day has been transformed (or hijacked) into a day when people are forced to celebrate “on-line photo contest to show women in leadership roles in the tourism sector.” - in the familiar vein of power-hungry UN feminists number –one obsession; taking more leadership positions.
Note that there is not even a call for, for example, more women-friendly travel accommodation, transportation, etc., which is more modest but still a “feminist” enough argument, but they went straight to demand more leadership position in tourism sector, as if they don’t even have a patience to hide their true intent.
And empowerment of women and education for girls? What exactly do these two have to do with tourism? Again, not much with the tourism itself. But they help the aim of women trying to attain more senior position in business industry, I guess.
NO.
Once it come under the purview of UN and its affiliate agencies, of which the World tourism Organization (WTO) is one, it cannot escape the feminists dogma; it needs to be reinterpreted in the liking of gender feminists. So the day has been transformed (or hijacked) into a day when people are forced to celebrate “on-line photo contest to show women in leadership roles in the tourism sector.” - in the familiar vein of power-hungry UN feminists number –one obsession; taking more leadership positions.
Note that there is not even a call for, for example, more women-friendly travel accommodation, transportation, etc., which is more modest but still a “feminist” enough argument, but they went straight to demand more leadership position in tourism sector, as if they don’t even have a patience to hide their true intent.
And empowerment of women and education for girls? What exactly do these two have to do with tourism? Again, not much with the tourism itself. But they help the aim of women trying to attain more senior position in business industry, I guess.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
men too good for women - It's a dsicrimination!
I’ve been emphasizing that the real motive for feminists’ so-called quest for gender equality has nothing to do with gender equality but simply a carefully disguised attack on males.
This article, also found on insidehighered.com, which I have been enjoying reading for the last few days, maybe one of a spinoffs from Linda Hirshmann’s article that provoked quite a controversy some time ago.
Anyway, excerpt from the article;
“why not simply require faculty fathers to produce half again as much (teaching, scholarship, whatever) at each step of the way that the faculty mothers do, rather than lowering the requirements for the women? Demanding of these pampered fellas that they work as hard, over all, as their female counterparts do would add a salutary dash of reality to their perceived superiority to women in the workplace, level the playing field and create some job opportunities for ambitious women who want to do a little extra. A modest proposal.”
So Linda openly advocates and thinks it “A modest proposal” to restrict men to produce half as much academic work as women do, to compensate for the fact that women cannot produce as much as men.
It is interesting. Employ any means necessary to achieve gender parity on paper. If women is lagging behind, first, give them a few extra hand. If women are still behind, keep men from going so far ahead so that women can catch up and, alas, men and women are the same and therefore equality achieved!
I think the feminists have come to grudging realization (though they never would admit to it) that men are simply superior and more productive in academic field and their s no way or women to trully catch up with them, and thus their focus has shifted from how to empower and give a few extra points for being a woman, to how to restrict or control men’s uncontrollably superior ability compared to women.
Thus feminists’ new gender-equality mantra is defined.
1. Men are too good for women to catch up – it’s a gender discrimination!
2. How we could restrict men’s ability so that women could catch up?
I think this could be called “negative equality” - an attempt to control everyone’s ability or outputs so that everyone’s outputs are equal and no one fall behind, as opposed to “positive equality”, where all people can exercise their full potential on a level playing field.
After decades of pursuing gender equality on the assumption on the latter positive equality, when feminists believed that men and women’s potential are the same, they have finally saw the reality, that it is not. But they haven’t given up the ‘gender-equality” game, or “gender-sameness” game, and I'll bet those militant feminists soon will be hell-bent on restricting men’s ability.
This article, also found on insidehighered.com, which I have been enjoying reading for the last few days, maybe one of a spinoffs from Linda Hirshmann’s article that provoked quite a controversy some time ago.
Anyway, excerpt from the article;
“why not simply require faculty fathers to produce half again as much (teaching, scholarship, whatever) at each step of the way that the faculty mothers do, rather than lowering the requirements for the women? Demanding of these pampered fellas that they work as hard, over all, as their female counterparts do would add a salutary dash of reality to their perceived superiority to women in the workplace, level the playing field and create some job opportunities for ambitious women who want to do a little extra. A modest proposal.”
So Linda openly advocates and thinks it “A modest proposal” to restrict men to produce half as much academic work as women do, to compensate for the fact that women cannot produce as much as men.
It is interesting. Employ any means necessary to achieve gender parity on paper. If women is lagging behind, first, give them a few extra hand. If women are still behind, keep men from going so far ahead so that women can catch up and, alas, men and women are the same and therefore equality achieved!
I think the feminists have come to grudging realization (though they never would admit to it) that men are simply superior and more productive in academic field and their s no way or women to trully catch up with them, and thus their focus has shifted from how to empower and give a few extra points for being a woman, to how to restrict or control men’s uncontrollably superior ability compared to women.
Thus feminists’ new gender-equality mantra is defined.
1. Men are too good for women to catch up – it’s a gender discrimination!
2. How we could restrict men’s ability so that women could catch up?
I think this could be called “negative equality” - an attempt to control everyone’s ability or outputs so that everyone’s outputs are equal and no one fall behind, as opposed to “positive equality”, where all people can exercise their full potential on a level playing field.
After decades of pursuing gender equality on the assumption on the latter positive equality, when feminists believed that men and women’s potential are the same, they have finally saw the reality, that it is not. But they haven’t given up the ‘gender-equality” game, or “gender-sameness” game, and I'll bet those militant feminists soon will be hell-bent on restricting men’s ability.
Insidehighered. No. 3
Insidehighered.com, hillarious article serios No. 3
Simple question; “overt discrimination was disappearing — but that its disappearance didn’t necessarily translate into women rising to the top ranks at the college or in departments.” – why the disappearance of (overt) discrimination automatically needs to result in more women at top ranks? Disappearance of discrimination only, if any, ensure that so-called playing field is leveled, but doesn’t guarantee promotion of people who were previously said to have been affected by the said discrimination. To gain promotion, you strive for it. You work for it. But it won’t be sent to your doorstep in a gift wrap or handed out to you by government or institution (actually it will in our current political climate)
“Three sociologists at the University of Arizona presented a paper on the impact of specialization on the academic careers of men and women.” What are those sociologists main research field? Maybe gender discrimination in their own university. It seems that the university hired ‘diversity officer” or “gender ration enforcement officer” when it really should be hiring sociologists. If the hiring committee of the university were less obsessed with meeting diversity goal or under less pressure to correct gender imbalance in its faculty makeup, they would have had hired ‘the best qualified candidate”, maybe male sociologists, who would be doing some real “sociological” study instead of pursuing narrow agenda that would only benefit their own chance of promotion. But I guess it really doesn’t matter; who cares whether sociologists were concerned about social phenomena that affects the society at large, or their interest is limited to advancing their own agenda (and their position) in faculty.
Another excerpt from the article; “The study found, for example, that departments routinely had smaller shares of women than could be found among younger members of their disciplines.” -Why the gender ratio (women professors) needs to mirror exactly the wider body (women’s ratio of Ph. Ds). It is obvious that the Title XI mentality is at play here. Whatever positions (usually women playing in college varsity teams in the Title XI world but in this case women professors) that feminists deem desirable or enhance women’s standing in feminists’ worldview (leadership role or non-traditional roles for women), at least needs to match the gender ratio of a wider body that happens to be in women’s advantage. Even if the logical connection between the two is hazy or difficult to establish definitively, (feminists could circumvent this by castigating the questioner male chauvinistic pig) it doesn’t matter, if the two gender ratio don’t match, it automatically becomes a ground for launching allegations of gender discrimination.
Simple question; “overt discrimination was disappearing — but that its disappearance didn’t necessarily translate into women rising to the top ranks at the college or in departments.” – why the disappearance of (overt) discrimination automatically needs to result in more women at top ranks? Disappearance of discrimination only, if any, ensure that so-called playing field is leveled, but doesn’t guarantee promotion of people who were previously said to have been affected by the said discrimination. To gain promotion, you strive for it. You work for it. But it won’t be sent to your doorstep in a gift wrap or handed out to you by government or institution (actually it will in our current political climate)
“Three sociologists at the University of Arizona presented a paper on the impact of specialization on the academic careers of men and women.” What are those sociologists main research field? Maybe gender discrimination in their own university. It seems that the university hired ‘diversity officer” or “gender ration enforcement officer” when it really should be hiring sociologists. If the hiring committee of the university were less obsessed with meeting diversity goal or under less pressure to correct gender imbalance in its faculty makeup, they would have had hired ‘the best qualified candidate”, maybe male sociologists, who would be doing some real “sociological” study instead of pursuing narrow agenda that would only benefit their own chance of promotion. But I guess it really doesn’t matter; who cares whether sociologists were concerned about social phenomena that affects the society at large, or their interest is limited to advancing their own agenda (and their position) in faculty.
Another excerpt from the article; “The study found, for example, that departments routinely had smaller shares of women than could be found among younger members of their disciplines.” -Why the gender ratio (women professors) needs to mirror exactly the wider body (women’s ratio of Ph. Ds). It is obvious that the Title XI mentality is at play here. Whatever positions (usually women playing in college varsity teams in the Title XI world but in this case women professors) that feminists deem desirable or enhance women’s standing in feminists’ worldview (leadership role or non-traditional roles for women), at least needs to match the gender ratio of a wider body that happens to be in women’s advantage. Even if the logical connection between the two is hazy or difficult to establish definitively, (feminists could circumvent this by castigating the questioner male chauvinistic pig) it doesn’t matter, if the two gender ratio don’t match, it automatically becomes a ground for launching allegations of gender discrimination.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Insidehighered.com No. 2 Productivity disproportionately affects women
hillarious article No. 2 on insidehighered.com.
Note that as time goes by, feminists’ allegation of gender discrimination is getting more and more specific. Before it was a discrimination against women in higher education. Period. Now it is, in “higher learning institution”, in the field of “academic medicine”, women suffers disproportionately by the “raising expectation” and they “get “consistently fewer” competing renewals grants than men” and “for every dollar a male primary investigator receives, women get 80 cents”. (in the last one they even succeeded in throwing some elements of “gender pay gap” trick.)
It may be true that men get promoted faster in academic medicine field and that men churn out more academic papers and work more productively, but the reason for that maybe is not because of the gender discrimination (when did the latter become evidence of discrimination by the way?) but because since simply men are better in general, and that superiority manifests itself in every aspects of academic career and life. You can keep on discovering almost infinite number of areas where “women are disproportionately affected” or in other words, “women are not as good as men’ in this or that area. Maybe men on average write better papers, better quality of research, better reviews, better at finding and collaborating with other researchers, better at finding opportunities to present their researches, better speech and presentation skills at conference., etc. etc., the list can go on and on. And my guess is that all of this, according to feminists, could be elements that can “disproportionately affect women.” Maybe men are better at more basic academic skills, such as writing composition, researching online, use of computer, use of library and lab, and these of course, would “disproportionately affect women”. Women, isn’t it time to simply admit the obvious?
I am still amazed that the author cites among the “bars” of rising expectation, “number of publications, numbers of collaborators and of graduate students and postdocs, invitations to speak and to present at national and international conferences”. In most people’s view, these would easily viewed as objective evaluation criteria on one’s productivity and excellence. In other words, productivity or excellence disproportionately affects women. I am very sorry.
Note that as time goes by, feminists’ allegation of gender discrimination is getting more and more specific. Before it was a discrimination against women in higher education. Period. Now it is, in “higher learning institution”, in the field of “academic medicine”, women suffers disproportionately by the “raising expectation” and they “get “consistently fewer” competing renewals grants than men” and “for every dollar a male primary investigator receives, women get 80 cents”. (in the last one they even succeeded in throwing some elements of “gender pay gap” trick.)
It may be true that men get promoted faster in academic medicine field and that men churn out more academic papers and work more productively, but the reason for that maybe is not because of the gender discrimination (when did the latter become evidence of discrimination by the way?) but because since simply men are better in general, and that superiority manifests itself in every aspects of academic career and life. You can keep on discovering almost infinite number of areas where “women are disproportionately affected” or in other words, “women are not as good as men’ in this or that area. Maybe men on average write better papers, better quality of research, better reviews, better at finding and collaborating with other researchers, better at finding opportunities to present their researches, better speech and presentation skills at conference., etc. etc., the list can go on and on. And my guess is that all of this, according to feminists, could be elements that can “disproportionately affect women.” Maybe men are better at more basic academic skills, such as writing composition, researching online, use of computer, use of library and lab, and these of course, would “disproportionately affect women”. Women, isn’t it time to simply admit the obvious?
I am still amazed that the author cites among the “bars” of rising expectation, “number of publications, numbers of collaborators and of graduate students and postdocs, invitations to speak and to present at national and international conferences”. In most people’s view, these would easily viewed as objective evaluation criteria on one’s productivity and excellence. In other words, productivity or excellence disproportionately affects women. I am very sorry.
Insidehighered.com
I found an interesting website where very high-educated women to gather to spew their misguided hatred against men and society. It is "insdeihighered.com. Actually if you want to go to a site of this sort, you can simply go to the website of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) or the National Organization for Women (NOW) if you prefer more general topic not necessarily specialized on issues rlated to higher institutions.
Anyway, below are some hillarious excerpts from this website;
From march 28 article;
“We found that women weren’t getting information about things as simple as timelines to becoming full professors. They didn’t know how to start the process.”
Women Ph.D don't even know those things? Or they don't even have a slightest motivation to research that on their own? How did they get Ph.D in the first place? Surely it would be very very hard to find, recruit, retain and promote such women. That's why feminist machinery has to be in a fll throttle to get more women in the profession to raise the gender balance. I feel sympathy for the author. My guess is that those women are too used to being treated like a pampered baby, as their big feminist sisters took care of them in all aspects of their academic career - from choosing the field in the first place, pursuing it, exam prep, recruitment, etc. Now their promotion will be taken care by their big sisters.
Another way to react to above quote is; uhh, do these women know how to write cover letters? uhhh, do they know how to use computer?
Anyway, below are some hillarious excerpts from this website;
From march 28 article;
“We found that women weren’t getting information about things as simple as timelines to becoming full professors. They didn’t know how to start the process.”
Women Ph.D don't even know those things? Or they don't even have a slightest motivation to research that on their own? How did they get Ph.D in the first place? Surely it would be very very hard to find, recruit, retain and promote such women. That's why feminist machinery has to be in a fll throttle to get more women in the profession to raise the gender balance. I feel sympathy for the author. My guess is that those women are too used to being treated like a pampered baby, as their big feminist sisters took care of them in all aspects of their academic career - from choosing the field in the first place, pursuing it, exam prep, recruitment, etc. Now their promotion will be taken care by their big sisters.
Another way to react to above quote is; uhh, do these women know how to write cover letters? uhhh, do they know how to use computer?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Women punk rock need to be put on pedestal
Yet another sub-section of vast discrimination cry-wolf industry– this one is on women punk rock! Now I admit that I am not a big fan of punk rock and I do not know much about it, but whining about discrimination and lecturing about patriarchy in the same manner as unhappy feminists in college women's study course isn’t exactly what I expect the (women) punk rockers to look like. Or perhaps this is exactly the reason why women punk rockers never rock, and need the punk-rocker-turned-ardent-feminists to feature them in a book, and the willing cooperation of left wing newspaper, to have any visibility in the media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)