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?
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Saturday, March 08, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
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.
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?
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?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
"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.
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..
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..
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
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.
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 . . .
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…..
Monday, December 17, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
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?
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.”
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.
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.
Monday, November 12, 2007
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.
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/
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/
Friday, November 09, 2007
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”.
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)