Well, if the Wall Street had been estrogen-filled rather than testosterone-filled, actually I would agree with Mr. Kristof that there would not have been financial crash, since there would not have been rapid economic development in the first place! Remember what put you in an “prestigious” position to have a “crash”. You cannot have a financial sector “crash” in Rwanda (which by the way Mr. Kristof lauds for having highest female representation in politics) if all your possession is pigs and chickens and if there is no functioning financial market in the country. (Mr. Kristof, where are all the benefits that feminists' rule are supposed tobring in this poverty-stricken country?) Remember, testosterone is what made it possible for Mr. Kristof to woe about this crash on internet (who created internet?) in his comfortable office equipped with latest computer (who made his computer?) and other gismo in a high-rise office building (who built buildings?)
You could live in an alternative matriarchy universe in which technology and social, economical development is stuck in the Middle Age (no testosterone, no printing machines, no ocean-sailing ships, no gunpowder) where you don’t have to worry about financial meltdown, mortgage crisis and so on. And better yet, you don’t have to worry about global worming (no testosterone, no internal combustion engine) or nuclear war (no testosterone, no nuclear science).
Monday, February 09, 2009
Mr. Kristof - Part 2, my suggestions
I think the best thing Mr. Kristof could for advancing the feminist cause to which he so emphatically pander (although this quite advanced level of pandering is still not enough for some of more hard-core feminists: ), is to resign as a columnist of NYTimes. Rather than simply preaching the beauty and benefits of world ruled by women, in one move, he can;
-reduce the percentage of white, hetero-sexual, educated, middle-age, male.
Better yet, after resigning (or actually before resigning and while on the job) he can do something abhorrent like sexually assault one of the young female interns in NYT. In this way he can;
-Further damage the reputation of white-middle-aged man, which he tried so hard to tarnish over the years
-make it much more difficult for large companies to hire white males in respectable positions, columnists or editors or managers, etc., which perfectly suits his agenda of reducing proportion of white males in those positions.
I suggest that Mr. Kristof insists his position be taken over by;
black(or hispanic or Asian or Indian or any other under-represented minority group), homosexual, uneducated, disabled women (or better yet, transsexual person) so that there would be more “diversity” as diversity sounds like the single most important thing in turning around economy and make world a better place. If possible, it is suggested that this person is not only uneducated (can score high on anti-elitist point), but not brilliant/capable or even retarded or has mental problem (so that we can overcome prejudice against retarded person or people worth mental disability).
-reduce the percentage of white, hetero-sexual, educated, middle-age, male.
Better yet, after resigning (or actually before resigning and while on the job) he can do something abhorrent like sexually assault one of the young female interns in NYT. In this way he can;
-Further damage the reputation of white-middle-aged man, which he tried so hard to tarnish over the years
-make it much more difficult for large companies to hire white males in respectable positions, columnists or editors or managers, etc., which perfectly suits his agenda of reducing proportion of white males in those positions.
I suggest that Mr. Kristof insists his position be taken over by;
black(or hispanic or Asian or Indian or any other under-represented minority group), homosexual, uneducated, disabled women (or better yet, transsexual person) so that there would be more “diversity” as diversity sounds like the single most important thing in turning around economy and make world a better place. If possible, it is suggested that this person is not only uneducated (can score high on anti-elitist point), but not brilliant/capable or even retarded or has mental problem (so that we can overcome prejudice against retarded person or people worth mental disability).
Mr. Kristof - Part 1
Mr. Kristof’s unending pandering to women is nothing new. When not calling attention of international community for man-made catastrophe (there is no “women-made” catastrophe as such, since anything women do is good according to his worldview) in Sudan or somewhere in Africa, “particularly” the plight of women (this “particularly” part is important as it actually means “exclusively”), he is busy these days kow-towing to man-hating feminists.
What are the possible reasons for this Mr. relentless cozying up to feminists? Here is a list of possible reasons;
a. It’s politically in vogue.
b. NYT senior management will see you in favorable light as you champion their favorite progressive cause.
c. It givers you a bump reader’s rating, mostly from progressive and female-heavy NYT readers.
d. He fancy a good place in an eventual world to be ruled by women (according to him), for embracing their cause from early on.
e. He actually it makes economic sense.
Now let’s analyze each of possible reason;
a. probably, could be one of the reasons
b. also probably yes
c. again, also probably yes
d. Does he seriously believe that men would have any place in a new matriarchy run by man-hating feminists? If so, I must say he must been deluded. The only possible exceptions in a new matriarchy are gay or trans-gendered person(male to female), I would think –but former may not be still technical and medically male, so they would be treated as any other “males”; even the latter is a XY choromosne holder at cell level so not sure about them either.
e. Please study economic 101
What’s the good terms for this kind of male-feminists, (defeatist?, femi-Nazi collaborator?) We need a name, a catchy one for this kind of people. And what could be the reason / motivation for these guys to pander to a group of people who think of you as nothing other than possible rxpist? Some possible reasons are listed above but there could be others. And how are the inner psychology of these men? Masochist?
What are the possible reasons for this Mr. relentless cozying up to feminists? Here is a list of possible reasons;
a. It’s politically in vogue.
b. NYT senior management will see you in favorable light as you champion their favorite progressive cause.
c. It givers you a bump reader’s rating, mostly from progressive and female-heavy NYT readers.
d. He fancy a good place in an eventual world to be ruled by women (according to him), for embracing their cause from early on.
e. He actually it makes economic sense.
Now let’s analyze each of possible reason;
a. probably, could be one of the reasons
b. also probably yes
c. again, also probably yes
d. Does he seriously believe that men would have any place in a new matriarchy run by man-hating feminists? If so, I must say he must been deluded. The only possible exceptions in a new matriarchy are gay or trans-gendered person(male to female), I would think –but former may not be still technical and medically male, so they would be treated as any other “males”; even the latter is a XY choromosne holder at cell level so not sure about them either.
e. Please study economic 101
What’s the good terms for this kind of male-feminists, (defeatist?, femi-Nazi collaborator?) We need a name, a catchy one for this kind of people. And what could be the reason / motivation for these guys to pander to a group of people who think of you as nothing other than possible rxpist? Some possible reasons are listed above but there could be others. And how are the inner psychology of these men? Masochist?
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Obama the first "feminist" President
Now let me psychoanalyze Eleanor Smeal and other feminists who pretend as if Obama is one of their feminist warriors...
1. Before 2008 election season starts, there was extremely (and I mean extremely) high expectation that Hillary will be a Democratic nominee and then eventually the US President.
2. Hillary lost a race for a party nomination, which was largely believed to be simply a coronation process, in a spectacular fashion, to a relatively inexperienced, young black “man”.
3. Eleanor Smeal and other feminists had no other place to park their extremely hyped-up expectation and hundreds of feminist agenda and policies that were supposed to be implemented as soon as Hillary was sworn in as the President.
4. Since they themselves stressed that they can "no longer wait" to assume the highest office of the land and since luckily the new president is not a macho, alpha-male type but rather a new-age liberal male, they decided to proclaim that "he" is actually the first feminist President, even though this one doesn't have breasts and has Adam's apple. In a way it is a bit like Hillary's husband being proclaimed as the "first black President" by black folks back in the 1990's. In this way feminists' can (at least partially) save their face for not being able to have the first women president when they had been pretending during most of 2008 that Hillary was such a shoe-in candidate and in fact a de facto President.
Still it must have been very difficult for people at Ms. Magazine to stomach this, as I would imagine that they would have preferred an authentic woman, a human being with XX chromosome, even with a "wrong” ideology or a party affiliation, like that gun-loving one from Alaksa, to be the President rather than a “feminist male” like Obama.
1. Before 2008 election season starts, there was extremely (and I mean extremely) high expectation that Hillary will be a Democratic nominee and then eventually the US President.
2. Hillary lost a race for a party nomination, which was largely believed to be simply a coronation process, in a spectacular fashion, to a relatively inexperienced, young black “man”.
3. Eleanor Smeal and other feminists had no other place to park their extremely hyped-up expectation and hundreds of feminist agenda and policies that were supposed to be implemented as soon as Hillary was sworn in as the President.
4. Since they themselves stressed that they can "no longer wait" to assume the highest office of the land and since luckily the new president is not a macho, alpha-male type but rather a new-age liberal male, they decided to proclaim that "he" is actually the first feminist President, even though this one doesn't have breasts and has Adam's apple. In a way it is a bit like Hillary's husband being proclaimed as the "first black President" by black folks back in the 1990's. In this way feminists' can (at least partially) save their face for not being able to have the first women president when they had been pretending during most of 2008 that Hillary was such a shoe-in candidate and in fact a de facto President.
Still it must have been very difficult for people at Ms. Magazine to stomach this, as I would imagine that they would have preferred an authentic woman, a human being with XX chromosome, even with a "wrong” ideology or a party affiliation, like that gun-loving one from Alaksa, to be the President rather than a “feminist male” like Obama.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Women overtaking men in workforce - NYTimes
For feminist warriors and social engineers, anything that help or propel their agenda is good. Anything. Even one of the worst recession in the country’s history that is costing people millions of jobs. Especially that millions of job used to belong mostly to men.
Just like World War II is being remembered by feminists mostly not as a catastrophe that took millions of lives, or associated with holocaust, or atomic bomb, but a turning point or a historic opportunity in which women took over men's jobs at homefront which were usually dominated by men, such as factory assembly line, etc.
So this on-going large scale recession looked to those feminists as just another opportunity to push their agenda and gender role reversal. Their central focus is men to do more of cooking, cleaning, diaper-changing and free up women's time so that she can concentrate more on work and be more effective, so that she can outdo those few remaining men in workforce - so that more women in senior position, more women in workforce, more pay for women, less men in workforce, especially senior position and lower pay for men.
It's a bit scandalous to think that there are people who welcome and embrace this recession as once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to further their agenda, isn't it?
Does anyone wants to talk about how the current recession is “discriminatory” against men given that men were disproportionately high among those laid off recently? Anyone? Hello?
If it was women, not men, who were hit hardest by the recession, NYT will be running full-page article bemoaning gender discrimination and how society is stacked against women every single day, but since it is men who are getting the pink slips, it’s just the matter of how to utilize this opportunity to promote gender role reversal.
If you look at this recession from another angle, you can perhaps say that economy in which women share proportion of workforce is a slow and sluggish one. It is important to remember here that no country or society in history has achieved high growth and economic development by relying mostly on “women” jobs, such as teaching, nursing, providing health care, etc. If such “women” jobs are to represent higher portion of country’s economy in the coming days, then it is a bad news, since economy is simply not going to grow just by relying on people providing service to other people. It would naturally mean that country as a whole will become poorer, since those jobs aren’t high-paying job anyway, but this is nothing to do with the supposed gender discrimination. You would need people to “create” things, be it products or buildings or infrastructure, in order for economy to grow and society to develop.
The countries who are rapidly expanding and developing are the ones that value and utilize the talents of male workers, such as in hi-tech industry, manufacturing, construction, as you can see most clearly in countries like China and India. If you devalue or belittle male talents, the country’s economy will shrink
Just like World War II is being remembered by feminists mostly not as a catastrophe that took millions of lives, or associated with holocaust, or atomic bomb, but a turning point or a historic opportunity in which women took over men's jobs at homefront which were usually dominated by men, such as factory assembly line, etc.
So this on-going large scale recession looked to those feminists as just another opportunity to push their agenda and gender role reversal. Their central focus is men to do more of cooking, cleaning, diaper-changing and free up women's time so that she can concentrate more on work and be more effective, so that she can outdo those few remaining men in workforce - so that more women in senior position, more women in workforce, more pay for women, less men in workforce, especially senior position and lower pay for men.
It's a bit scandalous to think that there are people who welcome and embrace this recession as once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to further their agenda, isn't it?
Does anyone wants to talk about how the current recession is “discriminatory” against men given that men were disproportionately high among those laid off recently? Anyone? Hello?
If it was women, not men, who were hit hardest by the recession, NYT will be running full-page article bemoaning gender discrimination and how society is stacked against women every single day, but since it is men who are getting the pink slips, it’s just the matter of how to utilize this opportunity to promote gender role reversal.
If you look at this recession from another angle, you can perhaps say that economy in which women share proportion of workforce is a slow and sluggish one. It is important to remember here that no country or society in history has achieved high growth and economic development by relying mostly on “women” jobs, such as teaching, nursing, providing health care, etc. If such “women” jobs are to represent higher portion of country’s economy in the coming days, then it is a bad news, since economy is simply not going to grow just by relying on people providing service to other people. It would naturally mean that country as a whole will become poorer, since those jobs aren’t high-paying job anyway, but this is nothing to do with the supposed gender discrimination. You would need people to “create” things, be it products or buildings or infrastructure, in order for economy to grow and society to develop.
The countries who are rapidly expanding and developing are the ones that value and utilize the talents of male workers, such as in hi-tech industry, manufacturing, construction, as you can see most clearly in countries like China and India. If you devalue or belittle male talents, the country’s economy will shrink
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Sisterhood in workplace
Sisterhood in workplace, a call for women to stop sniping at each other (with other women) – sounds good, no?
Well, not really.
The author make it sounds like as if guys do not do this kind of stuff, but only women do (and they do only to other women), and therefore themselves becoming the last obstacle to gender equality in workplace. But the fact is that, men do it all the time as well.
Then what's the point of the article? Well, to begin with, office rivalry and sniping are not really the nicest thing to do to your colleagues, boss, subordinates, be they men or women. I agree, but then why an emphasis on working women? The true motive of the author's seemingly benign call could only be understood in the framework of a class struggle, a class struggle not between capitalisn and proletariat, but a class struggle between the two opposite sexes.
Let me elaborate; since it is important to break a glass ceiling and into a male-dominant world of corporate boardroom, it naturally follows that all the women of the world must unite. The enemy is not other, more successful, highly placed women, but men.
Only by viewing all men (in workplace) as a class enemy, the author's call will make sense. Office politics, sniping and backstabbing are commonplace in most if not all of workplace, and it happens between men, between men and women, and between women. However, the author thinks only the last case, women sniping at other women to be problematic.
If you replace a woman with another woman in the board, it doesn’t help bring up the percentage of women in the boardroom. The percentage will only go up if you replace a man with a woman. Therefore, immediate ceasefire among professional women is in order, while pretending that the problem concerns only women and let men continue fighting each other to their own detriment.
Well, not really.
The author make it sounds like as if guys do not do this kind of stuff, but only women do (and they do only to other women), and therefore themselves becoming the last obstacle to gender equality in workplace. But the fact is that, men do it all the time as well.
Then what's the point of the article? Well, to begin with, office rivalry and sniping are not really the nicest thing to do to your colleagues, boss, subordinates, be they men or women. I agree, but then why an emphasis on working women? The true motive of the author's seemingly benign call could only be understood in the framework of a class struggle, a class struggle not between capitalisn and proletariat, but a class struggle between the two opposite sexes.
Let me elaborate; since it is important to break a glass ceiling and into a male-dominant world of corporate boardroom, it naturally follows that all the women of the world must unite. The enemy is not other, more successful, highly placed women, but men.
Only by viewing all men (in workplace) as a class enemy, the author's call will make sense. Office politics, sniping and backstabbing are commonplace in most if not all of workplace, and it happens between men, between men and women, and between women. However, the author thinks only the last case, women sniping at other women to be problematic.
If you replace a woman with another woman in the board, it doesn’t help bring up the percentage of women in the boardroom. The percentage will only go up if you replace a man with a woman. Therefore, immediate ceasefire among professional women is in order, while pretending that the problem concerns only women and let men continue fighting each other to their own detriment.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
UN Children's fund or UN Girls' Fund?
You would think that the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) had changed its name to United Nations Girls’ Fund (UNIGEF?), if you take a look at the cover of 8 most recent annual reports published by the agency. All the cover photos of annual reports since 2000, are girls (2000, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2007), except in cases when babies (hard to tell the sexes of them) graced the front pages.
Actually this is perfectly in line with the policies and stances of all other UN agencies, who, informed by man-hating strand of virulent feminism, have determined to remake the world in their image (where women’s and girls’ interest are put first = where women and girls rule) and steadfastly rejected to help boys. In fact, ignoring the needy boys benefits feminists in achieving their aims; it will prevent diverting their precious resources away from its holy mission of assisting girls, and will help buoy girl’s competitiveness against boys in relative terms. The only thing they might worry about boy’s plight, if they ever do, might be its negative effect on girls, in the sense that troubling and delinquent boys may tease, bully, or sexually harass (all of which could be defined be feminists as “sexual attack” against girls) girls. Otherwise boys are not on UNICZEF and other UN agencies radar screen.
Actually this is perfectly in line with the policies and stances of all other UN agencies, who, informed by man-hating strand of virulent feminism, have determined to remake the world in their image (where women’s and girls’ interest are put first = where women and girls rule) and steadfastly rejected to help boys. In fact, ignoring the needy boys benefits feminists in achieving their aims; it will prevent diverting their precious resources away from its holy mission of assisting girls, and will help buoy girl’s competitiveness against boys in relative terms. The only thing they might worry about boy’s plight, if they ever do, might be its negative effect on girls, in the sense that troubling and delinquent boys may tease, bully, or sexually harass (all of which could be defined be feminists as “sexual attack” against girls) girls. Otherwise boys are not on UNICZEF and other UN agencies radar screen.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Working While Female (WWF) vs.Working While Male (WWM)
Another related post on the same site (my favourite XX blog in Slate)
Feminists have craftily adapted DHB (driving while black) into WWF (working while female).
Well maybe there is such a thing as WWF – such as promoted over other more qualified men (especially Caucasian men) into senior management positions, freedom to pick and choose the male targets of your sexual harassment charges, opportunity to file sex discrimination lawsuits against your company if you are in a mood of buying a new mansion or luxury cars, watches and precious stones, etc. threaten your boss that low performance review for you will bring a big trouble for him, for example, finding his name on one of the defendants of sexual discrimination case, etc.
The moment you start working for a company, all of the above benefits come with you as WWF. You think the above are exaggerated? No, many companies (especially larger ones that could become easy target of feminist lawyers) have de facto gender quota, or numerical target for female representation at senior positions, and evaluate managers performance by how many female workers he have promoted, hired, or evaluated positively. Not to mention many “women-only” career networks, study groups, career orientations, mentorship programs or counseling programs in the industry or inside company that benefits only women. These are certainly beneficial, although to much less dramatic ways than the above, and are mostly or exclusively available for women.
Now let’s imagine the benefits and risks of WWM (working while male)
Promotion being passed over because you are men – companies has numerical target for senior female managers to meet and you are so getting in the way!
24/7 risk of being accused by female workers of sexual harassment/discrimination/assault or whatever convenient charges women can haul against men.
Work in physically dangerous occupation that have much higher risk of getting injured than, say, cleaning hotel rooms, and at the same time vilified by feminists for out-earning blue-color women.
If you happen to be a manager in a large company, you will be living and breathing in a corporate and social environment that defines you and your presence as the relic of patriarchal past, and view your presence as the evidence of the company's lack of commitment to gender equality at the senior positions and hindrance to achieving women’s full empowerment
Feminists have craftily adapted DHB (driving while black) into WWF (working while female).
Well maybe there is such a thing as WWF – such as promoted over other more qualified men (especially Caucasian men) into senior management positions, freedom to pick and choose the male targets of your sexual harassment charges, opportunity to file sex discrimination lawsuits against your company if you are in a mood of buying a new mansion or luxury cars, watches and precious stones, etc. threaten your boss that low performance review for you will bring a big trouble for him, for example, finding his name on one of the defendants of sexual discrimination case, etc.
The moment you start working for a company, all of the above benefits come with you as WWF. You think the above are exaggerated? No, many companies (especially larger ones that could become easy target of feminist lawyers) have de facto gender quota, or numerical target for female representation at senior positions, and evaluate managers performance by how many female workers he have promoted, hired, or evaluated positively. Not to mention many “women-only” career networks, study groups, career orientations, mentorship programs or counseling programs in the industry or inside company that benefits only women. These are certainly beneficial, although to much less dramatic ways than the above, and are mostly or exclusively available for women.
Now let’s imagine the benefits and risks of WWM (working while male)
Promotion being passed over because you are men – companies has numerical target for senior female managers to meet and you are so getting in the way!
24/7 risk of being accused by female workers of sexual harassment/discrimination/assault or whatever convenient charges women can haul against men.
Work in physically dangerous occupation that have much higher risk of getting injured than, say, cleaning hotel rooms, and at the same time vilified by feminists for out-earning blue-color women.
If you happen to be a manager in a large company, you will be living and breathing in a corporate and social environment that defines you and your presence as the relic of patriarchal past, and view your presence as the evidence of the company's lack of commitment to gender equality at the senior positions and hindrance to achieving women’s full empowerment
Sexual harassment is terrorism?
This should rank quite high in the list of hyperbolic rhetoric by feminists – “sexual harassment is a terrorism”. To be sure, the Slate’s XX bloggers are not the first one to employ the term “terrorism” to describe sexual harassment - there are many precedents – after all, feminists are the ones who are particularly prone to this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric among other leftist activists (I think some in-depth study and comparison on this topic would be interesting- who is the most militant in their verbiage – black activists, environmentalists, gay activists, animal rights activists, etc.?).
I guess feminists equate Sexual Harassment (SH) with terrorism since;
1) the trauma inflicted by SH to the women are so horrific and is on par with horror of real terrorism (the kind you see in Iraq and Afghanistan)
2) or just want to grab media attention to promote their cause by using the “T” word
On 1), I wonder if feminists are actually perpetuating “fragile women myth” by saying that women are so fragile that they are just as frightened by a few unwanted sexual advances are as they are frightened by roadside IED, etc.
Or may be it is that the feminsits who heard the story of another women sexually harassed are so shocked and distressed by the story that they are in the same mental state of victims of real terrorism, - who had IED blown off 30 yard away and see torn heads and limb flying in their faces. In other words, they are in perpetual state of paranoia.
Intersting line from the blog post:
“They'(Sexual harassment)re designed to keep women in the lower-paying jobs on the ladder.”
It’s good that you have another excuses or someone else (i.e. men of course) to blame for your low performance and non-competence which is really holding you back. It is also clearly an expression of deranged feminists’ paranoia. Because I’m not sure if these men who made unwanted sexual advances are doing so with a clear intent of keeping those women on lower paying job. If they wish to do so, they are other ways to do that.
I guess feminists equate Sexual Harassment (SH) with terrorism since;
1) the trauma inflicted by SH to the women are so horrific and is on par with horror of real terrorism (the kind you see in Iraq and Afghanistan)
2) or just want to grab media attention to promote their cause by using the “T” word
On 1), I wonder if feminists are actually perpetuating “fragile women myth” by saying that women are so fragile that they are just as frightened by a few unwanted sexual advances are as they are frightened by roadside IED, etc.
Or may be it is that the feminsits who heard the story of another women sexually harassed are so shocked and distressed by the story that they are in the same mental state of victims of real terrorism, - who had IED blown off 30 yard away and see torn heads and limb flying in their faces. In other words, they are in perpetual state of paranoia.
Intersting line from the blog post:
“They'(Sexual harassment)re designed to keep women in the lower-paying jobs on the ladder.”
It’s good that you have another excuses or someone else (i.e. men of course) to blame for your low performance and non-competence which is really holding you back. It is also clearly an expression of deranged feminists’ paranoia. Because I’m not sure if these men who made unwanted sexual advances are doing so with a clear intent of keeping those women on lower paying job. If they wish to do so, they are other ways to do that.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Nissan's gender quota
Nissan's CEO Carlos Ghosn is a kind of superstar in an auto industry, as he had turned around a failing motor company into one of the most profiting ones, but hee too, as a Wester-educated CEO of this generation, is not immune from being contaminated by political correctness.
In a magazine interview he gave some years ago, he set a goal of having 5% of senior managers women.
Good. But it begs a lot of questions for this legendary guy whose life was portrayed in a popular comic book.
First, if having women as senior managers is so important, why this wasn't the first thing Mr. Ghosn did when he took over the job at Nissan? Instead, he waited until the company's performance turned around and got firmly on track for further growth. What does it mean? To me, it only means that "affirmative-actioning" women into senior positions is a luxury that only a few large companies could afford. You can make a political gesturing like this only when company is in good order.
Second, he seems to exhort other auto companies to do the same,but it strikes as odd, as if getting more women into senior positions is the success for suto company, you would rathr NOT other companies to do the same, since in this way, you can be rest assured that only Nissan will benefit from the supposed benefit derived from the increased female managers, while other companies do not. Why do you want to reveal key for success in trade, and ask that competitors follow suit?
Actually what is going on here is that Mr. Ghosn know that affirmative-actioning more female managers, and setting numerical target and gender quaota, will put his company in disadvantage, as 5% of the managers will be sub-standard ones, who are articifially promoted for their jobs. If its rivals pack their senior manager posts with 100% compitent people who won their posts on merit, guess which one has more compitent manager team as a whole? Nissan, with 95% managers chosen on merit and 5% filled in as quota, or Toyota, with 100% managers chosen on merit and 0% quota people?
In this sense, it might not be "fair", if other companies fo not set up the same 5% gender quota and fill it with sub-standard people. One analogy would be gender mixed sports that are a staple of intramural sports events. In these mixed sports, typically a ballgame like basketball or a volleyball, the number of men and women who can play in one team is strictly set. So, let's say, in volleyball, if the rule says one team should consist of 3 men and 3 women, then that raito has to be observed. You cannot field a team of 4 men and 2 women, because it will give an unfair advantage to such a team that have a higher ratio of men. In sports, obviously women's weaker physical fitness level is a liability, and therefore, to be fair, all teams must have equall number of women, not less. Similarly, in a corporate world, if one company wants to show chivalrish side and adopt a gender quota, in order not to be put in a disadvantegous position in a cut-throat competition in the market, that company will naturaly wish that other companies adopt similar measures.
In a magazine interview he gave some years ago, he set a goal of having 5% of senior managers women.
Good. But it begs a lot of questions for this legendary guy whose life was portrayed in a popular comic book.
First, if having women as senior managers is so important, why this wasn't the first thing Mr. Ghosn did when he took over the job at Nissan? Instead, he waited until the company's performance turned around and got firmly on track for further growth. What does it mean? To me, it only means that "affirmative-actioning" women into senior positions is a luxury that only a few large companies could afford. You can make a political gesturing like this only when company is in good order.
Second, he seems to exhort other auto companies to do the same,but it strikes as odd, as if getting more women into senior positions is the success for suto company, you would rathr NOT other companies to do the same, since in this way, you can be rest assured that only Nissan will benefit from the supposed benefit derived from the increased female managers, while other companies do not. Why do you want to reveal key for success in trade, and ask that competitors follow suit?
Actually what is going on here is that Mr. Ghosn know that affirmative-actioning more female managers, and setting numerical target and gender quaota, will put his company in disadvantage, as 5% of the managers will be sub-standard ones, who are articifially promoted for their jobs. If its rivals pack their senior manager posts with 100% compitent people who won their posts on merit, guess which one has more compitent manager team as a whole? Nissan, with 95% managers chosen on merit and 5% filled in as quota, or Toyota, with 100% managers chosen on merit and 0% quota people?
In this sense, it might not be "fair", if other companies fo not set up the same 5% gender quota and fill it with sub-standard people. One analogy would be gender mixed sports that are a staple of intramural sports events. In these mixed sports, typically a ballgame like basketball or a volleyball, the number of men and women who can play in one team is strictly set. So, let's say, in volleyball, if the rule says one team should consist of 3 men and 3 women, then that raito has to be observed. You cannot field a team of 4 men and 2 women, because it will give an unfair advantage to such a team that have a higher ratio of men. In sports, obviously women's weaker physical fitness level is a liability, and therefore, to be fair, all teams must have equall number of women, not less. Similarly, in a corporate world, if one company wants to show chivalrish side and adopt a gender quota, in order not to be put in a disadvantegous position in a cut-throat competition in the market, that company will naturaly wish that other companies adopt similar measures.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Natural evolution of women
Those two articles that were published in the Times, are quite far apart in the subject matters they discuss and also chronologically (one of them was published two years ago, the other one just last month), but nonetheless I see some similarity, or a common thread, apart from the fact that both articles discuss women’s issues.
Would a (supposedly) natural evolution of women from submissive, multi-tasking mothers in the hunting ages into independent, strong political, economic and social leaders of the modern world, as happily and self-absorbedly described by power-hungry feminists at the one of the biggest feminists parties (a.k.a. Women's Forum for the Economy and Society) something akin to a theory discussed in the mid-1970’s by sports scientists?
Back in the 70’s people wondered, scientists examined, and feminists revelled at the idea that someday women may overtake men in (extreme) long-distance running (42km marathon or longer) because of the higher fat ratio in their bodies. Now, 30 years later, nobody in right mind seriously believes that. That 70’s extremely simplistic, linear thinking which held that simply because women have more fat than men, women can outrun men in the long distance, has yielded way to more rigorous analysis and studies, which found that that WILL NOT HAPPEN. (Unless we genetically engineer women into men, that is, and I guess there may be many feminists who might like that idea for the sake of no-excuse-allowed gender equality)
Much in the same way, the idea that simply women are better at empathy, communication and multitasking, and since modern world requires more and more of them, women will become natural leaders of the modern world, may be too linear and simplistic. (I am getting used to it, but sometimes still baffled by feminists who say that women and men are absolutely same in every way, and in the next breath say that women are genetically better at communication, empathy, multitasking and son on…) Wouldn’t modern world require more and more of scientific and mechanical knowledge, or more organizational and leadership skill, or more focused, in-depth knowledge on increasingly compartmentalized fields of expertise? Or will empathy such an important factor in getting ahead in the 21 st century career race? Or an ability to chat about boys and fashion and deserts for several hours straight a kind of communication style required in modern world? Is multitasking of feeding baby, washing dishes and cleaning floor same things as overseeing employees, preparing for important presentations, checking company’s balance sheet all at the same time?
Would a (supposedly) natural evolution of women from submissive, multi-tasking mothers in the hunting ages into independent, strong political, economic and social leaders of the modern world, as happily and self-absorbedly described by power-hungry feminists at the one of the biggest feminists parties (a.k.a. Women's Forum for the Economy and Society) something akin to a theory discussed in the mid-1970’s by sports scientists?
Back in the 70’s people wondered, scientists examined, and feminists revelled at the idea that someday women may overtake men in (extreme) long-distance running (42km marathon or longer) because of the higher fat ratio in their bodies. Now, 30 years later, nobody in right mind seriously believes that. That 70’s extremely simplistic, linear thinking which held that simply because women have more fat than men, women can outrun men in the long distance, has yielded way to more rigorous analysis and studies, which found that that WILL NOT HAPPEN. (Unless we genetically engineer women into men, that is, and I guess there may be many feminists who might like that idea for the sake of no-excuse-allowed gender equality)
Much in the same way, the idea that simply women are better at empathy, communication and multitasking, and since modern world requires more and more of them, women will become natural leaders of the modern world, may be too linear and simplistic. (I am getting used to it, but sometimes still baffled by feminists who say that women and men are absolutely same in every way, and in the next breath say that women are genetically better at communication, empathy, multitasking and son on…) Wouldn’t modern world require more and more of scientific and mechanical knowledge, or more organizational and leadership skill, or more focused, in-depth knowledge on increasingly compartmentalized fields of expertise? Or will empathy such an important factor in getting ahead in the 21 st century career race? Or an ability to chat about boys and fashion and deserts for several hours straight a kind of communication style required in modern world? Is multitasking of feeding baby, washing dishes and cleaning floor same things as overseeing employees, preparing for important presentations, checking company’s balance sheet all at the same time?
Sexism in Israel, or so declared by feminists
It's apparent that since the prospect for Livni's taking over premiership is not as good as it originally appeared on paper, another woman writer tries to pre-empt any opposition or negative view of the woman as some sort of a "sexist" behavior. The data she cites, such as only 8 percent of Middle Eastern parliaments are women doesn't have anything to do with whether Israel is still a bastion of Neanderthaal macho men, since the figure include all Middle Eastern countries, including such feminists' paradise as Saudi Arabia and so on. And the fact that Meir is not so popular in Israel also have nothing to do with sexist attitude, it's her policy, as even the writer quotes, that make Israeli people not particularly fond of her. But to this author, any negative view of politicians, if they happened to be female, are automatically evidence of "sexism", end of discussion. Only criticism of male politicians are allowed. And since when calling other politician by a full name Tzipora become a sexist act? And what exactly Livni's advisor is whining about? Do they want to ban all meetings between two males in the country. As if they want to say, "from now on all meetings between more than two males are banned in this country as it is considered a subversive act against feminists utopia.". Don’t be surprised that when Livni failed to form a coalition government, the blame will be on sexism (even Israel had Meir and women heading parliament and supreme court), not on her dovish policies that are unacceptable to many Israelis.
New "wage gap"
People seem to be coming up with more and more new, creative and inventive ways to stigmatize men and corporations, and put the dead-old gender wage gap issue on the news.
It’s interesting to see in this article how Neandelthaal men actually out-earn egalitarian tree-hugging type male in the workplace. Forget all the circular and self-serving reasonings for this wage gap between traditional and egalitarian males that these scientists tried to come up with to cozy up to power-feminist type; may be one of the reason for this is that egalitarian male put brake on themselves - they might be thinking, “if I perform at my full potential, I would be so far ahead of women in the next performance review and that is so against my egalitarian view; I will perform on a par or below my female colleagues so that women will be promoted ahead of me, get higher wage, and I can show with my own example that women can be as good as men, or men can be as bad or even worse than women”.
Or the other reason would simply be that these egalitarian men are simply not as good as traditional men. Even if you control for IQ or education, you cannot control for their ability or performance; it may not simply be that these testosterone-ridden traditional males were aggressive during salary negotiations only, they may have been aggressive in their work also, aggressive in completing the task, achieving goals, etc., and these may have led to higher performance review, hence faster promotion and higher salaries. On women’s side, whether they have traditional or progressive views on gender roles would have little to do with their testosterone level (which is low across the board), and therefore resulted in little difference in wage-gap=performance gap between them.
Why do you have to assume that men (or women) with similar IQ or similar education, background will have identical performance?
It’s interesting to see in this article how Neandelthaal men actually out-earn egalitarian tree-hugging type male in the workplace. Forget all the circular and self-serving reasonings for this wage gap between traditional and egalitarian males that these scientists tried to come up with to cozy up to power-feminist type; may be one of the reason for this is that egalitarian male put brake on themselves - they might be thinking, “if I perform at my full potential, I would be so far ahead of women in the next performance review and that is so against my egalitarian view; I will perform on a par or below my female colleagues so that women will be promoted ahead of me, get higher wage, and I can show with my own example that women can be as good as men, or men can be as bad or even worse than women”.
Or the other reason would simply be that these egalitarian men are simply not as good as traditional men. Even if you control for IQ or education, you cannot control for their ability or performance; it may not simply be that these testosterone-ridden traditional males were aggressive during salary negotiations only, they may have been aggressive in their work also, aggressive in completing the task, achieving goals, etc., and these may have led to higher performance review, hence faster promotion and higher salaries. On women’s side, whether they have traditional or progressive views on gender roles would have little to do with their testosterone level (which is low across the board), and therefore resulted in little difference in wage-gap=performance gap between them.
Why do you have to assume that men (or women) with similar IQ or similar education, background will have identical performance?
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Women bosses cause mor stress - and society needs to change!?
I’m sure there must have been a tremendous pressure (and temptation) to manipulate this experiments outcome to fit the current PC agenda, such as
-women feel much better and empowered and motivated and encouraged under female boss;
-women feel threatened and harassed under male boss (and actually were in many cases);
-men started to sexually harass female boss;
-men started to conspire with male boss on how best to preserve male privilidge, etc.
I give kudos for the researchers for at least not giving into those societal pressure or temptations.
But still it seems that they couldn’t resist the inner liberal-progressive urge to somehow attribute the results to discrimination again.
So according to them, women feel more stress under female boss than male boss, because-
Stereotype hold women to be more caring and women workers are surprised and stressed to find out that their female bosses are not like their stereotype-image of caring women and instead conforming to male archetype, or that female bosses themselves are under stress working in male-dominated business world and that stress trick down to female subordinates.
Good work. Very good imagination - they can be a card-carrying feminists from today. Only one explanation provided. No call to increase more male bosses who seem to cause less stress for both female and male workers, but only some pondering on how to change society so that these hated stress-causing female bosses could be more acceptable to both male and female workers. I’m sure if the results have been reverese, i.e. male bosses are found out to be more stress-causing for workers, feminists would be ecstatic (to the point of almost reaching orgasm!) and triumphant that this is the final and indisputable evidence why there should be less male bosses and more female bosses.
-women feel much better and empowered and motivated and encouraged under female boss;
-women feel threatened and harassed under male boss (and actually were in many cases);
-men started to sexually harass female boss;
-men started to conspire with male boss on how best to preserve male privilidge, etc.
I give kudos for the researchers for at least not giving into those societal pressure or temptations.
But still it seems that they couldn’t resist the inner liberal-progressive urge to somehow attribute the results to discrimination again.
So according to them, women feel more stress under female boss than male boss, because-
Stereotype hold women to be more caring and women workers are surprised and stressed to find out that their female bosses are not like their stereotype-image of caring women and instead conforming to male archetype, or that female bosses themselves are under stress working in male-dominated business world and that stress trick down to female subordinates.
Good work. Very good imagination - they can be a card-carrying feminists from today. Only one explanation provided. No call to increase more male bosses who seem to cause less stress for both female and male workers, but only some pondering on how to change society so that these hated stress-causing female bosses could be more acceptable to both male and female workers. I’m sure if the results have been reverese, i.e. male bosses are found out to be more stress-causing for workers, feminists would be ecstatic (to the point of almost reaching orgasm!) and triumphant that this is the final and indisputable evidence why there should be less male bosses and more female bosses.
CEO's pay-gap
I don't how much the so-called "equality" or pay-equity at CEO's level would matter to most of the people. It is in any way an astronimical figures for most of the people which does not have much real meaning, whether women earn 10 million or men earn 20 million. It is so detached from the life of ordinary people and trying to portray this issue as such a huge gender discrimination issue is so ridiculous and makes a mockery of the entire discrimination issue. For these CEOs it is a differnce between one being able to buy 5 vacation houses around the world or only 2 vacations houses, and whether one can own 10 Rolce Royse or only 2 Ferraris - whao, life is so unfair!!!
The only issue here seems to be the old feminist's vindictiveness against men in general. When you care more about super-rich female CEO (most of whom are affirmative-actioned in the first place) earning several millions less (several millions!!) than male counterparts, than, say, thousands of homeless, jobless people on the streets (most of whom are men), you know that only hatred against men motivated this female author.
You can see that same-old same-old feminists lines being repeated here; the much-recycled Summers’ comment (he was talking about science, no!?), the so-called pay gap (21 cent less per dollar, which begs the questions of why companies do not stop hiring such expensive men to cut costs) very shaky and unscientific comparison of salaries without any regard to the size of company, profits, or title, citing one study done by – of course – women to back up a shaky claim, reference to “stereotypes” and exhorting readers (women only) to talk about successful women among themselves so that they can feel better about themselves - no talk about the ditched female CEOs except in the context of blaming male-dominated corporate society, because women CEO deserves only success, failure or not meeting targets or getting profits – is presumably a carefully plotted and disguised form of discrimination against women. She even tries to introduce a new criteria for gender discrimination – low expectation for women. If women fall under pressure for too much expectation- would that also be a “discrimination”?
It is easy to understand that the higher the position goes, the bigger the pay differences could become. It does not make much difference to companies’ overall earning or profits whether an entry level clerk or sales assistants, one of hundreds or even of thousands, do a terrific job or a mediocre job. But it would do make a difference if one CEO or one senior VP makes a big mistake, or make a very wise prescient decision. The pay will reflect that.
It will also be more difficult to assess whether the pay is fair or appropriate or not at more senior level than lower, entry level positions. Lower entry level positions’ jobs are usually more standardized, routine and could be done by any other equally qualified persons. It is much less so at the senior level where persons’ vision, leadership, strategic decisions influence the entire fate of the company.
A risk means a “risk” only when it entails probability for both success and failure. Feminists seems to want a societal guarantee for success for any senior female executives in their quest for higher career and risk-taking jobs, and flabbergasted when that “success” did not come in handy, and start a witch-hunt for those who are responsible for not delivering “success” to these female executives, such as Ms. Cruz or Ms Callan. In many cases, culprits are sexist corporate culture, media or, male colleagues - usual scapegoats who could never escape the eternal sin of being born a male. In other words, in the views of people like Ms. Dobrzynski, women getting CEO positions are “fair” but women not succeeding in their positions are “unfair”. Perhaps a good place to start is to ditch this kind of childish wishful thinking and confront the stern reality of business world where success, results are rewarded and whining are not.
The only issue here seems to be the old feminist's vindictiveness against men in general. When you care more about super-rich female CEO (most of whom are affirmative-actioned in the first place) earning several millions less (several millions!!) than male counterparts, than, say, thousands of homeless, jobless people on the streets (most of whom are men), you know that only hatred against men motivated this female author.
You can see that same-old same-old feminists lines being repeated here; the much-recycled Summers’ comment (he was talking about science, no!?), the so-called pay gap (21 cent less per dollar, which begs the questions of why companies do not stop hiring such expensive men to cut costs) very shaky and unscientific comparison of salaries without any regard to the size of company, profits, or title, citing one study done by – of course – women to back up a shaky claim, reference to “stereotypes” and exhorting readers (women only) to talk about successful women among themselves so that they can feel better about themselves - no talk about the ditched female CEOs except in the context of blaming male-dominated corporate society, because women CEO deserves only success, failure or not meeting targets or getting profits – is presumably a carefully plotted and disguised form of discrimination against women. She even tries to introduce a new criteria for gender discrimination – low expectation for women. If women fall under pressure for too much expectation- would that also be a “discrimination”?
It is easy to understand that the higher the position goes, the bigger the pay differences could become. It does not make much difference to companies’ overall earning or profits whether an entry level clerk or sales assistants, one of hundreds or even of thousands, do a terrific job or a mediocre job. But it would do make a difference if one CEO or one senior VP makes a big mistake, or make a very wise prescient decision. The pay will reflect that.
It will also be more difficult to assess whether the pay is fair or appropriate or not at more senior level than lower, entry level positions. Lower entry level positions’ jobs are usually more standardized, routine and could be done by any other equally qualified persons. It is much less so at the senior level where persons’ vision, leadership, strategic decisions influence the entire fate of the company.
A risk means a “risk” only when it entails probability for both success and failure. Feminists seems to want a societal guarantee for success for any senior female executives in their quest for higher career and risk-taking jobs, and flabbergasted when that “success” did not come in handy, and start a witch-hunt for those who are responsible for not delivering “success” to these female executives, such as Ms. Cruz or Ms Callan. In many cases, culprits are sexist corporate culture, media or, male colleagues - usual scapegoats who could never escape the eternal sin of being born a male. In other words, in the views of people like Ms. Dobrzynski, women getting CEO positions are “fair” but women not succeeding in their positions are “unfair”. Perhaps a good place to start is to ditch this kind of childish wishful thinking and confront the stern reality of business world where success, results are rewarded and whining are not.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Bulgaraia's women's ice hockey
Do these ladies know how to skate? Maybe not! Maybe they could barely stand up with skate shoes! That's the only way a team could possibly lose 82-0. That's more than 1 goal per minute, for the entire 60 minutes of play! I think even without any opponent at all standing in between your team and the goal, and one team playing by themselves, it may not be so easy to score that quickly and frequently. Imagine, place a puck in the center, play, shoot, goal!!, skate to the goal to pick up the puck, place in the center, play, shoot......!! keep doing this for 82 times!! it's a form of torture already!
Women's ice hockey should not be in the Olympics. With only 37 registered (female) players in the country and the country could still send a "national team" to the Olympic qualifiers. It's a joke!!
This simply shows the shallowness of women's sports, not juct ice hockey but sports in general, but because of some political pressure from FEMINISTS, we are supposed to treat these gals as if they are serious "athletes" and representing a nation. This is a huge insult to other serious male athletes who have played sports for years, endured hard training, and go through extremely competitive games to reach Olympics.
I guess that most of these Bulgarian gals must have just started ice hockey recently, because there were some incentive plan or pressure or laws to increase women's sports/teamsplayers in the country or because the gals thought it was an easy way to be on a "national team" and compete for the Olympics. If you are born a male in Bulgaria and play football, there is probably one in million chances that you would make it to the national team, but if you are a female and chose sport wisely, your chance of being in a "national team" and enjoy all the entitlements, fame, glory that come with it, is not just great, but it is automatically assured. Only 37 registered female players in the country.
Women's ice hockey should not be in the Olympics. With only 37 registered (female) players in the country and the country could still send a "national team" to the Olympic qualifiers. It's a joke!!
This simply shows the shallowness of women's sports, not juct ice hockey but sports in general, but because of some political pressure from FEMINISTS, we are supposed to treat these gals as if they are serious "athletes" and representing a nation. This is a huge insult to other serious male athletes who have played sports for years, endured hard training, and go through extremely competitive games to reach Olympics.
I guess that most of these Bulgarian gals must have just started ice hockey recently, because there were some incentive plan or pressure or laws to increase women's sports/teamsplayers in the country or because the gals thought it was an easy way to be on a "national team" and compete for the Olympics. If you are born a male in Bulgaria and play football, there is probably one in million chances that you would make it to the national team, but if you are a female and chose sport wisely, your chance of being in a "national team" and enjoy all the entitlements, fame, glory that come with it, is not just great, but it is automatically assured. Only 37 registered female players in the country.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Some thoughts on sports
The Beijing summer Olympic Games are over, and I will jot down some thoughts on sports and men and women's physical diffferences.
1. Bolt is great. The guy is great. Not just because he won three gold medals in track and fields, all in world records, but because he is now certified the fastest homo sapiense ever. Men's 100 meters sprint is special. It is different. Although the gold won by Bolt is same "one" gold medal as was won by, say, women's rifle, or whatever, but here I have to be blunt and discriminating. Men's 100 meters sprint is ranks one of the highest in the importance in all Olympic sports. Women's 100 meters sprint is just as great, you say feminists? NO!!! Because women's 100 meters ONLY decide who is the fastest WOMAN. The last qualifier "WOMAN" is extremely important here because otherwise boys who won in American state track and field championship may want to compete in the race just to get a gold medal worth ??? dollars and appear on international TV. For example, a boy who won the Oklahoma State high school track meet in May 2008 had 10.62' record. (why Oklahoma, just random pick!!)That 'll easily give him gold in the Beijing's women's 100 meters and the world record as well, if you discount the only one outlier record which is such a suspect for doping (maybe women faces less scrutiny than male athlete) No, that boy won't be allowed to compete, the race is resreved for 'lady" only, where records like 10.78" can get you a gold. that will barely give bronze in the above-mentioned oklahoma State track meet, boy division. Probably that 10.62 boy could get some scholarhsip for university, if lucky, but that's it.
1. Bolt is great. The guy is great. Not just because he won three gold medals in track and fields, all in world records, but because he is now certified the fastest homo sapiense ever. Men's 100 meters sprint is special. It is different. Although the gold won by Bolt is same "one" gold medal as was won by, say, women's rifle, or whatever, but here I have to be blunt and discriminating. Men's 100 meters sprint is ranks one of the highest in the importance in all Olympic sports. Women's 100 meters sprint is just as great, you say feminists? NO!!! Because women's 100 meters ONLY decide who is the fastest WOMAN. The last qualifier "WOMAN" is extremely important here because otherwise boys who won in American state track and field championship may want to compete in the race just to get a gold medal worth ??? dollars and appear on international TV. For example, a boy who won the Oklahoma State high school track meet in May 2008 had 10.62' record. (why Oklahoma, just random pick!!)That 'll easily give him gold in the Beijing's women's 100 meters and the world record as well, if you discount the only one outlier record which is such a suspect for doping (maybe women faces less scrutiny than male athlete) No, that boy won't be allowed to compete, the race is resreved for 'lady" only, where records like 10.78" can get you a gold. that will barely give bronze in the above-mentioned oklahoma State track meet, boy division. Probably that 10.62 boy could get some scholarhsip for university, if lucky, but that's it.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Fussy feminists...
Feminists are just so good at inventing a new kind of "ceiling" one after another; originally there was a glass ceiling, and then "this" ceiling, then "that" ceiling and now a "mirror" ceiling...
And it is so hard to please feminists!! I mean there are so many variations of feminists that there are always one or two tiny factions of them left not 100% satisfied and who would start hauling "sexism" charges randomly.
I think at least recent (over) exposure of Palin in media must have satisfied feminsts who are; 1) hell-bent on counting the number of times women appear in the news, or more preceisly, a number of times women in leadership roles are portrayed positively by the media, and 2) whose only hobby in life is beancounting, countng the number of men and women in senior political positions. But Gosh there are more complicated, or spophisticated, die-hard feminists like Judith who are not happy until they see "their" kind of woman (meaning ultra-liberal) assuming the Office of the U.S. President (not number two and deputy to a man) while all the media (from liberal to conservative to major national media to local media to everything else) paint the woman in completely positive tone without the slightest hint of sexism (almost impossible feat given the astronomically high threshold for judging sexism).
Now look at Palin. Yes she is a WOMAN. She passed the first and the most important litmus test, but don't forget that there are hundreds of other litmus tests that the woman must pass... and let's see how she fares... She is conservative! a Republican! married! with kids! owns a gun! and cheered by men, especialy conservative, Republican, gun-toting men! for the reason JUDITH DISAPPROVES!!!
Palin failed all tests other than the first one and no wonder Judith is going bananas...
If Judith or feminists don’t like Palin to be on a Republican ticket, then I’m all for replacing her with a man, any man, but feminists out there don’t whine about Republican not giving woman a fair chance, blah, blah blah,
And it is so hard to please feminists!! I mean there are so many variations of feminists that there are always one or two tiny factions of them left not 100% satisfied and who would start hauling "sexism" charges randomly.
I think at least recent (over) exposure of Palin in media must have satisfied feminsts who are; 1) hell-bent on counting the number of times women appear in the news, or more preceisly, a number of times women in leadership roles are portrayed positively by the media, and 2) whose only hobby in life is beancounting, countng the number of men and women in senior political positions. But Gosh there are more complicated, or spophisticated, die-hard feminists like Judith who are not happy until they see "their" kind of woman (meaning ultra-liberal) assuming the Office of the U.S. President (not number two and deputy to a man) while all the media (from liberal to conservative to major national media to local media to everything else) paint the woman in completely positive tone without the slightest hint of sexism (almost impossible feat given the astronomically high threshold for judging sexism).
Now look at Palin. Yes she is a WOMAN. She passed the first and the most important litmus test, but don't forget that there are hundreds of other litmus tests that the woman must pass... and let's see how she fares... She is conservative! a Republican! married! with kids! owns a gun! and cheered by men, especialy conservative, Republican, gun-toting men! for the reason JUDITH DISAPPROVES!!!
Palin failed all tests other than the first one and no wonder Judith is going bananas...
If Judith or feminists don’t like Palin to be on a Republican ticket, then I’m all for replacing her with a man, any man, but feminists out there don’t whine about Republican not giving woman a fair chance, blah, blah blah,
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
One --- away from feminists' ultimate dream
Now it is interesting to see that it is the Republicans who are playing the identity politics - by hiring a person who does not much appeal other than the fact that the McCain's running mate is SHE -A WOMAN!!!. I thought this kind of cheap political gimmick belonged only to the Democrats, but apparently I was wrong.
Does he ever thought how old he is? 72!!?? He might be a tough guy who loved brawls and survived torture by the North Vietnamese, but it is a kind of age when anything could happen without moment's notice. There is also a rumor that he might not seek the second term if elecetd because of his age. And he stil chooses this running mate at the last moment! Does he want to leave the United States with the least experienced vice-president(ial candidate) after 4 years or even less (could be one month, who knows, illness can strike senileperson anytime) of his presidency? How IRRESPONSIBLE is that!! All he could think abut was getting some votes from disgruntled old white women type who are irate over Hilary's defeat, so that those extra votes would put him over Obama at the general election. How near-sighted and irreponsible.
But it mut be real political bonanza for the old feminist-type. They wouldn't have imagined that McCain, the "man of integrity", would pander to political correctness. But it doesn't matter. If McCain get elected, they at least got a "consolation prize", and they are still only a "hearbeat away", or if I were to put it, one hearstroke away, one caridac arrest away, or one whatever-conditions that could strike senile men in their 70's away from the feminists' ultimate dream.
Does he ever thought how old he is? 72!!?? He might be a tough guy who loved brawls and survived torture by the North Vietnamese, but it is a kind of age when anything could happen without moment's notice. There is also a rumor that he might not seek the second term if elecetd because of his age. And he stil chooses this running mate at the last moment! Does he want to leave the United States with the least experienced vice-president(ial candidate) after 4 years or even less (could be one month, who knows, illness can strike senileperson anytime) of his presidency? How IRRESPONSIBLE is that!! All he could think abut was getting some votes from disgruntled old white women type who are irate over Hilary's defeat, so that those extra votes would put him over Obama at the general election. How near-sighted and irreponsible.
But it mut be real political bonanza for the old feminist-type. They wouldn't have imagined that McCain, the "man of integrity", would pander to political correctness. But it doesn't matter. If McCain get elected, they at least got a "consolation prize", and they are still only a "hearbeat away", or if I were to put it, one hearstroke away, one caridac arrest away, or one whatever-conditions that could strike senile men in their 70's away from the feminists' ultimate dream.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Feminist evangelist on counter-offence against science
Only a feminist, who has such a strong conviction that she occupies a moral high ground, and so self-assured of one's correctness (or political-correctness) on certain moral issues, can point to a growing number of people in solid science and biology backgrounds who are uncovering biological differences between men's and women's brains, and call them "evangelists". In a snobbish, high-brow world where feminists typically resides and where they howl loudest, the label "evangelists" or any other names associated with religion (Christian, that is) carries a sense of backwardness, people who try to promote creationist view which is scientifically bankrupt.
This feminist must have somehow thought that by labeling people whom she dislikes with the name "evangelist", she could discredit these people for trying to inbue unscientific, biblical fiction. Nice work. Except that most people could easily see that, it is this desperate feminist, who is trying to sell a now largely discredited ideology of men-and-women-are-exatly-the-same-and-all-the-differences-are-socially-constructed'" which came straight out of feminists textbook. WHO IS EVANGELIST HERE?
If people want to talk about variance, that's fine-let's look at the other, more unfortunate end of the "variance", by that I mean the lower end of the long spectrum of variance. Most people know (though hard-line feminists won't admit it or frantically try to change the subject) that most of the highschool dropouts, beggars on streets, prison population are male. Why people like Amanda want to spend so much energy and time and space on Slate trying to push women, who have ample opportunities to do everything else in the world, into science, or jettison second-rate female scientists into top-rudder, ahead of all male scientists who presumably (according to people who inhabit the Amanda-ville) reached their position only as a result of male privilege, than to reach out to those really poor (mostly) men who have to sleep on the streets or beg for changes?
In my view, it is one of the ultimate displays of man-hating to purposefully ignore those plights of men in the other extreme end of "variance" and instead try to stuff precious space of Slate with feminist propaganda.
Ms. Amanda shows by her own example that women are not good at scientific reasoning and are very emotional creature. If you have scientific mind, you should be very much interested in DIFFERENCES, however small, and explore the reasons why. Instead what she is doing is to deny - or half-deny, and compensate with unrelated stuff (women can be better with training, etc.).
Ms. Amanda also shows by her own example that women have problem with logical reasoning. She keep downplaying a few examples she chose to choose, (and even those she cannot completely refute), then cites even fewer number of arguments she think would buttress her argument. However those few examples seem to be outlier, not being replicated, and be easily refuted. We really need a special math and logic program for women.
This feminist must have somehow thought that by labeling people whom she dislikes with the name "evangelist", she could discredit these people for trying to inbue unscientific, biblical fiction. Nice work. Except that most people could easily see that, it is this desperate feminist, who is trying to sell a now largely discredited ideology of men-and-women-are-exatly-the-same-and-all-the-differences-are-socially-constructed'" which came straight out of feminists textbook. WHO IS EVANGELIST HERE?
If people want to talk about variance, that's fine-let's look at the other, more unfortunate end of the "variance", by that I mean the lower end of the long spectrum of variance. Most people know (though hard-line feminists won't admit it or frantically try to change the subject) that most of the highschool dropouts, beggars on streets, prison population are male. Why people like Amanda want to spend so much energy and time and space on Slate trying to push women, who have ample opportunities to do everything else in the world, into science, or jettison second-rate female scientists into top-rudder, ahead of all male scientists who presumably (according to people who inhabit the Amanda-ville) reached their position only as a result of male privilege, than to reach out to those really poor (mostly) men who have to sleep on the streets or beg for changes?
In my view, it is one of the ultimate displays of man-hating to purposefully ignore those plights of men in the other extreme end of "variance" and instead try to stuff precious space of Slate with feminist propaganda.
Ms. Amanda shows by her own example that women are not good at scientific reasoning and are very emotional creature. If you have scientific mind, you should be very much interested in DIFFERENCES, however small, and explore the reasons why. Instead what she is doing is to deny - or half-deny, and compensate with unrelated stuff (women can be better with training, etc.).
Ms. Amanda also shows by her own example that women have problem with logical reasoning. She keep downplaying a few examples she chose to choose, (and even those she cannot completely refute), then cites even fewer number of arguments she think would buttress her argument. However those few examples seem to be outlier, not being replicated, and be easily refuted. We really need a special math and logic program for women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)