It’s a pretty bad time for feminists, they are on the ropes now with the story of Tiger Woods all over the news. What to do? Ignore? Or spin?
Let’s see some master work on spin.
There are so many lies and spins in this short article that I don’t want to even bother discussing it. Except to say that there are many good comments in the “Fray” section for this article.
“Primary aggressor” theory is basically a feminist invention and its main purpose was to make men the guilty party in any domestic dispute and enable police to arrest men, without actually referring to “men” or “women”, as the law’s language needs to be gender-neutral. Including criteria such as physical size in determining a primary aggressor is a clever and pretty sure way to ensure that fingers are almost always at men, and if in rare case a woman happens to be bigger than man, then other criteria apply. It’s ironic (and very, very amusing to be honest) that this automatic DV arrest policy is becoming problematic for women. I hope women will now realize what men have been subjugated for many, many years. They shouldn't be suffering like this (nor men should), but blame your feminists sisters.
And my guess is that finally this problematic policy would soon be reviewed now that women is on the receiving end. There is a famous saying, “The best way to eliminate child support is to make women pay it”. So I guess in this case, we can say “The best way to change unfair DV law is to make women suffer from it”.
Though I'm sure feminists will waist no time in inventing even cleverer, seemingly gender-neutral ways to make men guilty ones in all domestic disputes.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Feminists' attention deficit disorder
Remember Super-bowl-DV study that was proved to be an ideology-driven propaganda? This new article gives you a reminder that feminists won't give up after just one failed attempt. They will keep coming back with new lies and hoaxes that each time look a bit truthy-ier than the last. And so here comes the newest, fanciest football-DV “study”. This one even nicely try to link women's high earnings with lower occurence of DV (against women of course), as if to create a false impression that if women's earning power is raised (by another feminist inspired law on gender paycheck “audit” or some other wealth re-distribution scheme), DV(against women) could be prevented. Nice try. Keep wishing.
This happens ("this" means this study, not the so-called uptick in DV) because feminists are jealous of all the attention that football games get at after Thanksgiving dinner - and women are not in it! Again, "men" (football stars) are the center of all the attention, and "men" (fans) are having pretty good time watching the games. Where are women in this equation? People need to pay attention to women, because this century belongs to women!! (me doing a little feminist talk) Focusing on the so-called uptick in DV (against women) after football game is a nice entry-point for feminists to inject "women" in this very popular American pastime and stigmatize football fans as well as football game itself which is allegedly causing men to behave macho against their partners.
This happens ("this" means this study, not the so-called uptick in DV) because feminists are jealous of all the attention that football games get at after Thanksgiving dinner - and women are not in it! Again, "men" (football stars) are the center of all the attention, and "men" (fans) are having pretty good time watching the games. Where are women in this equation? People need to pay attention to women, because this century belongs to women!! (me doing a little feminist talk) Focusing on the so-called uptick in DV (against women) after football game is a nice entry-point for feminists to inject "women" in this very popular American pastime and stigmatize football fans as well as football game itself which is allegedly causing men to behave macho against their partners.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
White House as kindergarden
Can we now say that it is official that liberals and feminists want to impose gender and any other demography-based quota on any of the recreational activities at the White House?
Gender-quota zealots will not cease counting beans and checking gender balance even for one moment. In their logic, if Obama wants to play some hoop, equal number of men and women should be in the court. If Obama plays golf, there should be equal number of men and women playing with the President.
I can see what’s next – equal number of points should be scored by men and women in such a basketball game - who knows, the Prez may bond stronger with better, higher scoring players!))
At the Whitehouse everything must be done together by men and women, at roughly same proportion, be it its official duties (equal number of men and women should be in cabinet meeting!) or unofficial, recreational basketball game (men and women should be playing together!) The White house now resembles kindergarden in the sense that everything has to be done together by little boys/men and little girls/women. While at kindergarden, it may be sennsible for little boys and girls to do everything together (though even at that age the differences betwen male and female are distinct), if grown-up adults, some in their fifties and sixties, were to do everything together, hand in hand, it is...ummm how should I say... revolting?
And feminists are not happy with achieving what is supposed to be one of their ultimate goals – statistical gender parity – in the number of White House staff. Now that the numbers are roughly equal, they looked for the next excuse to continue their crusade against men - and suddenly there are more important measure of equality,i.e. the exposure to media and visibility. Now they contend that there needs to be equal amount of exposure to media and equal level of importance to the jobs that women do in the White House.
““Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers”
WHAT!!?? Many women, including almost 100% of the feminists, were determined to derail Obama’s historic quest for the nomination for the Democratic Party only a year ago, and were doing anything they can do achieve that. Obviously many women don’t seem to have good memory, as far as you can read from De Dee Myers’ comment. (women should deal with amnesia before they ask for more important jobs!). By the way, guess what kind of book Ms. Misinformation Dee Dee Myers wrote.
It’s time for Obama to stop trying to appease feminists. They will never be happy. Perhaps they were born with special genes that make them complaining all the time. If appeasing angry unhappy women is going to be the number priority for the Obama administration, there is going to be not much chance for success.
More article on this topic here.
Gender-quota zealots will not cease counting beans and checking gender balance even for one moment. In their logic, if Obama wants to play some hoop, equal number of men and women should be in the court. If Obama plays golf, there should be equal number of men and women playing with the President.
I can see what’s next – equal number of points should be scored by men and women in such a basketball game - who knows, the Prez may bond stronger with better, higher scoring players!))
At the Whitehouse everything must be done together by men and women, at roughly same proportion, be it its official duties (equal number of men and women should be in cabinet meeting!) or unofficial, recreational basketball game (men and women should be playing together!) The White house now resembles kindergarden in the sense that everything has to be done together by little boys/men and little girls/women. While at kindergarden, it may be sennsible for little boys and girls to do everything together (though even at that age the differences betwen male and female are distinct), if grown-up adults, some in their fifties and sixties, were to do everything together, hand in hand, it is...ummm how should I say... revolting?
And feminists are not happy with achieving what is supposed to be one of their ultimate goals – statistical gender parity – in the number of White House staff. Now that the numbers are roughly equal, they looked for the next excuse to continue their crusade against men - and suddenly there are more important measure of equality,i.e. the exposure to media and visibility. Now they contend that there needs to be equal amount of exposure to media and equal level of importance to the jobs that women do in the White House.
““Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers”
WHAT!!?? Many women, including almost 100% of the feminists, were determined to derail Obama’s historic quest for the nomination for the Democratic Party only a year ago, and were doing anything they can do achieve that. Obviously many women don’t seem to have good memory, as far as you can read from De Dee Myers’ comment. (women should deal with amnesia before they ask for more important jobs!). By the way, guess what kind of book Ms. Misinformation Dee Dee Myers wrote.
It’s time for Obama to stop trying to appease feminists. They will never be happy. Perhaps they were born with special genes that make them complaining all the time. If appeasing angry unhappy women is going to be the number priority for the Obama administration, there is going to be not much chance for success.
More article on this topic here.
Friday, October 23, 2009
70% of world's poorest are women - REALLY??!!
There is a starting figure that has been circulating in major media outlets – a startling 70% of the world’s poorest-those who earn 1 dollar or less- are women. Which one is startling, that 70% of world’s poorest are women, or that such counter-intuitive and obviously flawed figure circulates major media without any doubts?
The figure, originally advocated by Ms. (do anyone think this would come from Mr.?) Fareda Banda, a law professor at London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in her report prepared for UN Human Right Commissioner (Ms.-again) Louise Arbour in 2008. Since then, it has become an accepted figure, and repeated by senior UN officials and most major media outlets as a fact.
70% of the world’s poorest are women. Hmmm, it really shows the depth of discrimination women face worldwide, isn’t it? OR IS IT? ISN’T THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE NUMBER?
Okay, there is 1.5 billion people in the world who earns less than a dollar a day, who qualifies as the world’ s poorest in the report’s definition. If 70% of them are women, and 30% of them are men, that’ll be 1.05 billion women and 450 million men qualified as the world’s poorest. That’s 600 million more women than men. That’s more than two women for every man who earns less than a dollar a day.
Now most of the world’s poor (not just the poorest living under 1$ but poor who are slightly better off than that) live in developing nations, where people have large families, with many children, unlike western states where families have more or less disbanded and individuals are living on their own as individuals. That means that in developing countries, poverty is family-based, that it affects entire family, that if a husband is poor, then his wife is poor, and so are his boys and girls. It is hard to imagine and highly improbable that just a husband or one member of family living an affluent life while the rest of his family living in dire poverty.
Now, how can you get 600 million more women living in dire poverty than men? 600 million is not a small number? - it is twice the population of the United States!! Just thik about these for a few seconds and immediately it becomes clear that there is something wrong about this number.
The figure, originally advocated by Ms. (do anyone think this would come from Mr.?) Fareda Banda, a law professor at London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in her report prepared for UN Human Right Commissioner (Ms.-again) Louise Arbour in 2008. Since then, it has become an accepted figure, and repeated by senior UN officials and most major media outlets as a fact.
70% of the world’s poorest are women. Hmmm, it really shows the depth of discrimination women face worldwide, isn’t it? OR IS IT? ISN’T THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE NUMBER?
Okay, there is 1.5 billion people in the world who earns less than a dollar a day, who qualifies as the world’ s poorest in the report’s definition. If 70% of them are women, and 30% of them are men, that’ll be 1.05 billion women and 450 million men qualified as the world’s poorest. That’s 600 million more women than men. That’s more than two women for every man who earns less than a dollar a day.
Now most of the world’s poor (not just the poorest living under 1$ but poor who are slightly better off than that) live in developing nations, where people have large families, with many children, unlike western states where families have more or less disbanded and individuals are living on their own as individuals. That means that in developing countries, poverty is family-based, that it affects entire family, that if a husband is poor, then his wife is poor, and so are his boys and girls. It is hard to imagine and highly improbable that just a husband or one member of family living an affluent life while the rest of his family living in dire poverty.
Now, how can you get 600 million more women living in dire poverty than men? 600 million is not a small number? - it is twice the population of the United States!! Just thik about these for a few seconds and immediately it becomes clear that there is something wrong about this number.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
feminist colonialism
Currently there is frantic drive to support women in developing countries. Just like environmentalism and green movement, it is everywhere.
This strong feminist push in my view comes from some reasons.
First, there is western feminists’ fantasizing of building a feminist utopia in a developing world, a world which has not yet experienced an modernization or even industrial evolution and thus has not been tainted by patriarchal gender system that accompanies the modernization and industrial revolution, according to feminist theory. Western feminists who find it quite difficult to break into and eventually dominate the already developed social and economic institutions in the developed world would find it much easier to do so in developing States, where such institutions are weak or non-existent. For example, if your goal is to increase the number of female politicians by whatever means necessary (after all, it’s supposed to be good), it’s much easier to march into a post-conflict country, and amidst all the chaos and confusions, furtively impose a gender quota on national parliament, than to support women candidates in elections and campaign district by district in western developed states. This is why countries like Rwanda have THE highest ratio of women in parliament - higher that US or even Sweden (Rwanda is surely a feminist heaven – I suggest feminists whiners to move to Rwanda if they feel their daily lives are so miserable just because they don’t see many women politicians in US).
There is also a hint of racism or colonial mentality in western feminists’ promotion of feminism in the third world. Just like feminists’ great-great grandfather (or great-great grandmother’s husbands, if we were to take women-centric worldview) did in the 18 th and the 19 th centuries, today’s western feminists tend to think westerners (this time women!) would be in a better position to think what’s best for the people (especially the kinder, gentler half of it) in the Third World and benevolently (or so they think) provide assistance to realize their plan. According to feminists, those poor women in developing countries were so uninformed to realize that women’s real place is in workplace, and family is not a bedrock of society but a place of oppression for women.
Of course, all these efforts to build feminist utopia in the third world is going to do no good.
For one thing, micro-financing to women is not going to lift the country out of poverty, contrary to what well-meaning western intellectuals want you to believe. Bunch of women selling gums, soaps and other household items with the money borrowed from microfinance scheme organized by western feminists is NOT going to pave a way for country’s rapid economic development. While feminists’ strong wishes that women become, for the first time in human’s history, a driving force for strong economic development is understandable (after all, they are feminists!), wishes alone do not make people richer.
No country in the history of the world has had strong economic development by relying on women’s power. It has always been, and by always I mean without a single exception, men’s ingenuity and hard work that drove economic development. This is probably why Bangladesh, now a world center of microfinance, is still stuck near the bottom of economic development and GDP per capita in the world, whereas China, a country not especially known for being nice to women, is poised to become the second largest economy in the world next year, in a matter of just a few decades after adopting a de-facto capitalist economy.
This strong feminist push in my view comes from some reasons.
First, there is western feminists’ fantasizing of building a feminist utopia in a developing world, a world which has not yet experienced an modernization or even industrial evolution and thus has not been tainted by patriarchal gender system that accompanies the modernization and industrial revolution, according to feminist theory. Western feminists who find it quite difficult to break into and eventually dominate the already developed social and economic institutions in the developed world would find it much easier to do so in developing States, where such institutions are weak or non-existent. For example, if your goal is to increase the number of female politicians by whatever means necessary (after all, it’s supposed to be good), it’s much easier to march into a post-conflict country, and amidst all the chaos and confusions, furtively impose a gender quota on national parliament, than to support women candidates in elections and campaign district by district in western developed states. This is why countries like Rwanda have THE highest ratio of women in parliament - higher that US or even Sweden (Rwanda is surely a feminist heaven – I suggest feminists whiners to move to Rwanda if they feel their daily lives are so miserable just because they don’t see many women politicians in US).
There is also a hint of racism or colonial mentality in western feminists’ promotion of feminism in the third world. Just like feminists’ great-great grandfather (or great-great grandmother’s husbands, if we were to take women-centric worldview) did in the 18 th and the 19 th centuries, today’s western feminists tend to think westerners (this time women!) would be in a better position to think what’s best for the people (especially the kinder, gentler half of it) in the Third World and benevolently (or so they think) provide assistance to realize their plan. According to feminists, those poor women in developing countries were so uninformed to realize that women’s real place is in workplace, and family is not a bedrock of society but a place of oppression for women.
Of course, all these efforts to build feminist utopia in the third world is going to do no good.
For one thing, micro-financing to women is not going to lift the country out of poverty, contrary to what well-meaning western intellectuals want you to believe. Bunch of women selling gums, soaps and other household items with the money borrowed from microfinance scheme organized by western feminists is NOT going to pave a way for country’s rapid economic development. While feminists’ strong wishes that women become, for the first time in human’s history, a driving force for strong economic development is understandable (after all, they are feminists!), wishes alone do not make people richer.
No country in the history of the world has had strong economic development by relying on women’s power. It has always been, and by always I mean without a single exception, men’s ingenuity and hard work that drove economic development. This is probably why Bangladesh, now a world center of microfinance, is still stuck near the bottom of economic development and GDP per capita in the world, whereas China, a country not especially known for being nice to women, is poised to become the second largest economy in the world next year, in a matter of just a few decades after adopting a de-facto capitalist economy.
WNBA
Everyone knows that WNBA is a politically correct charity that no one in NBA could dare to suggest ending because of its cultural nature. As long as NBA exists, WNBA will continue to exist and continue to suck millions of money from it, fans will continue to be bombarded with gender-equity message when they want to simply enjoy sports and are least ready for it.
If we accept the fact that women's professional basketball is a charity and a part of grand gender equity scheme, and stop pretending that this is a serious competitive sports to be managed by for-profit organizations, then we could think of some alternatives. It could be a government-run programme or run by non-profit organizations. (because there is never going to be profit!)
Currently NBA is shouldering all the burdens of this grand charity, which is not fair for NBA, and to add insult to injury, is forced to treat WNBA stars like something equivalent top NBA stars, and promote them whenever and wherever they could.
Every WNBA ad TV stations need to show during NBA games are like free public announcements (how can they refuse to run such ads?- after all, it supports a good cause).
If we accept the fact that women's professional basketball is a charity and a part of grand gender equity scheme, and stop pretending that this is a serious competitive sports to be managed by for-profit organizations, then we could think of some alternatives. It could be a government-run programme or run by non-profit organizations. (because there is never going to be profit!)
Currently NBA is shouldering all the burdens of this grand charity, which is not fair for NBA, and to add insult to injury, is forced to treat WNBA stars like something equivalent top NBA stars, and promote them whenever and wherever they could.
Every WNBA ad TV stations need to show during NBA games are like free public announcements (how can they refuse to run such ads?- after all, it supports a good cause).
Monday, October 05, 2009
Women prison officers do not need physical strength
Interesting article…
The Connecticut PAT, which simulates actual situation that guards could face in their line of duty, and therefore seems most fair at least to me, is, according to some PC forces, just another device men uses to keep women down.
By the same token, we should not reject students who apply to Harvard on the basis of bad grades at high schools or bad SAT tests. Grades and test scores are no more relevant to being good students in an elite university than physical fitness were to prison guards!
By the way, whenever I see female prison guards or police officers or military personnel, I wonder;
Are they really going to protect us?
There are some female security guards in the company I work for, so sighting female officers is not uncommon. Some of them are very young and seems frail (and hot too!) But everytime I see them, I wonder, if something happens, do we (I mean men not in uniform) need to protect these women instead? For example, if female officer was confronting intruders or criminals, and looks like on the verge of being overpowered, should I as a man show some chavinistic side of me and step in to help this hapless woman? I know if the officer was man, I don't have to ask this question to myself.
Also, if a criminal attacked female police officer, would it come with a heavier sentence, since in addition to attacking officer, he is committing "violence against women", a crime which could carry another hefty sentences? Or the fact that the attacked officer was a woman enough to elicit sympathy for her and anger towards the attacker to punish him with heavier sentence?
The Connecticut PAT, which simulates actual situation that guards could face in their line of duty, and therefore seems most fair at least to me, is, according to some PC forces, just another device men uses to keep women down.
By the same token, we should not reject students who apply to Harvard on the basis of bad grades at high schools or bad SAT tests. Grades and test scores are no more relevant to being good students in an elite university than physical fitness were to prison guards!
By the way, whenever I see female prison guards or police officers or military personnel, I wonder;
Are they really going to protect us?
There are some female security guards in the company I work for, so sighting female officers is not uncommon. Some of them are very young and seems frail (and hot too!) But everytime I see them, I wonder, if something happens, do we (I mean men not in uniform) need to protect these women instead? For example, if female officer was confronting intruders or criminals, and looks like on the verge of being overpowered, should I as a man show some chavinistic side of me and step in to help this hapless woman? I know if the officer was man, I don't have to ask this question to myself.
Also, if a criminal attacked female police officer, would it come with a heavier sentence, since in addition to attacking officer, he is committing "violence against women", a crime which could carry another hefty sentences? Or the fact that the attacked officer was a woman enough to elicit sympathy for her and anger towards the attacker to punish him with heavier sentence?
Very predictable article from Slate
I like an article that is very predictable, an article whose conslusion you can tell even beofer reading the first paragraph. Who would expect that an article that appears (and therefore editorially approved) in Slate could come to a different conclusion? Would anyone believe Slate editor would approve an article that says, um, actually men are better than women (as judges or whatever professions)? Would professors in politically-correct university dare to publish an article that doesn't say women are better than men? Why should anyone risk tenured life for not dancing along approved PC lines?
Anyway the article does a good job trying to pretend that this article is based on some scholary study when in fact it is just another recycled feminist nonsense.
The main argument that these authors use to say that women are just as good as men (or even better) is that first, women judges are more independent, and second, women judges who come from smaller pool are just as good as men who come from larger pool and therefore women is better.
On first point, I don't know when one decided that deviating from political party's line is a proof of better judge. If that's the case, Judge Sotomoyer the female supremo will go down in the history as one of the worst judge as you can easily predict when it comes to issues such as affirmative action, gender, etc. she is going to vote 100% in line with Democratic Party line (and so far the record shows that she has)
On second point, it simply shows that women are terrible at math and statistics. I don't know why they love to prove correct over and over again with their own actions and stupidity the Lawrence Sumer's theory that women are genetically inferior when it comes to math and numbers.
The real danger here is that this kind of psuedo-scientific study is going to be taken at its face value and media will gladly use it as a part of growing body of "evidence" that shows superiority of women in court, etc. As long as there are hard-core feminists in academia who are on the fringe and who have nothing to do but to manufacture this kind of lies and the liberal media that take these studies uncritically (as long as they conform to PC views), this will never go away.
Anyway the article does a good job trying to pretend that this article is based on some scholary study when in fact it is just another recycled feminist nonsense.
The main argument that these authors use to say that women are just as good as men (or even better) is that first, women judges are more independent, and second, women judges who come from smaller pool are just as good as men who come from larger pool and therefore women is better.
On first point, I don't know when one decided that deviating from political party's line is a proof of better judge. If that's the case, Judge Sotomoyer the female supremo will go down in the history as one of the worst judge as you can easily predict when it comes to issues such as affirmative action, gender, etc. she is going to vote 100% in line with Democratic Party line (and so far the record shows that she has)
On second point, it simply shows that women are terrible at math and statistics. I don't know why they love to prove correct over and over again with their own actions and stupidity the Lawrence Sumer's theory that women are genetically inferior when it comes to math and numbers.
The real danger here is that this kind of psuedo-scientific study is going to be taken at its face value and media will gladly use it as a part of growing body of "evidence" that shows superiority of women in court, etc. As long as there are hard-core feminists in academia who are on the fringe and who have nothing to do but to manufacture this kind of lies and the liberal media that take these studies uncritically (as long as they conform to PC views), this will never go away.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
New gender equality
Yes, this is GENDER EQUALITY!
This is what happens if you choose under-qualified person for some top government post based on genitalia. A new woman minister for railroad in India introduced eight “women only trains”.
For India, a country known for its zest for gender quota (as seen in parliament), its devotion to the notion “separate but equal”, and harsh penalties for wife-beaters and deadbeat dads (but not for husband-beaters or deadbeat moms), perhaps this comes as not so surprising.
I'm sure ladies only trains are newer, cleaner, nicer trains where all women can sit comfortably, free of annoying peddlers who sell anything from tea, foods to children’s toys (I experienced firsthand in India), while the rest of the male population will be hoarded into old, dirty, dangerous trains, many men sitting on rooftops and clinging to windows by their fingertips to ride on extremely packed trains, risking their lives everyday just to get to work or to home.
Security will be much tighter for these trains, and government officials would do anything to make sure that if there is going to be another train-wreck disaster (which happens often in India), it would happen to those dirty, filthy “men” trains that get wrecked and not the “Ladies Specials”. (Imagine how feminists would blame men if such disaster strikes Ladies Specials.
This is a new definition of gender equality in some countries, which is wholeheartedly endorsed by New York Times (as they thought this issue is important enough to be out on front page of the paper) and the benefits that "women shattering glass ceiling" bring.
Even with this kind of for women and feminists, still some women are not fully satisfied.
“Then the train stopped, and Ms. Sharma stood up. Asked what more the government could do for women, she laughed.
“Oh my God, it is a long list,” she said. “But I’m sorry, this is my station.””
But there still seems to be some hope for India, as some men have gumptions to express anger at this blatant government-sanctioned gender discrimination.
“Many men are not thrilled. Several female passengers said eve teasing was worse here in northern India than elsewhere in the country. As the Ladies Special idled on Track 7 at the station in Palwal, a few men glared from the platform. …”
“The local boys will come and use the bathroom on the train,” said Meena Kumari, one of the female ticket collectors in flowing blue saris who patrol the train along with female security officers. “They do it out of contempt. They do not want the train to run.”
Perhaps these few men are the only hope left for India.
Another example of women transportation officials wrecking public transportation system is here.
But this apparently affirmative actioned lady is adamant that howling away male customers who wait long hours at bus station away just because the bus is reserved for women is not a discrimination, but a “positive discirimination that responds to the demands of women.” She continues “And it’s also for men because it protects their daughters, sisters and mothers.””
For women;
For men;
This is what happens if you choose under-qualified person for some top government post based on genitalia. A new woman minister for railroad in India introduced eight “women only trains”.
For India, a country known for its zest for gender quota (as seen in parliament), its devotion to the notion “separate but equal”, and harsh penalties for wife-beaters and deadbeat dads (but not for husband-beaters or deadbeat moms), perhaps this comes as not so surprising.
I'm sure ladies only trains are newer, cleaner, nicer trains where all women can sit comfortably, free of annoying peddlers who sell anything from tea, foods to children’s toys (I experienced firsthand in India), while the rest of the male population will be hoarded into old, dirty, dangerous trains, many men sitting on rooftops and clinging to windows by their fingertips to ride on extremely packed trains, risking their lives everyday just to get to work or to home.
Security will be much tighter for these trains, and government officials would do anything to make sure that if there is going to be another train-wreck disaster (which happens often in India), it would happen to those dirty, filthy “men” trains that get wrecked and not the “Ladies Specials”. (Imagine how feminists would blame men if such disaster strikes Ladies Specials.
This is a new definition of gender equality in some countries, which is wholeheartedly endorsed by New York Times (as they thought this issue is important enough to be out on front page of the paper) and the benefits that "women shattering glass ceiling" bring.
Even with this kind of for women and feminists, still some women are not fully satisfied.
“Then the train stopped, and Ms. Sharma stood up. Asked what more the government could do for women, she laughed.
“Oh my God, it is a long list,” she said. “But I’m sorry, this is my station.””
But there still seems to be some hope for India, as some men have gumptions to express anger at this blatant government-sanctioned gender discrimination.
“Many men are not thrilled. Several female passengers said eve teasing was worse here in northern India than elsewhere in the country. As the Ladies Special idled on Track 7 at the station in Palwal, a few men glared from the platform. …”
“The local boys will come and use the bathroom on the train,” said Meena Kumari, one of the female ticket collectors in flowing blue saris who patrol the train along with female security officers. “They do it out of contempt. They do not want the train to run.”
Perhaps these few men are the only hope left for India.
Another example of women transportation officials wrecking public transportation system is here.
But this apparently affirmative actioned lady is adamant that howling away male customers who wait long hours at bus station away just because the bus is reserved for women is not a discrimination, but a “positive discirimination that responds to the demands of women.” She continues “And it’s also for men because it protects their daughters, sisters and mothers.””
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
More on global financial crisis....
A few more articles that written by feminist opportunists who use this global financial crisis as a tool to attack men…. Some interesting lines from this article published a while ago (February) about Davos world economic forum in a Guardian, a publication that is even more Marxist than NYT.
“The idea that that can be achieved while excluding half the population is breathtaking in its arrogance”
This sentence makes sense only if the white men who gathered in Davos were there to represent the Caucasian males of the world, to discuss Causcasian males’ interest and their interest only.
OFF COURSE NOT. They gathered there not to represent particular demographic group, ethnicity or gender, but to represent firstly the companies they each lead and secondly the large global businesses as a whole, to seek ways for better cooperation and way out of recession. Even if were to take this author’s logic, there were some women in Davos, however minority, so it doesn’t mean that half of the population were entirely excluded from the meeting.
But with the same logic this author uses, you can also say that all the teenagers/Africans/Blacks/disabled/homosexuals/transgendered/dogs/chimps/rats, etc, etc. weren’t represented in Davos. Feminist should stop seeing any large private meetings (Davos is not an inter-governmental body) with influential participants as some sort of a world governing body in which all demographic groups and types should be statistically proportionately represented, and in which they mistakenly believe that they have right to representation by virtue of their genitalia.
“Women such as Oxfam director Barbara Stocking, who has been lobbying the WEF for several years to bring in more women, believes its definition of leadership is too narrow and should be broadened to include, say, female community leaders from Africa.”
Right, opening up the meeting to groups that produce absolutely nothing and rely their sustenance entirely on foreign assistance (whose money originally came from white males gathered in Davos) may be a good idea. Like having beggars and financiers on a same table and discuss world economic issues as if they are equals. I guess it fits feminists’ and leftists’ vision of equality.
“Women are the single biggest - and least acknowledged - force for economic growth on the planet. This is not a claim made by rampant feminists, but by the Economist,…”
It is still a claim made by a rampant feminists, just like Ruth Sunderland, the author of this article. Rampant feminists somehow getting a job in the Economist through affirmative action does not make them serious economists or journalists, they still are rampant journalists, just like Ruth Sunderland.
Next up, just one quote from this article about my perennial favourite Ms. Harriet Her"person" of UK.
"Somebody did say that if it had been 'Lehman Sisters'”
If it had been Lehman Sisters, it sure wouldn’t have caused such big problem since it wouldn’t have grown into such a large firm whose meltdown would have such a big effect on the financial market. It would have been crushed or stayed as a small women-only firm with no real talents to lead the company to stay competitive and grow, with many employees taking turn to take maternity leaves and leave work at 5 to pick up babies or go shopping.
“The idea that that can be achieved while excluding half the population is breathtaking in its arrogance”
This sentence makes sense only if the white men who gathered in Davos were there to represent the Caucasian males of the world, to discuss Causcasian males’ interest and their interest only.
OFF COURSE NOT. They gathered there not to represent particular demographic group, ethnicity or gender, but to represent firstly the companies they each lead and secondly the large global businesses as a whole, to seek ways for better cooperation and way out of recession. Even if were to take this author’s logic, there were some women in Davos, however minority, so it doesn’t mean that half of the population were entirely excluded from the meeting.
But with the same logic this author uses, you can also say that all the teenagers/Africans/Blacks/disabled/homosexuals/transgendered/dogs/chimps/rats, etc, etc. weren’t represented in Davos. Feminist should stop seeing any large private meetings (Davos is not an inter-governmental body) with influential participants as some sort of a world governing body in which all demographic groups and types should be statistically proportionately represented, and in which they mistakenly believe that they have right to representation by virtue of their genitalia.
“Women such as Oxfam director Barbara Stocking, who has been lobbying the WEF for several years to bring in more women, believes its definition of leadership is too narrow and should be broadened to include, say, female community leaders from Africa.”
Right, opening up the meeting to groups that produce absolutely nothing and rely their sustenance entirely on foreign assistance (whose money originally came from white males gathered in Davos) may be a good idea. Like having beggars and financiers on a same table and discuss world economic issues as if they are equals. I guess it fits feminists’ and leftists’ vision of equality.
“Women are the single biggest - and least acknowledged - force for economic growth on the planet. This is not a claim made by rampant feminists, but by the Economist,…”
It is still a claim made by a rampant feminists, just like Ruth Sunderland, the author of this article. Rampant feminists somehow getting a job in the Economist through affirmative action does not make them serious economists or journalists, they still are rampant journalists, just like Ruth Sunderland.
Next up, just one quote from this article about my perennial favourite Ms. Harriet Her"person" of UK.
"Somebody did say that if it had been 'Lehman Sisters'”
If it had been Lehman Sisters, it sure wouldn’t have caused such big problem since it wouldn’t have grown into such a large firm whose meltdown would have such a big effect on the financial market. It would have been crushed or stayed as a small women-only firm with no real talents to lead the company to stay competitive and grow, with many employees taking turn to take maternity leaves and leave work at 5 to pick up babies or go shopping.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Another self-serving agit-prop from Newsweek...
Is this a serious journalism or just another agit-prop articles that appear in Newsweek and other once-serious media at an increasing rate, that are disguised as a serious journalism and serious economic forecast? Or is it just another attempt by feminists to spin the recession and use it as a tool to launch a broadside attack against men in general (think: "Death of macho" in Foreign policy magazine)?
Much of the article is filled with agit-prop for women's power and feminist issues and very little on serious insights into post-recession economy.Who said that women holding the power of the purse is good for economy? For example, women in Japan, like in any other country I suppose, make more than 80% of the economic decisions. Even many of women in Japan are housewives, that doesn't prevent them from making economic decisions on behalf of their husbands, and Newsweek's optimistic view on females' priorities notwithstanding, Japan's economics has been in the tank for the last... how many years?
Even the author also knows this;
"In fact, women already make the majority of the world's purchasing decisions. BCG estimates that they control some $12 trillion of the world's $18.4 trillion in annual consumer spending.."
This is not a new phenomenon, and has been so for years, including before and during recession, therefore it is hard to understand why promoting this trend could be touted as way a out of recession. If anything, this could have been the CAUSE of the recession, if you only look at the timeline.
The author likes to paint women as some kind of saints who only care about others and children, but in fact what do most (Western) women spend their most money on? It's clothes, shoes, accessories, cosmetics, and so on!. Sure the prices of these are much higher that tobacco and alcohol, which are listed as typical of men's spending, but still you never heard of country rising out from poverty just by making clothes and shoes.
The truth is that men always made money FOR their family, that is their wives and children, and wives made most of the economic decisions for family on behalf of men from long time ago. Men worked hard and let women use their hard earned money, and spend very little on their own (like tobacco and alcohol!) Women always used men's money, both for family items as well as personal items such as clothes and jewelries. The difference is that there are now ever more thankless women who think that now that they graduated from top universities (with dad's hard-earned money), and got a good job (through affirmative action), and free to spend, they think they own and rule the world. That there are more women who thinks (thanks in no small part for this kind of misinformation) that the society and economy has to be restructured to suit their spending and wish priorities. In fact, the trend of increasing young female professionals could be worse for economy, as they are more likely to spend money on cloth and shoes, and less on healthcare and education - since they are less likely to get marry and have kids in the first place!
Much of the article is filled with agit-prop for women's power and feminist issues and very little on serious insights into post-recession economy.Who said that women holding the power of the purse is good for economy? For example, women in Japan, like in any other country I suppose, make more than 80% of the economic decisions. Even many of women in Japan are housewives, that doesn't prevent them from making economic decisions on behalf of their husbands, and Newsweek's optimistic view on females' priorities notwithstanding, Japan's economics has been in the tank for the last... how many years?
Even the author also knows this;
"In fact, women already make the majority of the world's purchasing decisions. BCG estimates that they control some $12 trillion of the world's $18.4 trillion in annual consumer spending.."
This is not a new phenomenon, and has been so for years, including before and during recession, therefore it is hard to understand why promoting this trend could be touted as way a out of recession. If anything, this could have been the CAUSE of the recession, if you only look at the timeline.
The author likes to paint women as some kind of saints who only care about others and children, but in fact what do most (Western) women spend their most money on? It's clothes, shoes, accessories, cosmetics, and so on!. Sure the prices of these are much higher that tobacco and alcohol, which are listed as typical of men's spending, but still you never heard of country rising out from poverty just by making clothes and shoes.
The truth is that men always made money FOR their family, that is their wives and children, and wives made most of the economic decisions for family on behalf of men from long time ago. Men worked hard and let women use their hard earned money, and spend very little on their own (like tobacco and alcohol!) Women always used men's money, both for family items as well as personal items such as clothes and jewelries. The difference is that there are now ever more thankless women who think that now that they graduated from top universities (with dad's hard-earned money), and got a good job (through affirmative action), and free to spend, they think they own and rule the world. That there are more women who thinks (thanks in no small part for this kind of misinformation) that the society and economy has to be restructured to suit their spending and wish priorities. In fact, the trend of increasing young female professionals could be worse for economy, as they are more likely to spend money on cloth and shoes, and less on healthcare and education - since they are less likely to get marry and have kids in the first place!
Friday, September 11, 2009
Problem with women taking charge
Is a woman taking a helm at the nightly news broadcast a sign of diminishing importance and quality of the nightly news broadcast, or does it simply accelerate it? Probably both.
In other words, to put it more generally, is women taking a helm at any organization or event, a sign that that organization or event is diminishing in its importance and its quality, or does it merely start such decline, or accelerate?
I believe that one unmistakable sign that a particular organization is losing its competitive edge and importance on a way to become being inconsequential is when you see women taking charge there.
Because women taking charge could mean in general one of two things:
- That organization has become too politically-correct that it started to value historical, newsworthy value of appointing women than getting top-notch talent.
- That the organization has become too unattractive for truly able males and only women and second-rate males would want to jump in.
Either way, there is little prospect for that organization in the future.
Once women take the top post, it would set in motion a vicious cycle. Once people (and people I mean both men and women) see a woman at the top of that organization, they start to take it lightly. In most cases it is difficult to see the direct evidence of this (since it could be easily labeled as sexist), but it happens nonetheless. People vote with their feet, i.e. in this case, stop watching the programme, buying stuffs from them, etc.
This happens as humans are biologically not programmed to see women as leaders- during long evolutionary process that humans have had to go through from the age of primitive to modern times, men have almost always been leaders and with a good reason. It is thus imprinted in humans’ DNA to see men as leaders – leaders of tribes, clans, groups, in the old times to leaders of countries and corporations in modern time.
As such, seeing women as leaders is counterintuitive, goes against something coded in human’s DNA, and no amount of political indoctrination based on feminist mythology – that men and women are exactly the same, (or women are even better) – could change that. Sure, you can have men (and women) go through gender sensitivity training and at the end of training have (or force) them to say “women and men are the same”, or “women make better leaders”, but they know that that is not the case. (but of course saying that openly is something like saying Kim Il-Sung is a dickhead in North Korea). Even if some naïve men believe that feminists dogma, they should be feeling some unease, since deep down at sub-conscious level their DNA is telling them that there is something wrong.
The NY Times is of course aware of this declining importance of nightly news
“Women anchors may turn out to be what women doctors once were in the Soviet Union, a majority without status or financial advantage.
Nowadays, viewers tend to treat network evening news shows less as a source of information than as a weather vane.”
At the same time, she does not miss opportunity to do some chest thumping
"And Mr. Williams, who ascended to the position of NBC anchor on the shoulders of an old boys’ club, now has to reposition himself as a member of a persecuted minority, the white male anchorman."
In other words, to put it more generally, is women taking a helm at any organization or event, a sign that that organization or event is diminishing in its importance and its quality, or does it merely start such decline, or accelerate?
I believe that one unmistakable sign that a particular organization is losing its competitive edge and importance on a way to become being inconsequential is when you see women taking charge there.
Because women taking charge could mean in general one of two things:
- That organization has become too politically-correct that it started to value historical, newsworthy value of appointing women than getting top-notch talent.
- That the organization has become too unattractive for truly able males and only women and second-rate males would want to jump in.
Either way, there is little prospect for that organization in the future.
Once women take the top post, it would set in motion a vicious cycle. Once people (and people I mean both men and women) see a woman at the top of that organization, they start to take it lightly. In most cases it is difficult to see the direct evidence of this (since it could be easily labeled as sexist), but it happens nonetheless. People vote with their feet, i.e. in this case, stop watching the programme, buying stuffs from them, etc.
This happens as humans are biologically not programmed to see women as leaders- during long evolutionary process that humans have had to go through from the age of primitive to modern times, men have almost always been leaders and with a good reason. It is thus imprinted in humans’ DNA to see men as leaders – leaders of tribes, clans, groups, in the old times to leaders of countries and corporations in modern time.
As such, seeing women as leaders is counterintuitive, goes against something coded in human’s DNA, and no amount of political indoctrination based on feminist mythology – that men and women are exactly the same, (or women are even better) – could change that. Sure, you can have men (and women) go through gender sensitivity training and at the end of training have (or force) them to say “women and men are the same”, or “women make better leaders”, but they know that that is not the case. (but of course saying that openly is something like saying Kim Il-Sung is a dickhead in North Korea). Even if some naïve men believe that feminists dogma, they should be feeling some unease, since deep down at sub-conscious level their DNA is telling them that there is something wrong.
The NY Times is of course aware of this declining importance of nightly news
“Women anchors may turn out to be what women doctors once were in the Soviet Union, a majority without status or financial advantage.
Nowadays, viewers tend to treat network evening news shows less as a source of information than as a weather vane.”
At the same time, she does not miss opportunity to do some chest thumping
"And Mr. Williams, who ascended to the position of NBC anchor on the shoulders of an old boys’ club, now has to reposition himself as a member of a persecuted minority, the white male anchorman."
Friday, August 07, 2009
Water is gender issue!?
Contempt for all things male and worshipping of all things female never stops in UN... To make all internatinal issues palatable and appealing to radical feminists audiences, who make up the the biggest and strong constituents of UN, all issues are "gendered", that is, analyzied through radical feminsts' "gendered' lenses.
Water is no exception.
Here, you can see text from the exhibition at the UN, that regards men like camels or something that can survive on a little amount of water, or otherwise suffer from just low work productivity caused by illness. That's right, lack of clean water to men only means that they get sick and therefore cannot work (and provide for women and children I suppose).
Not a big problem.
Women and girls, on the other hand, suffer tremendously, in a much much more serious manner, since they: have to spend hours getting water, and have to keep children's hands and bodies clean, and maintain family's hygine. Yes, that is absolutely much more important than MEN GETTING SICK!!
You don't even need to read what are UN's advice to solve this problem would be, it's the same knee-jerk advice that it gives to all gender issues - giving more political, economic and social power to women, set aside a quota for women in parliament, include women in decisions making proess, and women and girls' need for water must given priority over that of men and boys, etc., etc.
Water is no exception.
Here, you can see text from the exhibition at the UN, that regards men like camels or something that can survive on a little amount of water, or otherwise suffer from just low work productivity caused by illness. That's right, lack of clean water to men only means that they get sick and therefore cannot work (and provide for women and children I suppose).
Not a big problem.
Women and girls, on the other hand, suffer tremendously, in a much much more serious manner, since they: have to spend hours getting water, and have to keep children's hands and bodies clean, and maintain family's hygine. Yes, that is absolutely much more important than MEN GETTING SICK!!
You don't even need to read what are UN's advice to solve this problem would be, it's the same knee-jerk advice that it gives to all gender issues - giving more political, economic and social power to women, set aside a quota for women in parliament, include women in decisions making proess, and women and girls' need for water must given priority over that of men and boys, etc., etc.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
No Doubts: Women Are Better Managers -REALLY!!!???
It’s interesting even the majority of people who read liberal New York Times (and therefore presumably are very liberal) admonish Clark’s sexist view.
At least from this short interview we can identify a number of traits and characteristics that make Carol Smith (or women in general) a bad manager.
-Still holding onto a lesson from the 6th grade as the most important leadership lesson of her life. Remember, Carol, that running a large corporation is entirely different from the 6th grade assignment. And she seems have never encountered another leadership experience since that “important” project a few decades ago.
-inability to back up claims with sources and data.
“Hands down women are better (managers). There’s no contest.”
Because, according to her “Men love to hear themselves talk….” And men joins meeting late because they want to finish football talks or jokes first….??? I’m not sure if there were a couple of paragraphs missing from this article due to editing error or she really didn’t have any other supporting evidence.
-women take things personally
Carol Clark herself admits it.
-makes hiring decision based on gut instinct.
Her word “Don’t hire somebody you don’t like.” says it all.
At least from this short interview we can identify a number of traits and characteristics that make Carol Smith (or women in general) a bad manager.
-Still holding onto a lesson from the 6th grade as the most important leadership lesson of her life. Remember, Carol, that running a large corporation is entirely different from the 6th grade assignment. And she seems have never encountered another leadership experience since that “important” project a few decades ago.
-inability to back up claims with sources and data.
“Hands down women are better (managers). There’s no contest.”
Because, according to her “Men love to hear themselves talk….” And men joins meeting late because they want to finish football talks or jokes first….??? I’m not sure if there were a couple of paragraphs missing from this article due to editing error or she really didn’t have any other supporting evidence.
-women take things personally
Carol Clark herself admits it.
-makes hiring decision based on gut instinct.
Her word “Don’t hire somebody you don’t like.” says it all.
Cokie Roberts
I think at some point people need to take this woman not as a serious journalist – she is just one of militant feminists who do mediocre job at their chosen profession but rose to fame and fortune for just being women only because the industry needed some female faces. We already know her radical feminist views from her book “Founding mothers” a pathetic effort to confuse unsuspecting people that those “founding” women were somehow just as important players in the foundation of the United States as the Founding Fathers.
“when the Mark Sanford thing broke, I went tearing into my husband's office and said, "Okay, that's it. Women just are better. Men are just lesser beings."”
I thought this was an extra-marital but completely consensual relationship between two adults (Mark Sanford and an Argentinean woman), but according to Cokie Roberts, it proves that “men are just lesser being”. WHY? Why women aren’t lesser being? – after all, a woman was involved in that affair too, just that she wasn’t as visible as her lover.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2009/08/05/cokie-roberts-leads-carol-smith-in-the-misandry-sweepstakes/
“when the Mark Sanford thing broke, I went tearing into my husband's office and said, "Okay, that's it. Women just are better. Men are just lesser beings."”
I thought this was an extra-marital but completely consensual relationship between two adults (Mark Sanford and an Argentinean woman), but according to Cokie Roberts, it proves that “men are just lesser being”. WHY? Why women aren’t lesser being? – after all, a woman was involved in that affair too, just that she wasn’t as visible as her lover.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2009/08/05/cokie-roberts-leads-carol-smith-in-the-misandry-sweepstakes/
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Girl sports pack economic punch (as backed up by one anecdote)
Just when “anecdotal stories” good enough to be treated as a solid evidence behind some presumed social trends to grace the pages of prestigious New York Times?
When it supports some noble cause, of course.
And the noble cause in this case is a promotion of girls’ sports, a favourite topic of many NTY staff writers. Understandably it’s much more pleasant and uplifting than dealing with more hard core topics like drugs or inner-city violence that mostly affects boys. Maybe this female staff writer has a younger sister. Or nieces. Or the girls sport team she belonged to when she was in high school needed some boost.
She doesn’t even bother to look for another “anecdotal evidence”, in other cities or other sports to support her claim, but is content with citing just one story from Chatanooga, TN. Girls soft ball in one obscure town in the South. And even local officials don’t have numbers to back up but has to rely on their memories or hunch.
Lest’ see it from another way. We can also draw conclusions from this (anecdotal) story that girls are generally less independent, as they need mothers, fathers, and sisters around to travel to other towns to play sports. Boys could manage all these by themselves.
In addition, girls are less serious and stoic about sports they are playing, which explains why girls sports are boring and don’t succeed as players in more senior category - remember for boys “It was eat, sleep and drink baseball.”, but for girls, its’ shopping, sightseeing and leisure activities when not in the fields. While the boys who didn’t drop some dollars on visiting town may some day be million-dollar professional baseball player, thanks to his eat-sleep-drink-baseball attitude, girls will only hope to be some mild-mannered office workers lamenting discrimination in sports – as men earn more money in sports, of course!
By the way, obviously I wasn’t the only one who noted this story…
When it supports some noble cause, of course.
And the noble cause in this case is a promotion of girls’ sports, a favourite topic of many NTY staff writers. Understandably it’s much more pleasant and uplifting than dealing with more hard core topics like drugs or inner-city violence that mostly affects boys. Maybe this female staff writer has a younger sister. Or nieces. Or the girls sport team she belonged to when she was in high school needed some boost.
She doesn’t even bother to look for another “anecdotal evidence”, in other cities or other sports to support her claim, but is content with citing just one story from Chatanooga, TN. Girls soft ball in one obscure town in the South. And even local officials don’t have numbers to back up but has to rely on their memories or hunch.
Lest’ see it from another way. We can also draw conclusions from this (anecdotal) story that girls are generally less independent, as they need mothers, fathers, and sisters around to travel to other towns to play sports. Boys could manage all these by themselves.
In addition, girls are less serious and stoic about sports they are playing, which explains why girls sports are boring and don’t succeed as players in more senior category - remember for boys “It was eat, sleep and drink baseball.”, but for girls, its’ shopping, sightseeing and leisure activities when not in the fields. While the boys who didn’t drop some dollars on visiting town may some day be million-dollar professional baseball player, thanks to his eat-sleep-drink-baseball attitude, girls will only hope to be some mild-mannered office workers lamenting discrimination in sports – as men earn more money in sports, of course!
By the way, obviously I wasn’t the only one who noted this story…
The real affirmative action babies
“The Real Affirmative Action Babies - Why white women are the real winners in affirmative action.”
Absolutely. I wonder why not many others have said or pointed this obvious fact before…
But for more rigorous analysis of this issue, it is not sufficient to simply point out that white women on the whole gain most in the last 30 years since the affirmative action came into being. It needs to show that white women were demographic group that was most often promoted, hired for post or selected to enter school, etc, despite their inferior qualifications, pushing aside more qualified white males along the way.
“So why is it that people of color still lag so far behind their white female counterparts? Could it be that white men—who still overwhelming control hiring and promotion in the workplace—chose the lesser of two evils, if you will, in advancing white women over black men and women of color?”
In a way, yes, but remember that white women are far more likely than coloured women to be white men’s wives, daughters, nieces, wives’ friends, daughters’ friends, etc. The point here is that white women have much more and stronger connection, mostly through family connection, to white men. Not many white men have women of colour as their wives (increasingly visible exception is Asian women though), and if their wives are not non-white, their kids are not non-white either (except adopted Asian girls).
Absolutely. I wonder why not many others have said or pointed this obvious fact before…
But for more rigorous analysis of this issue, it is not sufficient to simply point out that white women on the whole gain most in the last 30 years since the affirmative action came into being. It needs to show that white women were demographic group that was most often promoted, hired for post or selected to enter school, etc, despite their inferior qualifications, pushing aside more qualified white males along the way.
“So why is it that people of color still lag so far behind their white female counterparts? Could it be that white men—who still overwhelming control hiring and promotion in the workplace—chose the lesser of two evils, if you will, in advancing white women over black men and women of color?”
In a way, yes, but remember that white women are far more likely than coloured women to be white men’s wives, daughters, nieces, wives’ friends, daughters’ friends, etc. The point here is that white women have much more and stronger connection, mostly through family connection, to white men. Not many white men have women of colour as their wives (increasingly visible exception is Asian women though), and if their wives are not non-white, their kids are not non-white either (except adopted Asian girls).
Monday, July 20, 2009
Good riddance - REALLY?
Given their record, should men really be running the world?”
Ummm. At the risk of other arm meeting blender, I have to say YES, or emphatic yes, given that;
-Men are responsible for all modern inventions (think computers, lights, telephones, cars)
-Men are responsible for all the social and economic development.
-Men are responsible for all the great liberal (if you are liberal) and conservative ideas (if you are conservative), such as freedom, liberty, etc.
Maybe the better way to approach this issue is what would today’s world look like if risk-aversing, over-emphasizing women are in charge of the world since circa 2,000B.C.
We would still think that the world is flat- no, not that Freedman’s World is Flat but the earth (given women’s poor special recognition capacity), we mostly live on subsistent farming (women are good at nurturing-including plants), no electric lights, telephones, cars (Mr. Edison, Bell, Ford had to help housework and rear child as dictated by matriarchs-scientific experiment and inventions are uniquely male concepts and in fact a male privilege that were made possible by sacrifice of female labour).
We don’t fight and go to wars, in fact there is no such thing as weapons – remember women don’t fight with other people (????), nor do they hunt animals, as they have too much empathy to kill animals – and therefore no army or military. By the way, no military means there would be NO inventions that originated in military and later turned to wide public use, such as internet, etc.
And yes, there would be no huge oil spilling in the Ocean (as Michael Moore lampooned men in his book aptly titled “Stupid white men) –because women will not (or are not able to) build a large ship (women are not good engineers), nor operate a ship (not a good operator-again it requires special recognition ability), nor travel across ocean (no risk-taking please, that’s’ for Neandelthaal men), nor make use of oil, build internal combustion engine, build a oil drilling, and so on.
So far it sounds good, no? especially for those who like to hug trees. But wait, in a world ruled by women, there would be no consumer shopping, only barter trade - there will be no Walmart (that megalomaniac retail giant hellbent on conquering, in a typical alpha male fashion, small family-owned business) . Oh, sorry feminist-type are too high-browed to shop at Walmart - but I'm sure feminists will be disappointed that there won't be Bloomingdale or Zara either - because there will be no department building to house those retailers, no trucks, highway and paved roads to transport goods, no factory to manufacture, no computer and CAD softwarre to design goods. etc.
Well some of you may say there are a plenty of women who work in such fields as construction, manfacture, transportation, auto industry, etc., etc., and are capable of doing it, and even some assume senior positions in the field. First of all, yes there are plenty of them, but they only studied in these disciplines - that were developed by men and taught by men. This is entirely different story than finding, inventing and developing from these from the scratch. (and tell me who did all of them) And second, yes, there are some women who has senior position in these fields. Has anyone ever heard of “affirmative action? Anyone?
So , in a world ruled by women since 2,000BC, you are basically living in a world that looked exactly like 2,00 0years ago. no lights, no internet, no supermarket, or department store, etc.
Ummm. At the risk of other arm meeting blender, I have to say YES, or emphatic yes, given that;
-Men are responsible for all modern inventions (think computers, lights, telephones, cars)
-Men are responsible for all the social and economic development.
-Men are responsible for all the great liberal (if you are liberal) and conservative ideas (if you are conservative), such as freedom, liberty, etc.
Maybe the better way to approach this issue is what would today’s world look like if risk-aversing, over-emphasizing women are in charge of the world since circa 2,000B.C.
We would still think that the world is flat- no, not that Freedman’s World is Flat but the earth (given women’s poor special recognition capacity), we mostly live on subsistent farming (women are good at nurturing-including plants), no electric lights, telephones, cars (Mr. Edison, Bell, Ford had to help housework and rear child as dictated by matriarchs-scientific experiment and inventions are uniquely male concepts and in fact a male privilege that were made possible by sacrifice of female labour).
We don’t fight and go to wars, in fact there is no such thing as weapons – remember women don’t fight with other people (????), nor do they hunt animals, as they have too much empathy to kill animals – and therefore no army or military. By the way, no military means there would be NO inventions that originated in military and later turned to wide public use, such as internet, etc.
And yes, there would be no huge oil spilling in the Ocean (as Michael Moore lampooned men in his book aptly titled “Stupid white men) –because women will not (or are not able to) build a large ship (women are not good engineers), nor operate a ship (not a good operator-again it requires special recognition ability), nor travel across ocean (no risk-taking please, that’s’ for Neandelthaal men), nor make use of oil, build internal combustion engine, build a oil drilling, and so on.
So far it sounds good, no? especially for those who like to hug trees. But wait, in a world ruled by women, there would be no consumer shopping, only barter trade - there will be no Walmart (that megalomaniac retail giant hellbent on conquering, in a typical alpha male fashion, small family-owned business) . Oh, sorry feminist-type are too high-browed to shop at Walmart - but I'm sure feminists will be disappointed that there won't be Bloomingdale or Zara either - because there will be no department building to house those retailers, no trucks, highway and paved roads to transport goods, no factory to manufacture, no computer and CAD softwarre to design goods. etc.
Well some of you may say there are a plenty of women who work in such fields as construction, manfacture, transportation, auto industry, etc., etc., and are capable of doing it, and even some assume senior positions in the field. First of all, yes there are plenty of them, but they only studied in these disciplines - that were developed by men and taught by men. This is entirely different story than finding, inventing and developing from these from the scratch. (and tell me who did all of them) And second, yes, there are some women who has senior position in these fields. Has anyone ever heard of “affirmative action? Anyone?
So , in a world ruled by women since 2,000BC, you are basically living in a world that looked exactly like 2,00 0years ago. no lights, no internet, no supermarket, or department store, etc.
The death of macho....?
NOT SO FAST!!! All you communists and feminists who gloat over the “he-session” and the plight of thousands (or millions) of white-collar and blue collar men losing jobs and being hectored by now bread-earner wives, and dream about the coming so-called women-ruled world! You celebration is a bit premature.
Of all the articles that made fun of former-bank-exec alpha males and exhorted out-of-work men to do more housework (what does it have to do with recession?) and declared without much supporting evidence that more women in power is the only way out of this recession, that continued to appear in the liberal press in recent months, this lengthy article on the Foreign Policy magazine may be the most virulent, vitriolic, male-hating article that you can find.
One thing I found it that, although this is common to all the poke-fun-at-alpha-male articles, how come if men are losing jobs, or on the receiving end of misery, there is no outcry to help these men, and target the help and assistance specifically to them, but instead what they all do is to make fun, and call for the end of alpha-male culture? Imagine, if 80% of all the job losses are on women, do we make fun of their excessively emphatic nature of these women. NO. The are either still poor, vulnerable victims of this recession (oh, I though this was ‘he-session”?) or the demographic group next in line to take control of the world as Reihan Salam seem already so firmly convinced of.
In the face of all the facts, some extreme feminists and the United Nations (itself taken over by extreme feminists) even assert that “The economic and financial crisis puts a disproportionate burden on women…”
….Unbelievable…with this kind of logic and one-sidedness, maybe you can say that white Aryan German suffered disproportionately under Nazi rule for whatever reason you can make up….(for example, being made to look a corroborator of Nazi or did not take action against Nazi, etc…)
Brad Barber and Terrance Odean memorably demonstrated in 2001, of all the factors that might correlate with overconfident investment in financial markets—age, marital status, and the like—the most obvious culprit was having a Y chromosome.
Risky or over confident investment is called risky and overconfident when it failed, but would have other names when it succeeds. (like wise, prescient, visionary, etc.) Of course not all risky behaviour succeeds -by definition they won’t, and they are more likely to fail than to succeed, but it is precisely those risky or overconfident investment, or business entrepreneurship that build the foundation of today’s developed society and business –imagine if all the world is dominated by risk-averting, empathy/estrogen-plenty women in the late-19 th and early 20h century for example -then we’d still be writing our mails with pen under candlelight, and bartering goods at roadside (unpaved) makeshift small market. (note: this may be green’s ideal world)
Soon after, tiny, debt-ridden Lithuania took a similar course, electing its first woman president: an experienced economist with a black belt in karate named Dalia Grybauskaite. On the day she won, Vilnius’s leading newspaper bannered this headline: “Lithuania has decided: The country is to be saved by a woman.”
An economist experienced in “penis competition” of male-dominated investment banking? A black-belt in karate? What does this additional, seemingly irrelevant information supposed to convey? That she is also a macho? Then shouldn’t she be “banished” also? Well, we can let women handle countries like Iceland and Latvia whose economic catastrophe will have minimal impact on global economy. Their economy is in such shambles (hit the rock bottom already and couldn’t be worse) that you can probably install chimps as their heads of state and still see their economies recover after a while. Although I’m sure that if their economy recover even a tiny bit (of course it will), feminists will attribute all the success to women’s unique style of governing and innate superiority in politics and economy.
Then, however, there’s the other choice: resistance. Men may decide to fight the death of macho, sacrificing their own prospects in an effort to disrupt and delay a powerful historical trend.
WHAT? Which historical trend? Where is it?
Much of the second half of the article is not so much about an analysis of current economic crisis, or how males allegedly contributed to it, but simply a blueprint for bringing about their fantasized version of women-controlled world.
In the end, the author notches up ante, this is not only about current economic crisis, and introduce a new paradigm for the coming conflict.
According to her, the Clash of civilization was wrong - author was male-, no, “The axis of global conflict in this century will not be warring ideologies, or competing geopolitics, or clashing civilizations. It won’t be race or ethnicity. It will be gender.
It may sound funny, but on this last point, I agree with her. Gender will be the axis of global conflict. Western gender feminists, who based their Marxist’s class conflict, in which there is an inherent conflict between two classes until one conquer the other, will continue to vilify, blame, poke fun at, and attack males, and current political, social, economic and cultural institutions as based on patriarchy. Their battle will unfold at homefront, where feminists would push (and even legislate as you can see in Spain) that men do more housework, and use domestic violence and divorce laws to drive men out of work, home, and children and cast them out of society by locking men up and impoverish them with ridiculously high child support; and at politics and business with a push for gender quota for female politicians and CEOs.
And this battle is going to continue for good. Feminists are not going to call it a day and say their struglle is over when, say a woman become the President or when women make up a half of all politicians. Don't believe when feminists say, "If there is equality between men and women now, I wouldn't have to be doing thsese things" or "If women achive equality with men, feminism will become obsolete and will cease to exist." NO. Feminism is not that benign. Just as the proletariat dictatorship has to be maintained and its grip be even tightened over the mass after the fall of boureoisee to guard the revolution from imagined or real sabotage by anti-revolutionary forces, feminists' struggle also takes on characteristics of the Marxist's permanent revolution. Just see how feminists in New Zealand, Sweden and Norway are doing; in New Zealand, alarmed feminists warned women in the country not be content with “seemingly satisfactory” situation where President, Prime Minster and other major high offices of the country are all occupied by women, but to continue fight against patriarchy; in Sweden, feminists tried to institute “man tax”, an unique scheme (to say the least) under which people are taxed just because they are men; and Norway, another feminists haven, where large companies were given ultimatum to give at least 40% of board membership to women or face extinction.
Of all the articles that made fun of former-bank-exec alpha males and exhorted out-of-work men to do more housework (what does it have to do with recession?) and declared without much supporting evidence that more women in power is the only way out of this recession, that continued to appear in the liberal press in recent months, this lengthy article on the Foreign Policy magazine may be the most virulent, vitriolic, male-hating article that you can find.
One thing I found it that, although this is common to all the poke-fun-at-alpha-male articles, how come if men are losing jobs, or on the receiving end of misery, there is no outcry to help these men, and target the help and assistance specifically to them, but instead what they all do is to make fun, and call for the end of alpha-male culture? Imagine, if 80% of all the job losses are on women, do we make fun of their excessively emphatic nature of these women. NO. The are either still poor, vulnerable victims of this recession (oh, I though this was ‘he-session”?) or the demographic group next in line to take control of the world as Reihan Salam seem already so firmly convinced of.
In the face of all the facts, some extreme feminists and the United Nations (itself taken over by extreme feminists) even assert that “The economic and financial crisis puts a disproportionate burden on women…”
….Unbelievable…with this kind of logic and one-sidedness, maybe you can say that white Aryan German suffered disproportionately under Nazi rule for whatever reason you can make up….(for example, being made to look a corroborator of Nazi or did not take action against Nazi, etc…)
Brad Barber and Terrance Odean memorably demonstrated in 2001, of all the factors that might correlate with overconfident investment in financial markets—age, marital status, and the like—the most obvious culprit was having a Y chromosome.
Risky or over confident investment is called risky and overconfident when it failed, but would have other names when it succeeds. (like wise, prescient, visionary, etc.) Of course not all risky behaviour succeeds -by definition they won’t, and they are more likely to fail than to succeed, but it is precisely those risky or overconfident investment, or business entrepreneurship that build the foundation of today’s developed society and business –imagine if all the world is dominated by risk-averting, empathy/estrogen-plenty women in the late-19 th and early 20h century for example -then we’d still be writing our mails with pen under candlelight, and bartering goods at roadside (unpaved) makeshift small market. (note: this may be green’s ideal world)
Soon after, tiny, debt-ridden Lithuania took a similar course, electing its first woman president: an experienced economist with a black belt in karate named Dalia Grybauskaite. On the day she won, Vilnius’s leading newspaper bannered this headline: “Lithuania has decided: The country is to be saved by a woman.”
An economist experienced in “penis competition” of male-dominated investment banking? A black-belt in karate? What does this additional, seemingly irrelevant information supposed to convey? That she is also a macho? Then shouldn’t she be “banished” also? Well, we can let women handle countries like Iceland and Latvia whose economic catastrophe will have minimal impact on global economy. Their economy is in such shambles (hit the rock bottom already and couldn’t be worse) that you can probably install chimps as their heads of state and still see their economies recover after a while. Although I’m sure that if their economy recover even a tiny bit (of course it will), feminists will attribute all the success to women’s unique style of governing and innate superiority in politics and economy.
Then, however, there’s the other choice: resistance. Men may decide to fight the death of macho, sacrificing their own prospects in an effort to disrupt and delay a powerful historical trend.
WHAT? Which historical trend? Where is it?
Much of the second half of the article is not so much about an analysis of current economic crisis, or how males allegedly contributed to it, but simply a blueprint for bringing about their fantasized version of women-controlled world.
In the end, the author notches up ante, this is not only about current economic crisis, and introduce a new paradigm for the coming conflict.
According to her, the Clash of civilization was wrong - author was male-, no, “The axis of global conflict in this century will not be warring ideologies, or competing geopolitics, or clashing civilizations. It won’t be race or ethnicity. It will be gender.
It may sound funny, but on this last point, I agree with her. Gender will be the axis of global conflict. Western gender feminists, who based their Marxist’s class conflict, in which there is an inherent conflict between two classes until one conquer the other, will continue to vilify, blame, poke fun at, and attack males, and current political, social, economic and cultural institutions as based on patriarchy. Their battle will unfold at homefront, where feminists would push (and even legislate as you can see in Spain) that men do more housework, and use domestic violence and divorce laws to drive men out of work, home, and children and cast them out of society by locking men up and impoverish them with ridiculously high child support; and at politics and business with a push for gender quota for female politicians and CEOs.
And this battle is going to continue for good. Feminists are not going to call it a day and say their struglle is over when, say a woman become the President or when women make up a half of all politicians. Don't believe when feminists say, "If there is equality between men and women now, I wouldn't have to be doing thsese things" or "If women achive equality with men, feminism will become obsolete and will cease to exist." NO. Feminism is not that benign. Just as the proletariat dictatorship has to be maintained and its grip be even tightened over the mass after the fall of boureoisee to guard the revolution from imagined or real sabotage by anti-revolutionary forces, feminists' struggle also takes on characteristics of the Marxist's permanent revolution. Just see how feminists in New Zealand, Sweden and Norway are doing; in New Zealand, alarmed feminists warned women in the country not be content with “seemingly satisfactory” situation where President, Prime Minster and other major high offices of the country are all occupied by women, but to continue fight against patriarchy; in Sweden, feminists tried to institute “man tax”, an unique scheme (to say the least) under which people are taxed just because they are men; and Norway, another feminists haven, where large companies were given ultimatum to give at least 40% of board membership to women or face extinction.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Another victim of feminism....
So what’s now left of the then 66-year old woman’s (in 2006) quest to satisfy her personal fulfillment – by having her own baby- are hapless 3 year-old twins, whose mother (who was older than many of the grandmothers of same three-year olds) has died, and who have to grow up without both parents from now on. They are another victim of feminism, which posited women's independence and women's choice, which include their choice to have babies in their 50's or even in 60's, as a paramount value to be pursued.
Women’s rights now includes the right of women to have babies “at the right time for them” as the now deceased mother told when she was alive, or whenever it fit their life plan, say, after getting MA and Ph. D degrees and having accomplished some professional achievements, attained high-paying position with lots of responsibilities. Little attention is paid to how children of those old mothers will feel, when their mothers die when they are still little. Or when they find out that their mothers are as old as their friends' grandmother! Feminists have long pushed for this women’s right to have babies when it is the right time for them, but are they going to take care of these two small kids? I guess it’s a silly question since most of them don’t even know how to change diapers!
……Hmmmm, now that I got that corner office and 6-figure income, and outearned most of my male colleagues, and dining in chic restaurants and partying at clubs at night are getting a little boring…. I need something to enrich my life…something that gives me personal pleasure and sense of satisfaction and fulfillment…...hmmm… oh yes, BABY, baby is what I need. Conceiving and raising a baby will fill the one remaining gap in my otherwise perfect life….
Women’s rights now includes the right of women to have babies “at the right time for them” as the now deceased mother told when she was alive, or whenever it fit their life plan, say, after getting MA and Ph. D degrees and having accomplished some professional achievements, attained high-paying position with lots of responsibilities. Little attention is paid to how children of those old mothers will feel, when their mothers die when they are still little. Or when they find out that their mothers are as old as their friends' grandmother! Feminists have long pushed for this women’s right to have babies when it is the right time for them, but are they going to take care of these two small kids? I guess it’s a silly question since most of them don’t even know how to change diapers!
……Hmmmm, now that I got that corner office and 6-figure income, and outearned most of my male colleagues, and dining in chic restaurants and partying at clubs at night are getting a little boring…. I need something to enrich my life…something that gives me personal pleasure and sense of satisfaction and fulfillment…...hmmm… oh yes, BABY, baby is what I need. Conceiving and raising a baby will fill the one remaining gap in my otherwise perfect life….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)