Here`s another cookie-cutter, why-are-there-not-enough-women-in-power-in..(insert any industry you can think of)..., advocacy article written by and for gender feminists. The article is a standard template for deploring the dearth of women in top positions and urging the society to change its attitude and calling for more women in top positions. It`s so predictable from the beginning to end.
Some people simply automatically assumes that achievements and grades at certain point in lifetime (percentage of women in top law schools in this case) must be reflected at the exact same proportion in any point in the following continuum of lifecycle (women ending in partner status in prestigious law firms) or there must be some reasons ・translation - discrimination, barrier, bias, and stereotype.
It is simply astounding that people with such high education and supposedly high intelligence so as to get a positions in big law firms and editorial room of newspaper do not understand that demographic group is nothing but an aggregate of individuals and individuals have choices in free country; moreover individuals choice is influenced by natural genetic differences or circumstance. May be there are well aware of this and are embarking on a massive campaign of denial, denial of and individual free choices, denial of nature and genetic differences, so that they could re-program our thought and behavior, and enforce their utopian vision of absolute statistical gender parity?
One thing that is repeated in this article and other similar article that advocates more women in top position is that retention and promotion of more women is "winning business strategy." However, I have never seen any data or evidence to backup this claim that is so central to their entire argument. Even though the author preemptively qualifies in the article that retention and promotion of women is not merely good-will gesture, it remains to be so as long as there is no rock-solid evidence to back it up.
Why will it be a winning business strategy? In order for one to categorically state that retention and promotion of women is a winning business strategy for law firm, there must be clear economic, not just moral or psychological, benefit to it.
Is there evidence that those female lawyers leaving law firms were better than male lawyers who are staying? Or is it simply a loss of average or sub-average employee for which the law firm`s loss is the money and time it expended for the training of such employees? If so, law firms could cover and eventually overcome such loss by employing male lawyers, who might have been passed over for female candidate due to explicit or inexplicit affirmative action/gender quota by the hiring manager. Many of the female lawyers would say there were disappointed, felt unwelcome, or the atmosphere was not conducive to exercising their maximum potential, or in any other pathetic whining way. But what would the law firms feel? Maybe they were also disappointed by the performance of these female lawyers? Especially after years of substantial efforts and expenditures to comply to feminist-dictated female friendly workplace, after so much bending backwards to cater and cajole to feminists demand, and still what all female lawyers, with brilliant education and six to seven-figure income, benefiting from female specific training and development programme and other gender-specific entitlements, could produce is a further whining about not women-friendly or sensitive enough workplace?
In addition to proven innate difference in the brain structure and the resultant behavior differences between men and women, there are other differences between them when it comes to work and how they view achievement; men simply do their job, by setting goals, plan and prioritize tasks. Achievement for men is something that they have to strive for and work hard for. For women, achievement, or a result is something that needs to be guaranteed by government or some authorities regardless of their ability or efforts or accomplishment, an accessory to a position that they get also through affirmative action or other government-sanctioned gender-empowerment programme.
New York Times March 19, 2006
Why Do So Few Women Reach the Top of Big Law Firms?
By TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/business/yourmoney/19law.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Friday, March 17, 2006
Some cant take criticism
Female politicians always get away with anything they do or say by just uttering one of the following words; discrimination, harassment, gender-based, sexism, patriarchy.
Democratic frontrunner for the 2008 Presidential election, and a master of gender politics, Hillary Clinton is one of the most frequent user of this tactics. Of course when you make such deragatory comments about Republicans, you would draw a lot of criticism. But, girl, it was not a gender-based attack. It was rather mild, inhibited quips about such irresponsible and reckless comments uttered by such a high-office holder. If you were a man, you would get far harsher criticism from your opponents who do not have to worry about the consequences of looking to be criticizing women・ If you were a man, you could not sling completely baseless charge of gender-based・attack, because there is supposedly no such thing as gender-based attack against men, it goes in only one way, right? Well of course if you were a man, you couldnt marry Bill and became the First Lady, you political launching pad in the first place.
The only gender difference in this case is that, while male politicians would always have to face consequences of their words and actions and take responsibility in the end, female politicians can always get away with uttering the words, gender-based・and discrimination・ This is one of the biggest advantages that female politician have, and Hillary of course knows it best. She has mastered the art of accusation or insinuation of gender discrimination and employs it so tactfully and strategically, it could be now considered her biggest political asset.
Hillarys strategic use of gender victim card and medias willingness to make it into a big story creates two distinct categories of politicians; male politicians who are responsible and answerable to charges and female politicians, consequence / responsibility-free, and immune from criticism. American voters are presented with two such categories of politicians to choose from, and the current politically correct climate dictates that the politicians of the latter category (consequence-free females) be more represented in Senate and Congress.
Although male politicians have no chance of evading from the consequences of their actions by playing gender-victim card, the experiences of taking responsibility, facing consequences actually made male politicians tougher, more responsible, and better politicians, in their innate quality as well as to the eyes of public. By striving to be more responsible, cautious and Public also know that male politicians always have to answer to charges and critics as they have no gender-victim card to play with and thus would trust more on them.
On the other hand, paradoxically, female politicians, free from facing similar consequences that male politicians would otherwise have to face by simply uttering the word discrimination, havent had a chance to be trained in the same way as male politicians. Public would not trust politicians who do not take responsibility for what they say but would only scream gender discrimination, and whose questionable words and actions are not to be covered by mainstream media due to the prevailing politically correct atmosphere.
If feminists want to increase the number of women in politics, their often stated biggest goal in the movement (its not about equality anymore its about power grab) isnt it time for them to learn to take responsibility for what they say and do? It may hurt a bit, but it in the long run, it may help them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030700443.html
Democratic frontrunner for the 2008 Presidential election, and a master of gender politics, Hillary Clinton is one of the most frequent user of this tactics. Of course when you make such deragatory comments about Republicans, you would draw a lot of criticism. But, girl, it was not a gender-based attack. It was rather mild, inhibited quips about such irresponsible and reckless comments uttered by such a high-office holder. If you were a man, you would get far harsher criticism from your opponents who do not have to worry about the consequences of looking to be criticizing women・ If you were a man, you could not sling completely baseless charge of gender-based・attack, because there is supposedly no such thing as gender-based attack against men, it goes in only one way, right? Well of course if you were a man, you couldnt marry Bill and became the First Lady, you political launching pad in the first place.
The only gender difference in this case is that, while male politicians would always have to face consequences of their words and actions and take responsibility in the end, female politicians can always get away with uttering the words, gender-based・and discrimination・ This is one of the biggest advantages that female politician have, and Hillary of course knows it best. She has mastered the art of accusation or insinuation of gender discrimination and employs it so tactfully and strategically, it could be now considered her biggest political asset.
Hillarys strategic use of gender victim card and medias willingness to make it into a big story creates two distinct categories of politicians; male politicians who are responsible and answerable to charges and female politicians, consequence / responsibility-free, and immune from criticism. American voters are presented with two such categories of politicians to choose from, and the current politically correct climate dictates that the politicians of the latter category (consequence-free females) be more represented in Senate and Congress.
Although male politicians have no chance of evading from the consequences of their actions by playing gender-victim card, the experiences of taking responsibility, facing consequences actually made male politicians tougher, more responsible, and better politicians, in their innate quality as well as to the eyes of public. By striving to be more responsible, cautious and Public also know that male politicians always have to answer to charges and critics as they have no gender-victim card to play with and thus would trust more on them.
On the other hand, paradoxically, female politicians, free from facing similar consequences that male politicians would otherwise have to face by simply uttering the word discrimination, havent had a chance to be trained in the same way as male politicians. Public would not trust politicians who do not take responsibility for what they say but would only scream gender discrimination, and whose questionable words and actions are not to be covered by mainstream media due to the prevailing politically correct atmosphere.
If feminists want to increase the number of women in politics, their often stated biggest goal in the movement (its not about equality anymore its about power grab) isnt it time for them to learn to take responsibility for what they say and do? It may hurt a bit, but it in the long run, it may help them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030700443.html
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Gender-based appointment
Another example of “gender-based” appointment….Liberian female president picked a person who fled the country a decade ago and have no experience in policing since then, a teacher in New Jersey!, to assume the position of chief police in the country. This show the extent to which feminists would go to ensure that powerful and prominent post will not go to men. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031000557.html
Only WOMAN need apply
Massive campaign to choose the next Secretary-General of the United Nations based on gender, not capacity nor qualification, has been in full swing with active and willing cooperation of liberal media. While governments and people around the world are marveling about, in a more serious manner, what kind of person should be leading the United Nations in the coming years and who would be most qualified to take up the job after Kofi Annan, current Secretary-General, leaves the office in December, feminist organizations are trying to put forward their candidates for the post, - the ones with female organs. The short list that Jessica Neuwirth, president of the Equality Now, has presented in her article is impressive indeed, (a judge on the International Criminal Court ?), the most impressive about her short list is that all the candidates possess one MUST-HAVE ITEM for future leaders in this increasingly politically correct world – female organs. Sorry to repeat these rather untasteful words, but there is really no other words that are common to these candidates, - uh wait, how about irrelevant or inconsequential?
While their assertion that the Secretary-General has to have female organs is not likely to come to fruition this time, as we are already seeing some strong candidates emerging from Asia - unfortunately for feminists none of these candidates were born with female organ - feminists are covertly trying to introduce and mainstream the idea of “gender-rotation” in the appointment of the Secretary-General and other senior officials, in the hope that even they do not get their choice this time, they have a better shot next time 5 or 10 years from now when the next SG’s term expires, or increase the percentage of women in senior position in United Nations. This new and emerging concept of gender-rotation is feminists’ new arsenal in their Orwellian scheme of enforcing statistical gender parity in senior positions. If the post of Secretary-General or other senior positions are to be rotated based on gender, it would ensure automatic 100% compliance to statistical gender parity – feminists’ biggest goal in their social engineering scheme. While this notion is already bizarre by itself, it would look even more so in the light of feminists’ often-repeated assertion that men and women are exactly the same in their capacity, disposition, character, etc. If they are identical, why do you have to rotate by gender?
It is profoundly ironic (or was predicted?) that feminists, who were supposed to be championing “gender-blind” society (although they still do when it fits their purpose) are the ones most aggressively pushing for the appointment solely and strictly based on gender. We also know that these are the people who, after getting jobs, say, “gender has never played any role in my selection as the chief of ……”. - Whatever.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401126.html
While their assertion that the Secretary-General has to have female organs is not likely to come to fruition this time, as we are already seeing some strong candidates emerging from Asia - unfortunately for feminists none of these candidates were born with female organ - feminists are covertly trying to introduce and mainstream the idea of “gender-rotation” in the appointment of the Secretary-General and other senior officials, in the hope that even they do not get their choice this time, they have a better shot next time 5 or 10 years from now when the next SG’s term expires, or increase the percentage of women in senior position in United Nations. This new and emerging concept of gender-rotation is feminists’ new arsenal in their Orwellian scheme of enforcing statistical gender parity in senior positions. If the post of Secretary-General or other senior positions are to be rotated based on gender, it would ensure automatic 100% compliance to statistical gender parity – feminists’ biggest goal in their social engineering scheme. While this notion is already bizarre by itself, it would look even more so in the light of feminists’ often-repeated assertion that men and women are exactly the same in their capacity, disposition, character, etc. If they are identical, why do you have to rotate by gender?
It is profoundly ironic (or was predicted?) that feminists, who were supposed to be championing “gender-blind” society (although they still do when it fits their purpose) are the ones most aggressively pushing for the appointment solely and strictly based on gender. We also know that these are the people who, after getting jobs, say, “gender has never played any role in my selection as the chief of ……”. - Whatever.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401126.html
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Women`s hockey
One more story related to the Turin Olympic. So the US and Canada are dominant in the women’s hockey. And so dominant like ’27 Yankees? Who cares who are “dominant” in women’s hockey? If there are only two countries who seriously play in this category (note that I’m not talking about hockey as a sport, but as “Women’s hockey in Olympic” as a “category”), why it is in the Olympic in the first place? There are many other sports that are longing to be included in Olympics. Just because the IOC needs to play some “gender balance” game, by adding more women’s game in Olympics? They shouldn’t act like NCAA and college officials who are forced under Title IX to eliminate men’s collegiate programs to be more “gender balanced”.
And the Washington Post (or Associated Press) needs to apologize to ’27 Yankees and the other baseball teams from that era and the whole baseball industry and fans for comparing women’s hockey to ’27 Yankees. At least they had more than two teams (or six teams, if you want to include those token women hockey teams) in the league back then.
Related stories..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022000873.html
And the Washington Post (or Associated Press) needs to apologize to ’27 Yankees and the other baseball teams from that era and the whole baseball industry and fans for comparing women’s hockey to ’27 Yankees. At least they had more than two teams (or six teams, if you want to include those token women hockey teams) in the league back then.
Related stories..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022000873.html
Well, now it’s Olympic season, and judging from the rather low attendance and ticket sales in Turin, I do not know how many people are paying attention to this sporting event, but there was one interesting story on Washington Post.
First thing gender feminists do, when things don’t go in their way or confronted with hard facts, is to fight straight back, and not just fight back, but make it a vehicle to further promote their agenda. Thus, when several female luge racers crashed in a difficult Turin luge course while only one male crashed in the same course, and the question of women’s aptitude in this luge race arise, they not only declared unilaterally that the crashes were gender-blind, but also cheered for inclusion of women’s ski jump, making downhill skiing course more difficult, and allowing bodycheck in women’s ice hockey.
It’s the same kind of knee-jerk reaction by militant gender feminists, who, when confronted with such uncomfortable and inconvenient fact that women commit domestic violence almost as often as men do, deny the fact, scream about the patriarchal oppression of women by the society and call for more research, funding, advocacy legislation to “protect” women.
I do not know if these people are really worried about the safety of female athletes or just interested in playing statistics game, - you know, to achieve 50 - 50 parity in every sphere of society.
First thing gender feminists do, when things don’t go in their way or confronted with hard facts, is to fight straight back, and not just fight back, but make it a vehicle to further promote their agenda. Thus, when several female luge racers crashed in a difficult Turin luge course while only one male crashed in the same course, and the question of women’s aptitude in this luge race arise, they not only declared unilaterally that the crashes were gender-blind, but also cheered for inclusion of women’s ski jump, making downhill skiing course more difficult, and allowing bodycheck in women’s ice hockey.
It’s the same kind of knee-jerk reaction by militant gender feminists, who, when confronted with such uncomfortable and inconvenient fact that women commit domestic violence almost as often as men do, deny the fact, scream about the patriarchal oppression of women by the society and call for more research, funding, advocacy legislation to “protect” women.
I do not know if these people are really worried about the safety of female athletes or just interested in playing statistics game, - you know, to achieve 50 - 50 parity in every sphere of society.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Mainstream modern feminists
Very interesting site...If you want to know what today's cutting-edge feminists are thinking, you've got to visit this site....
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/
Friday, February 10, 2006
Finally girls are winning over boys!!!
Girl rules, yeah!!!!
… needless to say, according to political orthodoxy, teenage girls suffer more from drug abuse than boys do, and unlike boys, girls who abuse drugs are “victims”……just need to push girl agenda no matter where…….
… needless to say, according to political orthodoxy, teenage girls suffer more from drug abuse than boys do, and unlike boys, girls who abuse drugs are “victims”……just need to push girl agenda no matter where…….
Gender feminists again reached its new high (or low) in meaningless, trivial gender representation statistics, in their relentless pursuit of absolute statistical parity in every nook and cranny of the social sphere (insofar as they deem it is advantages to them).
In a latest story, the first woman president (of course only in TV, and it WILL be only in TV) laments such triviality as (it doesn’t even qualify as trivial in my view, though) less than one to four female to male ratio in crowd scenes in movies and deplore how it negatively affects girl’s self-image, and our venerated Washington Post is more than happy to promote this kind of nonsense put up by professional whiners. I remember some feminists complaining that Lord of the Rings series put male characters too much on the centerstage, they just can’t stand the fact that men (or boys) are in the limelight, not taking orders from or hiding behind strong, trailblazing, stereotype-shattering (to use feminists favorite word) girls.
Well, actually they should remember that girls are doing great in movie too, they can be in a special force (G.I. Jane), and lots of other stuffs, but, oh, still men are better, because we can fly the sky (Superman) and bend railway and throw trains around (Spyderman) and travel though times. What’s the gender breakdown of people who have traveled though time, feminists? That must be one interesting statistics.
In a latest story, the first woman president (of course only in TV, and it WILL be only in TV) laments such triviality as (it doesn’t even qualify as trivial in my view, though) less than one to four female to male ratio in crowd scenes in movies and deplore how it negatively affects girl’s self-image, and our venerated Washington Post is more than happy to promote this kind of nonsense put up by professional whiners. I remember some feminists complaining that Lord of the Rings series put male characters too much on the centerstage, they just can’t stand the fact that men (or boys) are in the limelight, not taking orders from or hiding behind strong, trailblazing, stereotype-shattering (to use feminists favorite word) girls.
Well, actually they should remember that girls are doing great in movie too, they can be in a special force (G.I. Jane), and lots of other stuffs, but, oh, still men are better, because we can fly the sky (Superman) and bend railway and throw trains around (Spyderman) and travel though times. What’s the gender breakdown of people who have traveled though time, feminists? That must be one interesting statistics.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Looking for girl power in all the wrong places
For years, gender feminists have been busy trying to project girl power in the areas of politics, corporation, academia and sports among others, which are traditionally seen as male dominated areas. This is largely because gender feminists decided a few decades ago that women have to be like men, or just “be men” and symbols and bastion of male dominance have to be destroyed and be replaced by women. As a result of this unbalanced focus to turn women into men, gender feminists have neglected to project girl power in traditionally more girly areas, such as fashion design or cooking. Most of the famous fashion designers or top chefs at five-star restaurants or celebrity chefs on TV are men. But now, rather a bit belatedly, Cathy Horn of New York Times attempts to do a little chest-thumping to say that girls are becoming claiming their places in fashion design, too.
It is quite interesting that men tend to dominate the fashion and other industries that cater mostly to women. The majority of clients are women, and majority of students who study in fashion design and other related areas are also women. But somehow, when it comes to the gender breakdown of top fashion designers, it is overwhelmingly men. Is it because the sexist nature of the industry, or because they want to hire or promote people who look like them to top jobs? Not likely. Guys in the fashion industry are one of the most immasculated type, kind of guys that cherish feminine sensitivity, and it is hard to think that they would suddenly turn “neandelthaar” and deny promotion for women.
I think the main reason for this gender imbalance in this girly industry is because, first, as I stated above, gender feminists have paid much less attention to these areas at the expense of their focus on getting more women in politics and corporate boardrooms and editor’s office in major newspapers and magazines. They didn’t cook up many fabricated statistics to show discrimination against women in pay, hiring, and promotion, bring baseless lawsuits on sexual harassment or discrimination, and did not push for gender quota in the number of designers who participate in such and such fashion show. Second, to be a top designer means you need to be competitive and beat other designers in terms of creativity. And when it comes to competition, it is men’s game, even if the men we talk about here is actually more on the girly side than regular men.
This lead me to think, if women cannot even become top fashion designers or top chefs in a fair competition, how women would be able to reach pinnacle in other more male dominated area of politics, corporations and others? Quota, lawsuits, fabricated statistics, media campaign? You bet. Those are the only options.
It is quite interesting that men tend to dominate the fashion and other industries that cater mostly to women. The majority of clients are women, and majority of students who study in fashion design and other related areas are also women. But somehow, when it comes to the gender breakdown of top fashion designers, it is overwhelmingly men. Is it because the sexist nature of the industry, or because they want to hire or promote people who look like them to top jobs? Not likely. Guys in the fashion industry are one of the most immasculated type, kind of guys that cherish feminine sensitivity, and it is hard to think that they would suddenly turn “neandelthaar” and deny promotion for women.
I think the main reason for this gender imbalance in this girly industry is because, first, as I stated above, gender feminists have paid much less attention to these areas at the expense of their focus on getting more women in politics and corporate boardrooms and editor’s office in major newspapers and magazines. They didn’t cook up many fabricated statistics to show discrimination against women in pay, hiring, and promotion, bring baseless lawsuits on sexual harassment or discrimination, and did not push for gender quota in the number of designers who participate in such and such fashion show. Second, to be a top designer means you need to be competitive and beat other designers in terms of creativity. And when it comes to competition, it is men’s game, even if the men we talk about here is actually more on the girly side than regular men.
This lead me to think, if women cannot even become top fashion designers or top chefs in a fair competition, how women would be able to reach pinnacle in other more male dominated area of politics, corporations and others? Quota, lawsuits, fabricated statistics, media campaign? You bet. Those are the only options.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Gender imbalance in an Utah university (..not so common imbalance)
A few days ago I wrote my views on the Newsweek cover story about boys’ failing grades at schools. Maybe related or not related to this, not to be outdone, liberal mainstream media have found one university in the state of Utah, out of thousands in the nation, where enrollment of women is lower than that of men, and decided to counter-claim their cherished victim status. It is so rare that they decided to make it a story and claim discrimination against women.
Of course, if you find just one university in some state in the Midwest where men’s enrollment is just 8 points higher than women (or mere 4 points above the absolute statistical parity of 50-50), you need to be in a crisis mode and the university and community need to “make it easier for women to go to school, as well as educate them on why they need a college degree” (start educating on the need to go to college before actually educating about knowledge, I guess some people need to start from there), and “(use) research and creative recruiting methods to draw more women, even more scholarships especially for women”. This after years of much higher enrollment of women in colleges and universities across the board in the whole nation and much higher achievement by girls in the entire school system from K-1 to high school.
No outcry back then. So much for equality. This is one of the best evidence that gender feminists are not concerned about equality between sexes, but superiority of females over males.
I don’t comprehend the sentence “most (universities in Utah) are much more balanced and mirror the national trend of more women then men”. Does it mean that it is “balanced” to be closer to 50-50 or be balanced to be closer to a national average (which is more lopsided to women than this college in question in Utah is to men)
Of course, if you find just one university in some state in the Midwest where men’s enrollment is just 8 points higher than women (or mere 4 points above the absolute statistical parity of 50-50), you need to be in a crisis mode and the university and community need to “make it easier for women to go to school, as well as educate them on why they need a college degree” (start educating on the need to go to college before actually educating about knowledge, I guess some people need to start from there), and “(use) research and creative recruiting methods to draw more women, even more scholarships especially for women”. This after years of much higher enrollment of women in colleges and universities across the board in the whole nation and much higher achievement by girls in the entire school system from K-1 to high school.
No outcry back then. So much for equality. This is one of the best evidence that gender feminists are not concerned about equality between sexes, but superiority of females over males.
I don’t comprehend the sentence “most (universities in Utah) are much more balanced and mirror the national trend of more women then men”. Does it mean that it is “balanced” to be closer to 50-50 or be balanced to be closer to a national average (which is more lopsided to women than this college in question in Utah is to men)
Shooting in California
Oops, the perpetrator of this carnage is female, so I guess we need to be "gender-sensitive", do not gender-stereotype, and make every efforts to ensure that her women's right is not offended...gender-sensitive way of arresting, handcuffing, body searching and special treatment during detention, including larger and more sanitary prison with more free time and entertainment than males….oh, the woman killed herself already...
How come the media have not disclosed the identity of this woman yet? To protect the woman? If it were a man committing this carnage, his name and details will be all over the media, especially if he happened to be a deadbeat dad, or have a restraining order against him for domestic violence…
I wonder what will be the feminists’ reaction to this…they could be either;
a) Trumpet women’s capacity to commit violence, highlighting that women are ”catching up” with men in every aspect, including crime (most likely from power feminists who want to copy anything men do and gauge women’s progress in terms of how women closely resemble men), or
b) Fabricate the fact that this female culprit is actually a “victim” of domestic violence, or suffered from pervasive sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace (from victim feminists who think that all crime committed by women are in fact manifestation of oppression of women by men), or
c) Just shun the topic
I think C) is their preferred way to go because of the bad publicity but if asked comments in public or privately in their internet discussion board or their views and reactions on this horrible incident will be along the lines of b).
--I think so because they have a knee-jerk response to link anything to harassment and discrimination when cornered with tough facts or questions, and also because they can further advance their agenda on harassment and discrimination if they played the victim card.
What do you think?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013100239.html
Six Dead in Calif. Post Office Shooting
How come the media have not disclosed the identity of this woman yet? To protect the woman? If it were a man committing this carnage, his name and details will be all over the media, especially if he happened to be a deadbeat dad, or have a restraining order against him for domestic violence…
I wonder what will be the feminists’ reaction to this…they could be either;
a) Trumpet women’s capacity to commit violence, highlighting that women are ”catching up” with men in every aspect, including crime (most likely from power feminists who want to copy anything men do and gauge women’s progress in terms of how women closely resemble men), or
b) Fabricate the fact that this female culprit is actually a “victim” of domestic violence, or suffered from pervasive sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace (from victim feminists who think that all crime committed by women are in fact manifestation of oppression of women by men), or
c) Just shun the topic
I think C) is their preferred way to go because of the bad publicity but if asked comments in public or privately in their internet discussion board or their views and reactions on this horrible incident will be along the lines of b).
--I think so because they have a knee-jerk response to link anything to harassment and discrimination when cornered with tough facts or questions, and also because they can further advance their agenda on harassment and discrimination if they played the victim card.
What do you think?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013100239.html
Six Dead in Calif. Post Office Shooting
Thursday, January 26, 2006
NBA coach troubled by ills of feminism
Another case of high-profile sexual harassment allegation, this time involving New York Knick’s President Isiah Thomas. Thomas and his lawyers are right on the mark – the allegations, just like many other high-profile sexual harassment cases – is “a blatant and cynical attempt …. to get a large sum of money”, by an individual “seeking a financial windfall”, who “use ..(Thomas) as a pawn for their financial gain,".
And looks like the accuser is not the first time offender of politically and financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits, but a repeat offender. It’s also interesting to note that the reason this women was fired a while ago was her “inability to fulfill professional responsibilities”. I told you that hiring of people, especially to senior positions, based on gender and race, is not good.
Sometimes I think filing of sexual harassment lawsuits by old, fat, or/and ugly women serves to fulfill hidden, subconscious desire of these women to be recognized sexually, as such cases, if substantiated, would underscore that the accusing women are attractive enough to get “unwanted”, random sexual advances by men despite their age, look or weight.
Anyway, this case all the ills brought about by modern feminism; an old, incomptent woman hired for a senior position based solely on her gender repeatedly filing financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits against high-profile person.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600279.html
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-nba-knicks-thomas.html
And looks like the accuser is not the first time offender of politically and financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits, but a repeat offender. It’s also interesting to note that the reason this women was fired a while ago was her “inability to fulfill professional responsibilities”. I told you that hiring of people, especially to senior positions, based on gender and race, is not good.
Sometimes I think filing of sexual harassment lawsuits by old, fat, or/and ugly women serves to fulfill hidden, subconscious desire of these women to be recognized sexually, as such cases, if substantiated, would underscore that the accusing women are attractive enough to get “unwanted”, random sexual advances by men despite their age, look or weight.
Anyway, this case all the ills brought about by modern feminism; an old, incomptent woman hired for a senior position based solely on her gender repeatedly filing financially motivated sexual harassment lawsuits against high-profile person.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600279.html
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-nba-knicks-thomas.html
Merkel and more discrimination
There seems to be a pattern that the more women achieve something, especially things that fit nicely into feminists’ plan of action to bring about matriarchy on the planet earth, such as winning elections or becoming the first women to this or do that, the more feminists will complain about gender discrimination. Quite expectedly, or even a bit belatedly if you consider feminists zealotry to exploit any opportunity to advance their agenda, European edition of the Time magazine carried a cover story about the sorry state of women in Germany. I guess this story could have been published whether Merkel captured the Chancellor post or not - if she lost it, after spectacularly losing almost all of the wide lead that her conservative party had over its main rivals – something that not many male politicians in Germany had done in the past (but somehow mysteriously was able to hold on the post of the party leader and then eventually become the Chancellor -again something that not many male politicians were able to do in the past), Time will claim gender bias for the her not being able to become the Chancellor. In the article, as in any other article of this sort, feminists do two things at once, trumpet women’s achievement in Germany (Merkel) and whine about the sorry state of women in general in Germany.
The kind of statistics used in the article are all too familiar to American readers (gender wage gap, relation between the number of child day care and women’s participation in politics, percentage of women in politics, business, etc, etc), and women who took up non-traditional, stereotype-shattering occupations are glorified. It is the cookie-cutter feminist advocacy article.
It’s a little confusing when feminists refer to Sweden and other Scandinavian countries as a model for gender equality, when many Swedish feminists are whining about gender discrimination in their country and how men are comparable to pigs and so on. Well, actually in Sweden, feminists whining will go much further and female politicians discuss seriously about what to do with Swedish men who take almost as much parental leaves as mommy do but spend far less time actually holding and caring babies – what’s the solution – passing a law that that requires if women hold babies for 5 minutes and smile at him for 10 minutes, men have to do the same or more? It’s a country where when men travel abroad, a secret police of sort would follow you so that they can arrest (arrest! a number of legal arrangements between Sweden and host countries to this effect have been made) any Swedes who try to make use of local brothels. Well, feminists may want to look up to this great country.
Feminists’ logic in this advocacy article is, as usual, shaky, to put it mildly. For example, if the German economy is doing so well and is so big (the third biggest in the world) and their science is so advanced compared to other countries, what exactly is the problem? Actually couldn’t you say that overrepresentation of men in these areas is responsible for strong economic growth and academic quality? Certainly the under-representation of women is not a problem in any way with regard to the economic growth and technological advancement, because presently women are under-represented and these two areas in question are doing great. Wouldn’t it be that if we were to artificially boost the women’s number in top business circles and academia by instating various social engineering schemes, it would actually hurt the economy and academia? Would anyone have ever given a thought that the absence of various social engineering schemes, such as affirmative action or positive discrimination, tapering or lowering of criteria and employing less qualified people over more qualified people actually hurt the competitive edge?
The kind of statistics used in the article are all too familiar to American readers (gender wage gap, relation between the number of child day care and women’s participation in politics, percentage of women in politics, business, etc, etc), and women who took up non-traditional, stereotype-shattering occupations are glorified. It is the cookie-cutter feminist advocacy article.
It’s a little confusing when feminists refer to Sweden and other Scandinavian countries as a model for gender equality, when many Swedish feminists are whining about gender discrimination in their country and how men are comparable to pigs and so on. Well, actually in Sweden, feminists whining will go much further and female politicians discuss seriously about what to do with Swedish men who take almost as much parental leaves as mommy do but spend far less time actually holding and caring babies – what’s the solution – passing a law that that requires if women hold babies for 5 minutes and smile at him for 10 minutes, men have to do the same or more? It’s a country where when men travel abroad, a secret police of sort would follow you so that they can arrest (arrest! a number of legal arrangements between Sweden and host countries to this effect have been made) any Swedes who try to make use of local brothels. Well, feminists may want to look up to this great country.
Feminists’ logic in this advocacy article is, as usual, shaky, to put it mildly. For example, if the German economy is doing so well and is so big (the third biggest in the world) and their science is so advanced compared to other countries, what exactly is the problem? Actually couldn’t you say that overrepresentation of men in these areas is responsible for strong economic growth and academic quality? Certainly the under-representation of women is not a problem in any way with regard to the economic growth and technological advancement, because presently women are under-represented and these two areas in question are doing great. Wouldn’t it be that if we were to artificially boost the women’s number in top business circles and academia by instating various social engineering schemes, it would actually hurt the economy and academia? Would anyone have ever given a thought that the absence of various social engineering schemes, such as affirmative action or positive discrimination, tapering or lowering of criteria and employing less qualified people over more qualified people actually hurt the competitive edge?
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Failing boy's grade and Newsweek
Gender feminists have vested interest in keeping boys grades down. In short, it ensures that more girls than boys go to better colleges, more girls than boys will get better jobs, with higher salaries, social status and power, thus, gender wage gap will be narrowed and reversed, percentage of women in the Congress, CEO of Fortune 500 and partners of prestigious law firms will increase and eventually dominate majority. It will also create favorable (for feminists, of course) stereotype that girls and women are smarter, better and occupy high positions, while boys and men are dumber and languish in less-skilled jobs and overrepresented in prisons. In short, keeping the current situation will enable creation of feminists’ utopia.
That is why gender feminists will need to suppress or at least spin the discussions about boys’ failing grades in school. In this week’s Newsweek’s cover story, renowned feminists Carol Gilligan, who was very instrumental in raising the profile of problem with girls in school back in 80’s and 90’s in the first place, is now pretending to care about boys (she is a mother of three boys – was sex selection of babies not available to her back then?). It is profoundly ironic (or predicted?) that the Newsweek is turning to the very gender feminists who is the chief suspect of causing todays’ boy’s failure in school system by systematically slanting educational priorities, criteria and methodologies to benefit girls over boys.
Before discussing about boys’ failure, she reminds us that “We are only a generation away from the time when girls were effectively off the map”, and spends much time boasting the achievements made with respect to girls’ education. When she finally turns to the core issue, she continues her agenda by trying to foster sensitivity in boys, along the favored feminists’ line of immasculating males to achieve gender-neutral or blind society. Of course, as a devoted feminist; she does not forget to warn the readers of the danger of “trouble boys are having with school becomes grounds for reinstituting traditional codes of manhood, including a return to the patriarchal family” and whines that “men still outnumber women at the highest levels of academia, as well as in business and government”. She concludes by saying “we now have an opportunity to redress a system of gender relationships that endangers both sexes”. Feminists will always be feminists, aren’t they?
If the discussion on boys’ failing grade, a problem that deserves the highest attention, that finally made into the attention of major news media is so much spun along gender feminists ideology who had created this very problem in the first place, we are reminded that the problem of boy’s failing grade goes much deeper than simply a creating all-boy school or employing more boy-friendly educational methods. The Newsweek’s story is like turning to Hitler or Goeling for ways to redress the poor living and social condition of Jews in the Third Reich. Yeah, I’m sure you will get the right answer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965127/site/newsweek/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/ (main story)
That is why gender feminists will need to suppress or at least spin the discussions about boys’ failing grades in school. In this week’s Newsweek’s cover story, renowned feminists Carol Gilligan, who was very instrumental in raising the profile of problem with girls in school back in 80’s and 90’s in the first place, is now pretending to care about boys (she is a mother of three boys – was sex selection of babies not available to her back then?). It is profoundly ironic (or predicted?) that the Newsweek is turning to the very gender feminists who is the chief suspect of causing todays’ boy’s failure in school system by systematically slanting educational priorities, criteria and methodologies to benefit girls over boys.
Before discussing about boys’ failure, she reminds us that “We are only a generation away from the time when girls were effectively off the map”, and spends much time boasting the achievements made with respect to girls’ education. When she finally turns to the core issue, she continues her agenda by trying to foster sensitivity in boys, along the favored feminists’ line of immasculating males to achieve gender-neutral or blind society. Of course, as a devoted feminist; she does not forget to warn the readers of the danger of “trouble boys are having with school becomes grounds for reinstituting traditional codes of manhood, including a return to the patriarchal family” and whines that “men still outnumber women at the highest levels of academia, as well as in business and government”. She concludes by saying “we now have an opportunity to redress a system of gender relationships that endangers both sexes”. Feminists will always be feminists, aren’t they?
If the discussion on boys’ failing grade, a problem that deserves the highest attention, that finally made into the attention of major news media is so much spun along gender feminists ideology who had created this very problem in the first place, we are reminded that the problem of boy’s failing grade goes much deeper than simply a creating all-boy school or employing more boy-friendly educational methods. The Newsweek’s story is like turning to Hitler or Goeling for ways to redress the poor living and social condition of Jews in the Third Reich. Yeah, I’m sure you will get the right answer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965127/site/newsweek/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/ (main story)
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Of sexual harassment and gender discrimination
It’s good to see that there is still a man with common sense, uninfected by politically correct virus, is writing pieces for Newsweek, a kind of news magazine which routinely put up advocacy articles and special cover stories to promote various feminists’ agenda (do anyone still remember “When women lead?” ?)
The author’s view on the recent spate of crackdowns by the Wall Street firms on the use of adult-entertainment facility by its employees is a result of PC hysteria. It is true. But there is more to it. Such allegations and lawsuits on sexual harassment and gender discrimination is not really about harassment or discrimination, it is about women getting back at big companies, which they see as a symbol of patriarchy and male power. The gender feminists ideology posits that such male dominated institution must be weakened, disbanded and replaced by female-dominated institution, to achieve true gender “equality” (yeah, of course). In their eternal quest for power, control and money, lawsuits, or threat to bring lawsuits, are the quickest, easiest and most effective way to redistribute millions or billions of money from company (male domain) to women employee and female lawyers who specialize in this area, and any foundation or NGO or whatever they set up with the payoff money to promote agenda (female domain), and oust male execs from their position and fill in the position with one of their cohorts (how difficult it would be for companies to replace the man just fired for sexual harassment with yet another man?). This is the quickest way to correct the so-called “gender wage gap” and increase the percentage of women in executive positions, the two top priorities for feminists and women executives, far more important than creating profits for company they work for or for the US economy as a whole. Of course it is the fastest way because you don’t need to actually work hard and produce results which they seem to be most reluctant to do or largely incapable of doing, but you just need to whine in the court or to the media and who are more than willing to take up your case. This is why they just can’t stop bringing lawsuits and no matter how much companies bend over backward to create PC workplace, feminists will keep inventing new kind of discrimination, new kinds of harassment, so that they can continue this cycle of redistribution of power and money through litigation. They will keep honing their sensitivity so that their sexual harassment/discrimination antenna can pick up the most subtle hint of sexual connotation and turn it into multi million/billon dollar sexual harassment/discrimination lawsuit.
I hope that the author can continue to write articles like this one for Newsweek. That is, I hope that he can withstand the avalanche of e-mails (hate-mail) and other more direct or subtle organized harassment campaign by gender feminists this author will most likely face as a result of publishing this article.
The author’s view on the recent spate of crackdowns by the Wall Street firms on the use of adult-entertainment facility by its employees is a result of PC hysteria. It is true. But there is more to it. Such allegations and lawsuits on sexual harassment and gender discrimination is not really about harassment or discrimination, it is about women getting back at big companies, which they see as a symbol of patriarchy and male power. The gender feminists ideology posits that such male dominated institution must be weakened, disbanded and replaced by female-dominated institution, to achieve true gender “equality” (yeah, of course). In their eternal quest for power, control and money, lawsuits, or threat to bring lawsuits, are the quickest, easiest and most effective way to redistribute millions or billions of money from company (male domain) to women employee and female lawyers who specialize in this area, and any foundation or NGO or whatever they set up with the payoff money to promote agenda (female domain), and oust male execs from their position and fill in the position with one of their cohorts (how difficult it would be for companies to replace the man just fired for sexual harassment with yet another man?). This is the quickest way to correct the so-called “gender wage gap” and increase the percentage of women in executive positions, the two top priorities for feminists and women executives, far more important than creating profits for company they work for or for the US economy as a whole. Of course it is the fastest way because you don’t need to actually work hard and produce results which they seem to be most reluctant to do or largely incapable of doing, but you just need to whine in the court or to the media and who are more than willing to take up your case. This is why they just can’t stop bringing lawsuits and no matter how much companies bend over backward to create PC workplace, feminists will keep inventing new kind of discrimination, new kinds of harassment, so that they can continue this cycle of redistribution of power and money through litigation. They will keep honing their sensitivity so that their sexual harassment/discrimination antenna can pick up the most subtle hint of sexual connotation and turn it into multi million/billon dollar sexual harassment/discrimination lawsuit.
I hope that the author can continue to write articles like this one for Newsweek. That is, I hope that he can withstand the avalanche of e-mails (hate-mail) and other more direct or subtle organized harassment campaign by gender feminists this author will most likely face as a result of publishing this article.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Liberia fiasco
Coupled with another gender feminist taking the highest office in a country in Latin America, this news from Liberia, Africa would mark January 16, 2006 as a very stark, grim day for all the men in the world. Bascially, this election in Liberia is completely a UN-international feminists coalition-staged election to steal the presidency from a former soccer star George Weah. The lopsided support to Johnson by UN officials, both formerly and informerly, while putting up fake pretense of neutrality, was so obvious during the entire election campaign during both general election and (even more so) run-off campaign. You can almost see grinning in the faces of UN officials when they talk about the prospect of Johnson winning before the election. No wonder George Weah's supporters are so pissed off. If Liberia relapsed into instability and turmoil, who is going to take responsibility? UN? Feminists? I'm sure they are going to blame on men.
Chilean President - It's a girl!
Quite shameful that Chile has elected a woman president - a woman who only know to say "I'm a woman, I'm woman, (hear me roar!) - according to BBC, her top priority after assuming the office will be to name half of her cabinet women - pretty much all of her priority and policy during her term, I suppose.
Expect loads of bandwagon reporting from BBC and other left-leaning feminists - worshipping media about how women are changing politics or Latin America or world politics or universe or whatever they wish they could change - or America should follow suit or how women needs to be mo respresented in politcs or women this and women that.......
Expect loads of bandwagon reporting from BBC and other left-leaning feminists - worshipping media about how women are changing politics or Latin America or world politics or universe or whatever they wish they could change - or America should follow suit or how women needs to be mo respresented in politcs or women this and women that.......
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Women as a pivot vote
My favourite radio show NPR reported on 6 January that Maine Senator Olimpia Snowe could have a key vote in Alito's confirmation hearing as a Supreme Court judge. Wind back a clock a little bit and you would remember that the former Supremem Court justice Sandra O'Conner, a jostice whom Alito is poised to replace, was also known as a key "pivot" judge in important cases, casting crucial ballot in many of the 5-4 split decisions.
Both Snowe and O'Conner are women. Is it a coincidence? Is it because women are more independently minded and wouldn't follow strict party or ideological line, or is it because they do not have strong stance or views on any issue and be easily swayed by the tide of the time or convenient political calculation? Does it play into generally held stereotype that women are just standing out there waiting for other people (men) to woo? Probably so. But mainstream media are busy portraying those women as independently minded, key voter, and shaker and mover, shaping American judicial history, when in fact they are incapable of holding stong ideological footing that are requisite for their important positions.
Both Snowe and O'Conner are women. Is it a coincidence? Is it because women are more independently minded and wouldn't follow strict party or ideological line, or is it because they do not have strong stance or views on any issue and be easily swayed by the tide of the time or convenient political calculation? Does it play into generally held stereotype that women are just standing out there waiting for other people (men) to woo? Probably so. But mainstream media are busy portraying those women as independently minded, key voter, and shaker and mover, shaping American judicial history, when in fact they are incapable of holding stong ideological footing that are requisite for their important positions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)