Movie review "Children of men"
I went to see this movie with expectations that this movie will give us a glimpse of how future in which women no longer conceive babies and the fertility rate dramatically drops will be like, a kind of society that man industrialized western countries are heading into. Well, the movie's storyline was based on such a plot, but it was, as far as I am concerned, a horrible movie. The movie was too gory and dark and depressing. Too much gun fighting and so on. The movie also did not explain why all the women in the world, I mean every single one of them on earth, suddenly stopped giving birth on 2009 (which is only 3 years from now!). There was no explanation as to why all of a sudden this one black woman (immigrant?) suddenly conceived after more than 18 years of total global baby draught.
I wished that the movie depicted in more detail how less and less women came to conceive babies, and wider social implications of it. How the rise of women in power and of rigid feminist ideology will reduce fertility rate and very wide and deep consequences of low fertility rate for the society. But the movie didn't venture into any of that, and instead it only showed that in 2009, suddenly no more babies were born ・throughout the world! ・and the only visible consequences of this radical change is large number of illegal immigrants rounded up in cages everywhere -just didn't make sense to me.
Rise of women in power and low fertility rate have much, much wider and deeper consequences than just illegal immigrants rounded up in cage. It means that welfare system will be bankrupt, schools will be closed, teachers and everyone in education industries will be out of work, nursery and toy company and toy shops ・rather than counting all professions that will be unnecessary, let's just say that in less than a few generations, the human race will be extinct. (congrats for extreme environmentalist who want to reduce human population to save environment)
Friday, February 16, 2007
Women victim of their own success
This is a typical gender-ratio article that routinely appears in the New York Times...it's nothing new and it's not really worth mentioning it because it is so routine, but I still managed to pick up some interesting points in the article・
In early part of the article a gender-balance expert (this is a guy!) poses a theoretical question, "Are moderate suburban Democratic women the future of the party?" and in the same breath exhorts both Democrats and Republicans to go after women since in his mind the answer is already given. For writers of this kind of article, editors of the paper and the carefully selected, hand-picked interviewees or experts quoted, this kind of article is not published to find true, correct answer to the a question, but to advance particular agenda. The only (very minor) difference between this kind of article and paid-advertisement by NOW or AAUW is that the former try to put at least a pretence of neutrality - although very few people rally believe it.
Amazingly the writer of the article is not simply content with triumphing in the increasing women's number in state legislature ・the writer manages to play of victim card again!! ・according to the writer, the mainstreaming of female politicians, or shift away from traditional feminist base is "a loss in the fight against imbalances against women that still persist in American society." I'm always amazed by feminists' astounding ability to find "victim" elements even in the most triumphant moment for them. I think it is because playing victim card is almost a second nature to them ・after all they've been relying on victim card tactics for the last four decades to advance their agandas ・it would be very difficult to shift away from their tactics and mind-set that have been the backbone of their movement for decades.
As St. Paul Goes ...
In State Legislatures, Democrats Are Pushing Toward Parity Between the Sexes
Bill Alkofer for The New York Times
By KIRK JOHNSON
Published: February 15, 2007
In early part of the article a gender-balance expert (this is a guy!) poses a theoretical question, "Are moderate suburban Democratic women the future of the party?" and in the same breath exhorts both Democrats and Republicans to go after women since in his mind the answer is already given. For writers of this kind of article, editors of the paper and the carefully selected, hand-picked interviewees or experts quoted, this kind of article is not published to find true, correct answer to the a question, but to advance particular agenda. The only (very minor) difference between this kind of article and paid-advertisement by NOW or AAUW is that the former try to put at least a pretence of neutrality - although very few people rally believe it.
Amazingly the writer of the article is not simply content with triumphing in the increasing women's number in state legislature ・the writer manages to play of victim card again!! ・according to the writer, the mainstreaming of female politicians, or shift away from traditional feminist base is "a loss in the fight against imbalances against women that still persist in American society." I'm always amazed by feminists' astounding ability to find "victim" elements even in the most triumphant moment for them. I think it is because playing victim card is almost a second nature to them ・after all they've been relying on victim card tactics for the last four decades to advance their agandas ・it would be very difficult to shift away from their tactics and mind-set that have been the backbone of their movement for decades.
As St. Paul Goes ...
In State Legislatures, Democrats Are Pushing Toward Parity Between the Sexes
Bill Alkofer for The New York Times
By KIRK JOHNSON
Published: February 15, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Thoughts on men's movement
I found an interesting article on my favourite website www.mensnewsdaily.com.
Below is my thoughts on this topic....
There is no major (or even a minor?) men’s movement because it simply doesn’t appeal to men. Major social movements that attract our attention, grab headlines and come to our attention are almost always leftist in its nature – be it feminists, environmental, or animal rights movement. It usually involves a large number of people congregating and demonstrating on streets, printing and handing outs leaflets, yelling and chanting, etc., etc. These actions hardly invoke images of masculinity or macho men – rather it is more often seen as feminine, girly acts. Of course not all the activities of mass social movements are sissy, but just imagine, holding hands or “candlelight” night vigil, etc., etc, and you’ll get the idea. If a men’s movement is going to change the feminized society and feminist-controlled legal and other social system, it is not going to be wise to adopt the same leftist-feminist style, sissy tactics.
In addition, males are not deeply emphatic being as females are; thus playing too much victim card is not going to appeal to them. Men do not want to see themselves as weak victim, and will be reluctant to identify themselves with male victims of family courts, domestic violence or false accusation of rape, sexual harassment, etc. Plus it will risk taunting by feminists and liberal media for being “sissy’ or “girly”(do anyone see irony in this?). Men are traditionally seen as, and men like to see themselves as, even in this highly feminized world, tough and independent being. Not a mass-marching, victim card-playing, candle-light vigil leftist type.
I will conntinue later...
Below is my thoughts on this topic....
There is no major (or even a minor?) men’s movement because it simply doesn’t appeal to men. Major social movements that attract our attention, grab headlines and come to our attention are almost always leftist in its nature – be it feminists, environmental, or animal rights movement. It usually involves a large number of people congregating and demonstrating on streets, printing and handing outs leaflets, yelling and chanting, etc., etc. These actions hardly invoke images of masculinity or macho men – rather it is more often seen as feminine, girly acts. Of course not all the activities of mass social movements are sissy, but just imagine, holding hands or “candlelight” night vigil, etc., etc, and you’ll get the idea. If a men’s movement is going to change the feminized society and feminist-controlled legal and other social system, it is not going to be wise to adopt the same leftist-feminist style, sissy tactics.
In addition, males are not deeply emphatic being as females are; thus playing too much victim card is not going to appeal to them. Men do not want to see themselves as weak victim, and will be reluctant to identify themselves with male victims of family courts, domestic violence or false accusation of rape, sexual harassment, etc. Plus it will risk taunting by feminists and liberal media for being “sissy’ or “girly”(do anyone see irony in this?). Men are traditionally seen as, and men like to see themselves as, even in this highly feminized world, tough and independent being. Not a mass-marching, victim card-playing, candle-light vigil leftist type.
I will conntinue later...
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Women rocks NASA
We knew sooner or later this kind of article is going to be out. Whenever and wherever major news involve women, the so-called women's advocates are going to be out and front slanting the news to promote their agenda.
It's interesting that it was a woman who made the most astounding incident in the history of NASA. I would suspect that there was artificial lowering of bar for women to join NASA and be astronauts in order to satisfy gender bureaucrats who are counting gender ratio in every federal institutions. Although I'm 100% confident that this would never even be considered when NASA conduct review of screening process for astronauts. Maybe gender feminists will even have audacity to say something like, "There wasn't a critical mass of female astronauts in NASA, that's why Laurel Clark wasn't feeling comfortable, blah, blah, blah!! We need more women, women as astonauts and in top positions, blah, blah!! Need to suspend all hiring and promotion of men until we say it痴 OK, blah, blah!!". Never underestimate gender feminists' audacity or ability to spin the news and promote their agenda even in the most difficult times.
It is quite frightening that people of this mental state was flying in space just less than a year ago! What if "she" found out that other "female" astronaut in the spaceship was having affair with her significant others and decided to kill her on space? What if "she" found out that her nemesis is in other spacecraft and decided to attack? Future could be quite interesting.
I almost forgot to mention that the blatant difference in the way society treat men and women are again in work here. If male astronaut attacked other male, he wouldn't be put on "PAID LEAVE" like Laurel Clark but would be summarily fired, he wouldn't be paroled immediately but would be put behind bars, and no sympathetic article trying to fault on any place other than the culprit herself, but wholesale generalization that men are not mentally stable enough to be astronauts but only stay-at-home dads, probably to be penned by Maureen Dawd...
It's interesting that it was a woman who made the most astounding incident in the history of NASA. I would suspect that there was artificial lowering of bar for women to join NASA and be astronauts in order to satisfy gender bureaucrats who are counting gender ratio in every federal institutions. Although I'm 100% confident that this would never even be considered when NASA conduct review of screening process for astronauts. Maybe gender feminists will even have audacity to say something like, "There wasn't a critical mass of female astronauts in NASA, that's why Laurel Clark wasn't feeling comfortable, blah, blah, blah!! We need more women, women as astonauts and in top positions, blah, blah!! Need to suspend all hiring and promotion of men until we say it痴 OK, blah, blah!!". Never underestimate gender feminists' audacity or ability to spin the news and promote their agenda even in the most difficult times.
It is quite frightening that people of this mental state was flying in space just less than a year ago! What if "she" found out that other "female" astronaut in the spaceship was having affair with her significant others and decided to kill her on space? What if "she" found out that her nemesis is in other spacecraft and decided to attack? Future could be quite interesting.
I almost forgot to mention that the blatant difference in the way society treat men and women are again in work here. If male astronaut attacked other male, he wouldn't be put on "PAID LEAVE" like Laurel Clark but would be summarily fired, he wouldn't be paroled immediately but would be put behind bars, and no sympathetic article trying to fault on any place other than the culprit herself, but wholesale generalization that men are not mentally stable enough to be astronauts but only stay-at-home dads, probably to be penned by Maureen Dawd...
Environmental polution - women especially hit hard
The story reminded me of an old joke, "The world to end tomorrow, women especially hit hard!". Well, being a bit sarcastic, maybe this is technically true, because they are more women than men on earth (however slightly) and the definitions of "especially" and "hard" really depends on who speaks it.
But even though the articles promotes further victimhood of women, one is left to wonder, on what grounds could the article proclaim that pollution is "particularly" bad for women? Reading a little bit more carefully, you'll find out that this "big federally funded study" like many other public of private study of these days, doesn't even bother to look into pollution's effect on men! I wonder how many people have even noticed this gender-biased focus of the study in the first place!?
But even though the articles promotes further victimhood of women, one is left to wonder, on what grounds could the article proclaim that pollution is "particularly" bad for women? Reading a little bit more carefully, you'll find out that this "big federally funded study" like many other public of private study of these days, doesn't even bother to look into pollution's effect on men! I wonder how many people have even noticed this gender-biased focus of the study in the first place!?
Fickle women and Andrea Dworkism
This pseudo-legal debate on whether woman can claim rape after initial consent is entirely done from women's perspective. An adult, grown-up women can have a full, legal right to change heart anytime, for whatever reason after giving initial consent and during sex, while men have to be always on a maximum alert during the act, which can often get wild, on the slightest sign of women changing her heart or he will risk ruining his life and prison rape. Aren't women going to take any responsibility for giving consent in the first place? Aren't we infantilizing women too much? Didn't know men wear condom? Well, couldn't you check before it began? Didn't know a man has HIV? What kind of women will learn that a man has HIV after starting sex?
What feminists are fighting for is an even greater power for everywomen to send everymen to prison at their whims. Come to think of it, this is a truly unique power that an ordinary citizen could have - to send another citizen to prisons at their whim...in ancient times, only tyrants used to have this kind of power but we've learned that this century is a "women's century". But this may be extreme but logical extension of to the two-class system that we have in the society, women (first class citizens) and men (second class citizens).
It's a bit funny that people (gender feminists and pro-feminist males) are seriously discussing how soon is soon enough to stop sex for men to avoid prison sentence, because even in States where a law (shall we call change-of-heart-law?) does not exist (Maryland), the court is already putting men behind bars for exactly that.
Actually this entire debate is kind of moot since no court in this country is going to back men in "he said, she said case" so even with or without a law, women can claim rape two weeks after perfectly consensual and romantic affair- no court in this country is going to doubt such a claim. Add to this brouhaha a proposal by gender feminists to criminalize men who have sex with adult women who sip a half can of beer before sex, soon it will be official to that no sex is safe in this country. By this I mean not "disease" safe, but "rape prosecution" safe sex.
Thanks to feminists' advocacy, the once solid line between haneous act of rape and consensual sex is further blurred. Am I the only one who smells a whiff of Andrea Dworkinism in the whole debate? While most gender feminists may deny it, my guess is that it is not going to stop until the legal definition of rape reaches feminists' icon Andrea Dworkin's definition of it which says "all form of sex is rape".
What feminists are fighting for is an even greater power for everywomen to send everymen to prison at their whims. Come to think of it, this is a truly unique power that an ordinary citizen could have - to send another citizen to prisons at their whim...in ancient times, only tyrants used to have this kind of power but we've learned that this century is a "women's century". But this may be extreme but logical extension of to the two-class system that we have in the society, women (first class citizens) and men (second class citizens).
It's a bit funny that people (gender feminists and pro-feminist males) are seriously discussing how soon is soon enough to stop sex for men to avoid prison sentence, because even in States where a law (shall we call change-of-heart-law?) does not exist (Maryland), the court is already putting men behind bars for exactly that.
Actually this entire debate is kind of moot since no court in this country is going to back men in "he said, she said case" so even with or without a law, women can claim rape two weeks after perfectly consensual and romantic affair- no court in this country is going to doubt such a claim. Add to this brouhaha a proposal by gender feminists to criminalize men who have sex with adult women who sip a half can of beer before sex, soon it will be official to that no sex is safe in this country. By this I mean not "disease" safe, but "rape prosecution" safe sex.
Thanks to feminists' advocacy, the once solid line between haneous act of rape and consensual sex is further blurred. Am I the only one who smells a whiff of Andrea Dworkinism in the whole debate? While most gender feminists may deny it, my guess is that it is not going to stop until the legal definition of rape reaches feminists' icon Andrea Dworkin's definition of it which says "all form of sex is rape".
Emergency! We do not have enough women DJs! Help! Help!
So this week's victim for feminists' endless attack on gender diversity is ....(drum rolling).....radio industry!! Congratulations for folks who work in that industry, you will be subjected to feminists' indoctrination campaign and gender sensitivity training until such time that feminists see no more reason to continue them (which means it will never end). Even better, Ms. Laverne has better idea for you; if you are not going to reach 50-50 gender ratio in DJs (Ms. Laverne picked this job for her gender-parity target・maybe she wants director and executive producers to be also 50-50, But definitely not for janitors I'm sure!) in the next 24 hours, she suggests "sex change" and "obligatory sex swap" Hmmm・that's one method that I rarely hear from even the most committed gender-warrior, but surely it will be included in the list of recommendations from now on. What better way to ensure 50-50 gender parity in all walks of life (but not including dirty or dangerous works to be determined by a committee of feminists); if there aren't enough good female DJs to fill in, just perform sex changes on some male DJs until the number of male DJs equals the number of female DJ (plural?)and forcibly transgendered former male DJs.
"Women condemned to domesticity"
Another novel that came out that inherit the "women are condemned to home while men enjoy outside" line of thinking. This kind of novel is very convenient for feminists and therefore in their view needs to be promoted, in the book section of the New York Times and other liberal fora. This kind of novel serves to deter young women from getting into an "incorrect" thinking that they will be stay-at-home-mom in the future, and the fictional accounts of poor women condemned to domesticity in the novel give feminists and working women reassurances and mental comfort that the path they've chosen was not wrong.
Monday, January 08, 2007
UK worse than Afghanistan??
By trying to make a point that the United Kingdom is a place worse off for women than Afghanistan or Iraq, this funny article unintentionally proves that militant feminists` often-repeated claim to justify gender quota, that higher the percentage of women in political and leadership positions, the more advanced the society and women have more rights and power, is actually wrong. How many people really think that Iraq or Afghanistan is a better place for women than the UK? Maybe only the gender-quota obsessed feminists whose only measure of happiness is the gender ratio at political and other socially prominent fields.
What were the members of the commission thinking? Maybe they, presumably most of whom subscribe to radical feminists theory, were thinking that by announcing such shocking information that UK is worse in women`s equality than such backward countries as Iraq, Rwanda and Afghanistan, they could make Brits feel ashamed of themselves and make them endorse their radical gender-quota plan. However it only reinforces suspicion that externally-imposed gender quota (Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan) and artificially high women`s percentage in political and economical arena has nothing to do with women`s equality.
Here are some interesting comments from readers…
AHH HAA
By: Happy man with Happy Wife , Sat, 06 Jan 2007 02:15:58 GMT
You figured it out!!! The western world is significantly worse than the third world.
In fact right now my wife is barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Granted she is college educated (graduated Cum Laude), has all of her sexual organs, and is allowed to drive to pretty much any store she wants, to spend money on pretty much any clothing she wants, pretty much anytime she wants, with pretty much anyone she wants.
Your report is so eye opening, I think I will move to Afghanistan immediately. Another good comment….
Has anyone on this commission, or that angry woman, ever considered the representation based on the number of applicants by rage, gender, or whatever they want to place discrimination? Who cares that the majority of the positions are held by men? Is it not possible that 70% of the men who applied and 70% of the women who applied to the job were denied, but if more men applied, there would stand to reason that more men hold the positions?
Just food for thought here, but it has to be said: Angry Women of the World, this is for you, were the heterosexual men more qualified? Were there other men turned down? Quit crying discrimination when you have nothing to cry about except that someone different from you got the job. Besides, if you aren`t, you certainly came across as a heterophobic female supremacist, and that`s not how you win complaints in the real world. Wake up, there`s competition for jobs and sometimes people of different genders and colors get hired.
What were the members of the commission thinking? Maybe they, presumably most of whom subscribe to radical feminists theory, were thinking that by announcing such shocking information that UK is worse in women`s equality than such backward countries as Iraq, Rwanda and Afghanistan, they could make Brits feel ashamed of themselves and make them endorse their radical gender-quota plan. However it only reinforces suspicion that externally-imposed gender quota (Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan) and artificially high women`s percentage in political and economical arena has nothing to do with women`s equality.
Here are some interesting comments from readers…
AHH HAA
By: Happy man with Happy Wife , Sat, 06 Jan 2007 02:15:58 GMT
You figured it out!!! The western world is significantly worse than the third world.
In fact right now my wife is barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Granted she is college educated (graduated Cum Laude), has all of her sexual organs, and is allowed to drive to pretty much any store she wants, to spend money on pretty much any clothing she wants, pretty much anytime she wants, with pretty much anyone she wants.
Your report is so eye opening, I think I will move to Afghanistan immediately. Another good comment….
Has anyone on this commission, or that angry woman, ever considered the representation based on the number of applicants by rage, gender, or whatever they want to place discrimination? Who cares that the majority of the positions are held by men? Is it not possible that 70% of the men who applied and 70% of the women who applied to the job were denied, but if more men applied, there would stand to reason that more men hold the positions?
Just food for thought here, but it has to be said: Angry Women of the World, this is for you, were the heterosexual men more qualified? Were there other men turned down? Quit crying discrimination when you have nothing to cry about except that someone different from you got the job. Besides, if you aren`t, you certainly came across as a heterophobic female supremacist, and that`s not how you win complaints in the real world. Wake up, there`s competition for jobs and sometimes people of different genders and colors get hired.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
What`s real news?
Translation of the news below - Norwegian feminists are getting worried that their funding and support are diminishing....
NewsTrack - Top News
Rape up dramatically in Oslo
OSLO, Norway, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- Rapes are becoming increasingly common in Norway's capital city, with the number of victims seeking help from Oslo's clinic doubling in a decade.
This year, the emergency clinic reports almost 300 victims have come in for treatment, Aftenposten reported. That's up from 235 last year and enough that Oslo's per capita rate of reported sexual assaults is higher than New York's.
"Our resources have been the same for the past 10 years, while the number of our patients has doubled, and continues to increase this year," said Endre Sandvik, the head of the Oslo Legevakt Hospital.
Sandvik said clinic staff are also taking more time with each victim to secure evidence for prosecutors.
"The growth in the number of rapes is dramatic," said Councilwoman Sylvi Listhaug. "It makes me angry, and worried about the young women of our city."
NewsTrack - Top News
Rape up dramatically in Oslo
OSLO, Norway, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- Rapes are becoming increasingly common in Norway's capital city, with the number of victims seeking help from Oslo's clinic doubling in a decade.
This year, the emergency clinic reports almost 300 victims have come in for treatment, Aftenposten reported. That's up from 235 last year and enough that Oslo's per capita rate of reported sexual assaults is higher than New York's.
"Our resources have been the same for the past 10 years, while the number of our patients has doubled, and continues to increase this year," said Endre Sandvik, the head of the Oslo Legevakt Hospital.
Sandvik said clinic staff are also taking more time with each victim to secure evidence for prosecutors.
"The growth in the number of rapes is dramatic," said Councilwoman Sylvi Listhaug. "It makes me angry, and worried about the young women of our city."
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Ambition management
This totalitarian feminists now want to engage in “ambition management”, after finding out that girls` ambition tend to taper down compared to boys` after certain age. In their uniquely feminine reasoning, achievement with regard to social status is a direct result of one`s ambition, and nothing else is a factor. Thus, in the spirit of achieving total statistical gender parity both in external social and economical status and internal emotional and psychological realm, we would need to highten girls ambition, while at the same time lower that of boys, perhaps by imbuing them with the virtue of being a stay-at-home-husband.
Girls` ambition needs to be monitored so it remains sufficiently high to feminists` satisfaction, and so that they do not start dreaming about easy comfortable life as a housewife. Boys` ambition needs to be monitored so that it remains lower (this is an important point) than girls`, and so that at least certain percentage of them dream of becoming a perfect house-husband.
The author seems to wonder why girls` excellence in higher education is not mirrored to the exact proportion in the women`s status in political and economic realm. We can leave the speculation to feminists, and I`m sure they will come up with thousand ways in patriarchical society discriminates women to prevent the fulfillment of their full potential. But for the rest of us, it is good to know that not all the Fortune 500 CEOs come from the top universities, and not all the top graduates of Ivy League schools end up in top executive positions. It means that there is mobility in society and opportunity for second chance in life after college. You don` t need to graduate from top MBA schools to be a CEO of big company. You don`t need to spend your entire college life inside library and be a valedictorian to be a good politician. Bill Gates doesn`t even have a bachelor`s degree. It is good thing for most of us, except feminists.
Girls` ambition needs to be monitored so it remains sufficiently high to feminists` satisfaction, and so that they do not start dreaming about easy comfortable life as a housewife. Boys` ambition needs to be monitored so that it remains lower (this is an important point) than girls`, and so that at least certain percentage of them dream of becoming a perfect house-husband.
The author seems to wonder why girls` excellence in higher education is not mirrored to the exact proportion in the women`s status in political and economic realm. We can leave the speculation to feminists, and I`m sure they will come up with thousand ways in patriarchical society discriminates women to prevent the fulfillment of their full potential. But for the rest of us, it is good to know that not all the Fortune 500 CEOs come from the top universities, and not all the top graduates of Ivy League schools end up in top executive positions. It means that there is mobility in society and opportunity for second chance in life after college. You don` t need to graduate from top MBA schools to be a CEO of big company. You don`t need to spend your entire college life inside library and be a valedictorian to be a good politician. Bill Gates doesn`t even have a bachelor`s degree. It is good thing for most of us, except feminists.
Washington D.C. polce chief 2
Just one day after the Washington Post and other mainstream media rushed to extol the history-making, first-ever (fulltime) female police chief in Washington D.C., concerns over the way in which the new mayor-elect chose the woman were raised. Looks like gender-based appointment went too far. Expect soon feminists complaining “if a man was chosen, there wouldn`t have been such concerns. It`s discrimination!!”. Just amazing to see the extent to which, by ignoring all key advisors, this new young mayor-elect would go to bypass all the eligible male candidates for the police chief post and appoint a woman, who were far down the list. As the newsstory noted, Ms. Lanier is likely to be confirmed despite all this media hype, because she is a “woman”. Of course, nobody wants to risk being labeled as “anti-woman”, however such labeling is unfair and not based on facts.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
D.C. police chief
Recent politically-correct fever of appointing women as chief of security units, traditionally thought as a male bastion, is sweeping the Washington D.C. as well. In an article about this blatant, nothing-but gender-based appointment, Lanier recounts that “…and as a woman in the department, she said, her path has not always been smooth. She doesn't expect it to become any easier when she's chief….” Are you kidding? The only reason you are chosen as the chief of D.C. police is because you are a woman. Wake up!
"Just for being female"
The male columnist mourns the fact that a report on violence against women released by the United Nations was greeted with “collective yawn” in mass media.
Why is it? How can liberal media NOT rush into judgement and indict all men on earth guilty of discrimination against women? Is it because there have been too many of this kind of agenda-driven, advocacy researches, with identical conclusions and recommendations (more women in political position is by far the perennial number one in the latter category) that even liberal media is getting tired of this?
Is it because in this chivalrous male columnist`s view, anything less than days of consecutive top-page coverage by all major media outlets on the issue amounts to willful ignorance by male-dominated media? (We already have enough of this kind of advocacy media reporting, don`t we?)
Or is it simply because the article and the UN report itself doesn`t stand close scrutiny?
Maybe all of the above.
The examples cited by the columnist and others mentioned in the report are indeed awful, but do they represent “war against women all over the planet” Here touches of ideological feminism creeps in. A “war against women all over the planet”? That`s a quite a statement to make, isn`t it? In order for an accusation “war against women all over the planet” to hold true, it has to pass many hurdles. First, it has to exist on every part of the world, not just in some limited regions of the world or cultures. Second, these misdeeds need to be carried out with the explicit purpose to execute “war against women all over the planet” Third, the level and pervasiveness of violence and its negative effect are in such proportion that it constitutes a “war”.
The author mentions that in the United States, “homicide was the second leading cause of death for girls 15 to 18” and that “8 percent of all the homicide victims in the study had been killed by an acquaintance or intimate partner” While the statistic looks horrible indeed, until you actually start to use your brain and take into account the fact that women suffer far, far less violence from non-acquaintance / intimate partners than men suffer, thereby proportionally raising the percentage.
What does the author means by “just being female”? Thousands of women are killed in India for unacceptable reasons. OK. But because just being female? Then how about the crime of “just being female” for the rest of 5 billion female in the country? Are they burned? Of course not. However horrible the reasons these women were killed for, you smell the sulfur, or, the smell of militant feminism and professional man-haters when one starts asserting that those women were killed for “just being female”.
If a group of men beat up a man in a bar because the poor bumped into one of the guys` arm and spilled cocktail all over the guy, isn`t he also punished just for being male? Women spilling cocktail on other men will most likely not going to be punished, but be rewarded and wooed. And how about thousands of men, many of them conscripts, who die in war all over the world every year?
The real motive behind this kind of advocacy-study-through-feminists-mouth-piece-UN and chivalrous commentators is obvious. By focusing world`s attention solely on women victims of violence, which is already far fewer than male victims, they want to tilt feminists-owned political landscape even further in favor of women species. They are also sending out a clear message that men do not deserve any attention or resource; only women do.
Why is it? How can liberal media NOT rush into judgement and indict all men on earth guilty of discrimination against women? Is it because there have been too many of this kind of agenda-driven, advocacy researches, with identical conclusions and recommendations (more women in political position is by far the perennial number one in the latter category) that even liberal media is getting tired of this?
Is it because in this chivalrous male columnist`s view, anything less than days of consecutive top-page coverage by all major media outlets on the issue amounts to willful ignorance by male-dominated media? (We already have enough of this kind of advocacy media reporting, don`t we?)
Or is it simply because the article and the UN report itself doesn`t stand close scrutiny?
Maybe all of the above.
The examples cited by the columnist and others mentioned in the report are indeed awful, but do they represent “war against women all over the planet” Here touches of ideological feminism creeps in. A “war against women all over the planet”? That`s a quite a statement to make, isn`t it? In order for an accusation “war against women all over the planet” to hold true, it has to pass many hurdles. First, it has to exist on every part of the world, not just in some limited regions of the world or cultures. Second, these misdeeds need to be carried out with the explicit purpose to execute “war against women all over the planet” Third, the level and pervasiveness of violence and its negative effect are in such proportion that it constitutes a “war”.
The author mentions that in the United States, “homicide was the second leading cause of death for girls 15 to 18” and that “8 percent of all the homicide victims in the study had been killed by an acquaintance or intimate partner” While the statistic looks horrible indeed, until you actually start to use your brain and take into account the fact that women suffer far, far less violence from non-acquaintance / intimate partners than men suffer, thereby proportionally raising the percentage.
What does the author means by “just being female”? Thousands of women are killed in India for unacceptable reasons. OK. But because just being female? Then how about the crime of “just being female” for the rest of 5 billion female in the country? Are they burned? Of course not. However horrible the reasons these women were killed for, you smell the sulfur, or, the smell of militant feminism and professional man-haters when one starts asserting that those women were killed for “just being female”.
If a group of men beat up a man in a bar because the poor bumped into one of the guys` arm and spilled cocktail all over the guy, isn`t he also punished just for being male? Women spilling cocktail on other men will most likely not going to be punished, but be rewarded and wooed. And how about thousands of men, many of them conscripts, who die in war all over the world every year?
The real motive behind this kind of advocacy-study-through-feminists-mouth-piece-UN and chivalrous commentators is obvious. By focusing world`s attention solely on women victims of violence, which is already far fewer than male victims, they want to tilt feminists-owned political landscape even further in favor of women species. They are also sending out a clear message that men do not deserve any attention or resource; only women do.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Divorce rights to unmarried couples??
There are a few ways to look at the new proposal in the UK to extend the divorce rights to unmarried couples.
One is to see it as an attempt by divorce industry to find new clientele, as one of the comments pointed out.
Second is to see it as an extension of efforts to protect or “empower” one party of the unmarried couple, and of course I am referring to a female party (why would government even bother about males?). Married women are now sufficiently protected under current divorce laws - they can now file for divorce, get the house, alimony, custody of children and child support from men - all of them by simply flinging the accusation of child abuse or domestic violence, no question asked and the government will guarantee she will get the as much as possible. But poor unmarried women still do not enjoy these splendid benefits courtesy of anti-male government.
Third is to see it as a continued effort by anti-family feminists to trivialize the status of marriage vis-a-vis other form of intimate arrangement or cohabitation, by bringing up the level of legal protection of these to that of formal traditional marriage. By extending same legal benefits to cohabitation, formal marriage will become more undistinguishable from couples living together and will become just one of any different types of cohabitation.
New 'divorce' rights for unmarried couples
Clare Dyer, legal editor
Tuesday October 31, 2006
The Guardian
One is to see it as an attempt by divorce industry to find new clientele, as one of the comments pointed out.
Second is to see it as an extension of efforts to protect or “empower” one party of the unmarried couple, and of course I am referring to a female party (why would government even bother about males?). Married women are now sufficiently protected under current divorce laws - they can now file for divorce, get the house, alimony, custody of children and child support from men - all of them by simply flinging the accusation of child abuse or domestic violence, no question asked and the government will guarantee she will get the as much as possible. But poor unmarried women still do not enjoy these splendid benefits courtesy of anti-male government.
Third is to see it as a continued effort by anti-family feminists to trivialize the status of marriage vis-a-vis other form of intimate arrangement or cohabitation, by bringing up the level of legal protection of these to that of formal traditional marriage. By extending same legal benefits to cohabitation, formal marriage will become more undistinguishable from couples living together and will become just one of any different types of cohabitation.
New 'divorce' rights for unmarried couples
Clare Dyer, legal editor
Tuesday October 31, 2006
The Guardian
It`s in women`s advantage
If the stats are in their disadvantage, they will shriek and scream discrimination, if the stats are in their advantage, they will gloat and try to turn it into a foundation for establishing matriarchy - and of course we know feminists are only fight for “equality”, right?
While lamenting the relatively small pay gap between men and women which is about 19 point gap, they gloat over women`s huge advantage (women influence 90 percent of purchase, control 80 percent of every consumer dollar spent, make 70 percent of all travel decisions, etc.) - any call for equality here, ma’am?
While lamenting the relatively small pay gap between men and women which is about 19 point gap, they gloat over women`s huge advantage (women influence 90 percent of purchase, control 80 percent of every consumer dollar spent, make 70 percent of all travel decisions, etc.) - any call for equality here, ma’am?
Musings from Sweden Part 1
Here are compilations of interesting stories from the feminists` wonderland a.k.a Sweden…
After the shocking defeat in general election, some party members of the outgoing Social Democrat which ruled the nation for years have manufactured and echoed convenient "consensus" that next leader of the party should be a woman because, “man will not be able” to beat the new ruling party, which is run by, alas, a man. May I ask why it has to be a woman, since there seems to be nothing in the article which backs such a claim (other than militant feminists` chest-thumping that you can read from between the lines)?
Feminists, not only in Sweden, but across the world are busy creating this kind of convenient “consensus” among general public that political leaders “should be” women, not so subtle shift from their original egalitarian position of “equal” rights for women to be elected political leaders. In recent race to succeed Kofi Annan as the next Secretary-General of the United Nations, feminists from across the world have asserted that next SG should be a woman, saying that “gender barrier” has to be taken down. But if you ague that only woman can become next SG, then who is it that is setting up gender barrier? While most non-feminists would like to judge candidates on their own merit, feminists would want to see gender as the first sifter to ensure that a man would not get the job.
Though barrage of op-ed pieces and sympathetic liberal western media who accepted them to print, feminists try to hypnotize public into thinking that choosing a man for a top job is somehow immoral and also an obstacle to furthering women`s rights. They partially succeeded in manufacturing “consensus” that next SG should be a woman, at least a consensus among liberal elite.
I`m not sure if the ex-minister for equality and deputy prime minister (no less) was regretting the fact Sweden has become too gender-equal as, according to her, it actually prompted men to be more violent against women. If that`s true, that would be quite a hard choice for feminists to turn back the clock and reinstate patriarchy to reduce violence against women or enjoy current care-free feminists utopia and see high rate of violence? But one need not ponder this question seriously as long as the statement is coming out from the mouth of gender feminists who based her argument on study done by - as it turned out, a fellow feminist. Swedish feminists seem to be not much behind their American cohorts in manufacturing and hyper-boling hysteria about statistics concerning women - she inflated percentage of women who experience violence from three percent to forty percent! That`s 13 times more than original figure!
The fact is that for these feminists and their pet industry to survive, there needs to be a growing or at least a continuing “crisis” for women, otherwise their raison d`etre will disappear and the huge government subsidies and other goodies they receive will dwindle.
Once I heard a feminist say that her dream is to see a true gender-equal society so that committed feminists like her will not have to fight for equality any more and retire. Looks like they`ve gotten accustomed to and even addicted to the perks and power that were conferred upon them as a representative of women are not willing to relinquish them.
After the shocking defeat in general election, some party members of the outgoing Social Democrat which ruled the nation for years have manufactured and echoed convenient "consensus" that next leader of the party should be a woman because, “man will not be able” to beat the new ruling party, which is run by, alas, a man. May I ask why it has to be a woman, since there seems to be nothing in the article which backs such a claim (other than militant feminists` chest-thumping that you can read from between the lines)?
Feminists, not only in Sweden, but across the world are busy creating this kind of convenient “consensus” among general public that political leaders “should be” women, not so subtle shift from their original egalitarian position of “equal” rights for women to be elected political leaders. In recent race to succeed Kofi Annan as the next Secretary-General of the United Nations, feminists from across the world have asserted that next SG should be a woman, saying that “gender barrier” has to be taken down. But if you ague that only woman can become next SG, then who is it that is setting up gender barrier? While most non-feminists would like to judge candidates on their own merit, feminists would want to see gender as the first sifter to ensure that a man would not get the job.
Though barrage of op-ed pieces and sympathetic liberal western media who accepted them to print, feminists try to hypnotize public into thinking that choosing a man for a top job is somehow immoral and also an obstacle to furthering women`s rights. They partially succeeded in manufacturing “consensus” that next SG should be a woman, at least a consensus among liberal elite.
I`m not sure if the ex-minister for equality and deputy prime minister (no less) was regretting the fact Sweden has become too gender-equal as, according to her, it actually prompted men to be more violent against women. If that`s true, that would be quite a hard choice for feminists to turn back the clock and reinstate patriarchy to reduce violence against women or enjoy current care-free feminists utopia and see high rate of violence? But one need not ponder this question seriously as long as the statement is coming out from the mouth of gender feminists who based her argument on study done by - as it turned out, a fellow feminist. Swedish feminists seem to be not much behind their American cohorts in manufacturing and hyper-boling hysteria about statistics concerning women - she inflated percentage of women who experience violence from three percent to forty percent! That`s 13 times more than original figure!
The fact is that for these feminists and their pet industry to survive, there needs to be a growing or at least a continuing “crisis” for women, otherwise their raison d`etre will disappear and the huge government subsidies and other goodies they receive will dwindle.
Once I heard a feminist say that her dream is to see a true gender-equal society so that committed feminists like her will not have to fight for equality any more and retire. Looks like they`ve gotten accustomed to and even addicted to the perks and power that were conferred upon them as a representative of women are not willing to relinquish them.
Friday, October 27, 2006
False rape accuser
I don't know why this habitual false rape accuser is in such a whinning
mode...
If you are going to knowingly make false accusations, and completely ruin
the accused men's life with them, you better be prepared for the
consequences when the false accusations are exposed as well.
Instead, this woman is reported to be "devastated" and feel like the "whole
world fell apart"! For what? For her lies being exposed in the public? This
women's fake emotional devastation shows the state of arrogance and
complacency women have reached as a result of all the rape-sheild laws and
rape victim industry and sympathetic media toward alleged victims. These
women take it for granted that they can wantonly make false accusation about
rape, while their privacy and identity being tightly proteted by law, and if
lucky get huge settlments award or benefits from the government. They come
to forget that lieing is bad, especially the ones that are done with a
malicious intent to ruin innocent people's entire life. They have also
become unaccostomed to the fact that one has take responsibility for their
own acts. Oh, but this "poor' women was abe to get none of these "benefits"
because her lie was exposed and now she is utterly "shock"ed...my sympathy
goes to her......
Or is it just another way of her continuing to cling to her beloved "victim"
status? Now that her initial claim of being victim of rape no longer does
the trick of duping the public, she changed her tactic to play some feeble,
sensitive woman who is "devastated" by such heinous act as exposing a lie in
public...
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
"Gender-specific" law
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FOR_MEN_ONLY?SITE=NYONE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
If the exposure law in California is considered to be gender specific since
the reference in the law is masculine "his", then I think the original
provisions in the Constitution for the eligibility to run for the US
President and other political seats are also gender specific, no? and of
course, All "men" are created equall......
bye bye, Hillary and what are all these women doing in the Capitol Hill?
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
High heel as instrument of oppression Part 2
Follow-up to yesterday's entry...
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20639690-5006029,00.html
if women are subjected to oppresive dress code, why don't they just buy
shoes that doesn't have high heels? We are told that women now make
somewhere between 80 percent or more of all purchase dicisions (doens't Pru
want to investigate into this "inequality"?), and with all the money they
have at their disposal, and they still cannot stay away from high heels?
How deeply entrenched the oppresive western dress code for women are!
Why so many high heels are still on market, many of which actually being
designed by felow women? Are they co-conspirator in men's oppression of
women? if high heel is considered to be oppressive tool against women, and
since we live in a world where issues affecting women receives the UTMOST
(and only) IMPORTANCE, why don't Pru take one step ahead and lead the
banning of sale of any shoes for women taht have heels higher than, say, one
inch? - with imposition of penalty to departments and stores that carry high
heels and throw the owners into jail (if they are men of course)
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)