Militant feminist film directors

Smell of testosterone-laden militant feminists all over this article…This has all the ingredients of card-carrying militant feminists rage….first the number game (women make up…percent of whatever), then breaking stereotypes (women making love-comedy movies), and feminists paranoia (“It's a fight sometimes to be taken seriously as a director."), search for symbol of phallus (Oscar), and do-you-really-want-that-to-happen? sort of thing(“I wish we could, and I also wish we could make our movies without people saying, `And she's a woman director.”-then why don’t you stop writing this kind of article?).

The biggest reason is that the products of movie directors are out there for everyone to see. Unlike senior positions in large media companies where you can install skirt-wearing type to mollify feminists relentless bashing for a while, movies that directors make, both male and female, are by definition out there for everyone, including critics and regular moviegoers, to see and judge. And unlike senior female execs who do not stand close scrutiny of public and who can dodge the responsibility when companies are not performing (-that’s men’s fault, right?), while taking all credits for good news (women power!!), if women director make movies, and if it is a bad one, it is extremely difficult to dodge the responsibility for making such a crappy movie.

Perhaps the only hope for feminists to see their gender-neutral film industry is to keep churning out this kind of man-hating articles and impose gender quota for a number of directors who could exist, who could take movies in each category (action, love comedy, or traditionally male-oriented or female-oriented) , the number of Oscar or “Oscarette” which could be awarded to directors of each gender. And maybe you also need “awareness-raising” or mind-control programe for moviegoers who still subliminally rejects women directors.

Women's progress

This shows the psyche of gender feminists today…
They are so proud that they cannot take care of themselves….and some women can call it a “progress”…Apparently feminsts cannot distinguish between "progress" and "regress"

Women more stresed by insomnia

Help! Women disproportionately affected by insomnia, …..as by any other illness, symptom, phenomena that affects humankind….

If you bring this non-sense to the extreme end, you will inevitably come to this classic feminists joke: “News! The world to end tomorrow! Women disproportionately affected!”

Every man is abuser

So is it men’s responsibility to ensure that the women he is paying to have some… is not a poor women trafficked from some remote Romanian countryside, but independent, strong women who chose the professions on their own will? It doesn’t make much sense legally but for seasoned gender feminists like Harriet Harman that is the least of her concern. As long as she can score points as posing as an advocate of trafficked women, her primary objective is achieved. Oh, but no just that, she so easily succeeded in portraying all men, including your fathers, brothers and neighbors as abusers of trafficked women! With no consequences and repercussion whatsoever. Just brand all men as abusers and you walk free.
Just brand all men as abusers, tarnish the image of as many men as possible, obviously, since men are "class enemy" in Harmans' point of view.

Gender quota in the Vatican City

Event the Vatican City proved that it is not immune from the collective enforcement of “gender quota” in all walks of life but ESPECIALLY in leadership positions in political, economical and social arena.
What are they thinking? Do they really think that it would help address the top priority problem ion their view, namely the “rampant secularization”? Or will it simply serve to accelerate it, by bringing in the policy that is an epitome of secularism, pet policy of radical left wing liberals, namely the gender quota?
It’s bizarre to see a senior Vatican official seemingly reading straight from the radical feminists’ talking point; “give women more space and more importance”. It looks like the radical feminists have already successfully infiltrated into the Vatican City’s ranks.

Women better than men in small business?

What if we start to count the number of ways in which men are better at business? Would it be a nice little article to be featured on New York Times? Or will you be fired and thrown off to streets after immediately being labeled as “chauvinist pig” or “neandelthaal”, possibly along with some phony sexual harassment charges from 50 plus old, 180-pound, unhappy feminist type in other department?

It can only be a nice little article when you are discussing ways in which women are superior. Not other way around. Never.

Maybe there is really some grain of truths that women are in some ways better at small business, especially if you limit to consider only certain aspects of owning small businesses. (you know, skills like pick up nuances and juggle work-life balance) But maybe the same reason that gives women some edge over men in small business maybe causing women to fall behind men in the race for climbing corporate ladder. Running small business and running large, multi-national corporations are quire different matters, which require different skill sets and attributes to succeed. Does the author of this article want to discuss that? I bet he doesn’t. But at least he is smart enough to figure out that he will be safe in this PC world as long as he is pandering to feminists.

Victimized through camera

Apparently there seems to be no limit as to the ability of women to feel victimized, anytime, anywhere, directly or indirectly, real or imaginary. I think women are by nature more likely to feel victimized or voice victimization than men, and men more likely to brush off such feeling of victimization, but that tendency has been put on steroid by gender feminists who trumpeted the idea to all women that all unhappiness or uncomfortableness, or anything short of full happiness in life is due to patriarchal oppression. Women have been “trained” by these feminists to find seeds of victimization and to feel victimized at the slightest provocation. And the politically-correct institution, including the courts, are more than happy to endorse, through punishing males, women’s feeling of victimization.

Harley Woos Female Bikers

What if Harley goes only a little further to introduce “pink” Harley? Would feminists go on banana again for Harley’s stereotyping women into pink color? So far no visible objection has been raised to Harley making smaller, less intimidating models tailored especially for women, the decision of which of course is based on (sexist?) assumption that women are smaller and has less physical strength to haul big bikes.

"Glass cliff"

Yes. Of course, it’s always men’s fault, and the entire patriarchy is conniving to set women up -by making them CEOs!!!

How much special considerations and treatments do these supposedly “superior sex” need? For radical feminists infatuated with bottomless sense of gender entitlement, simply giving women priority consideration for lucrative jobs (as do most Western countries) or setting up government-mandated gender quota (such as in Norway) are not enough, but also need to make sure that the companies women are affirmative-actioned into are successful, profitable companies - so that those women could keep getting those fat checks (presumably to balance the so-called gender pay-gap?) and take all the credits (to prove their gender’s superiority?) when the companies do stay on track and keep making profits independently of newly hired affirmative action CEOs in tight skirts.

Women who are candidates for CEO positions no less can’t even figure out if the companies they are applying are in trouble, and ready to whine and blame it on patriarchy when it indeed fail? They are worse than 22-year old college glads (boys). Hey, do we really still need female CEOs?
What’s the next new entitlement for women? A quota for women CEOs in well-to-do business, instead of failing ones? Mandatory appointment of men in these failing business? (to tarnish male CEO’s reputation in general)

Once the entitlement is conferred upon to one demographic group, it will be taken for granted by them and the demand for further entitlement will grow, instead of efforts by them to try to get on their feet.

Who needs female baseball umpire? (and which fish needs a bicycle?)

I always wonder, what happen if male players bark at female referee? Would it constitute “gender violence”? – since yelling is also a form of gender violence, as we are told (with one proviso that it is directed against women by men of course, if it is directed against men by women, it is 100% legitimate form of self-defence) Or is it a workplace harassment? Maybe as a result, the tender ref would not have high self-esteem. Maybe she will feel not welcomed or that players are hostile to her. Maybe he is not just protesting the ref’s judgment, maybe he’s trying to embarrass the ref in front of large crowd to make his point that this female ref should not be here.

And let’s not forget that even if, for the sake of the argument supposed that- a female umpire starts calling games in MLB (hope it never happens), feminists are not going to stop there. In fact, they will NEVER STOP at anything. Once one female umpire “shatter the ceiling”, then there will be calls for more female refs (until the ratio reach their favourite 5-50) and arguments on female umpires not being able to call opening games or playoffs or world series, etc., etc. Don’t let the feminists floodgate open by not letting them in at all in the first place.

Battle of sexes in tennis

I remember a few years back when the money earned by top female tennis pros in tournament prizes toped that of top male pros for a brief period (I am not a big tennis fan so I don’t remember when exactly), there was no voice from the same crowd calling for “equal pay for equal work”, but newspapers and politically-correct sports journalists were quite triumphant and ecstatic about women’s superior earning power in tennis. But that was then.

What can you expect from people who have no problem glorifying Ms King’s victory over male (ex-) champion in the battle of sexes and lionizing it as one of the proudest moment in the history of women in sports? What will happen if Nadar or someone around that level play against over-aged, fat, retired female tennis champion? Would he barely edge out after an exhaustingly long match or win without even breaking a sweat? Actually the King’s match should be listed as one of the dark moment when the reigning female champion had so much difficulty in beating old, retired male champion.

Female college coach in need of salvation by Title IX-style gender quota

When even die-hard feminists find it rather difficult to grumble about today’s women’s collegiate sports, and before leisurely start crushing down yet another male sports in pursuit of statistical gender equality (ummm, what will be next target – wrestling again?), they started to complain about the status of female coach in the collegiate sports. Even though title IX was intended to help female students, in other words, kids, feminists don’t bother expanding the scope of the law to include female coaches, or adults, as long as it benefit them. Talk of a jump-wagon mentality. Well, since Title IX in feminists’ worldview was not merely meant to increase the number of women in sports at college level, but rather to introduce sweeping change in the patriarchal structure within universities, I guess it’s alright to use it as a weapon to advance their agenda. But still I think feminists may wish to stop infantilizing female adults and treating them like students or kids who need kid-glove treatment from large bureaucracy just to keep their existence, or otherwise male coaches will start seeing female coaches in the same level as students, who are and in the constant need of multiple layers of protection by multiple layers of bureaucracies (Federal, State and university). And I guess feminists don't want that to happen, right? Indeed my guess is that they will yell at men in shrieking voice again if that happens.

Look how hard it is to sack female coaches once they are installed in the position, valid evaluation of female coaches’ poor performance would not matter a bit in the eyes of feminist lawyers, as they can always present female coaches’ unsubstantiated allegations as evidence and paint the college as an institution that is “sexist”, a magic word that blow away any logic or reasoning. This is a point that anyone who is in a position to hire someone for a position should keep in mind – firing of affirmative action employees will be much, much harder than of non-affirmative action employees. In addition to the prospect of facing almost-certain lawsuits by feminist, they will get constant pressure from affirmative action office for meeting certain gender/racial quota for positions.

Edward's wife in the limelight (because NY times wanted so)

Why is this article appearing in NY Times? Because feminists in NY Times needed to boost their self-confidence by featuring women in the main in a positive light. If men start to dominate the news, those male-hating type would feel depressed. If there aren't any other women to feature in Presidential race other than Hillary, then you just invent one. That's why sometimes Obama's wife needed to be pulled out of closet and be cast as if she is the one who counts just as much as, if not more, as her husband.

Lesbian family superior?

I wonder why do these lesbian people want their "mariage" or "family" be seen as normal. I thought in their worldview, family are the souce of all evil = patriarchy in the world. Family in traditional form is all evil but lesbian family is just as normal as traditional family??? Not just normal, but sometimes superior (when raising boys), and the whole society needs to promote lesbian "family"??

It looks like first these lesbians wanted to be left alone, and then treated as normal, then demands recognition of being superior in some aspects, then what next?

Emergency! We do not have enough black females in ballet!!!help! Help!!

Affirmative action mentality in every nook of the world series... this time astounding shortage of black females in ballet!!!

"Man tax", America style

I remember that there was a same kind of tax, simply labeled differently, proposed in Sweden but shot down by immediate public outcry. In Sweden it was named “man tax” ( I am not sure if this is exact translation from Swedish but this was the name I saw). A tax that was to be levied only against men because of their sin for born into a wrong gender that is guilty of oppression of the other gender until the latter half of last century. You might imagine that in a country where men are increasingly legislated into pee like women, there would be enthusiastic support for such a tax, both from women and men (with feminists` guns behind their back). But instead their was immediate public denunciation of such a sexist legislation. Seems like even Sweden still retains a bit of sanity. But not in America. Even this kind of blatantly discriminatory bill could be phrased and couched in benign terms by the hands of (or the tongues of, or the pens of ) gender feminists.

What a surprising article!

Is the author of this feminists-dogma shattering article still not banished? Is the editor of the Slate still not sentenced to mandatory gender-sensitivity training? If not, good for them. Hope it will continue to be so but I am not so optimistic.

Why diversity training does not work? Ask the right question

Of course it doesn`t. and it should not work. But the bigger, underlying issue is, why care? Diversity advocates would say all the nice, feel-good stuffs about promoting diversity in corporations, and will conclude that it would boost companies` profits. Really? Is there any statistics to prove that? Any statistics that is controlled for all the external variables that would affect companies performance and that can point to the pure economic benefits of promoting diversity? I`ve never seen that.

Most of the articles on this topic simply tout the virtue of having more women in senior jobs and praise how it boost companies` performance, but almost always without hard statistic to prove that. Even if they show the stats and they seem to support the claim, you need to be careful and need to consider a few points;

Did the performance gain occur after the gender affirmative action proramme was instituted or did it take place before?

Is the performance gain a direct result of gender quota or was it brought about by different factors, e.g. improved management, cost cutting, etc. and that gender quota programme simply coincided with the period of performance gain?

These kinds of hard questions may not really be amenable to feminists-inspired advocacy articles.

The most interesting thing about this kind of article for me is not that nobody really ask this kind of hard-nose question. It is rather that the initial question (why diversity training does not work) is not considered at all in the article, but quickly transformed into brainstorming session on how to increase women and minority at senior levels. The diversity training and gander/race balance are not the same; the latter is only one of several benefits that the former is supposed to bring, according to official party line of diversity advocates. But now you know what they care about the most (or the onky thing they care about) when advocates tout virtue of diversity.

Feminist terrorists

I found an interesting article on a feminist guerilla group…yes, of course, if guys can do it, gals can do it too, …only better! Maybe we should also mention feminist groups that raided Miss USA pageant and forced the event to be cancelled way back in the 1960’s or 70’s? Or maybe they should be called a feminist mob?, as the terrorist label for them would be a bit too much. Anyway, they too showed that physical violence is well within domains of newly liberated, empowered women.

Note how this second article treats Rote Zora in sympathetic light. I have to mention that this article was originally posted on website for anarchists (no, really!). Forget the anarchists’ website for a while, and maybe part of the reason why the group is cast in such a positive light and their physical violence aspect is downplayed is because the group was composed of women…? Wait, does it means that feminist terrorists have to even fight against sexism in anarchists’ writings?

Gender pay gap

Here goes again a periodic (maybe annual) ritual for this gender-feminist organization called AAUW to publish this self-serving report about gender wage-gap, and politically-correct media is more than happy again to become a mouthpiece for AAUW every time this cookie-cutter report is released.


There are a few ways to look at the issue.
1. Society is fair in paying less for people who feel no qualm about comparing apples and oranges and paint them as scientific study.

2. Society is fair in paying less for people who have little analytical capacity as to believe this kind of propaganda-filled, objective-analysis-free report is true.


Well, by now we should already know that this is a propaganda piece routinely put up by feminist organizations and being paraded as truth by liberal media. That is a FACT. We now have to move beyond that. Move beyond simply pointing out that this is a propaganda, etc, etc, and think about what we can do about this feminist-PC media collaboration.....