Reverse pay gap - borad directors

Uhhhh… where’s the outrage?? Where is NEWSWEEK’s 20-page special report on appalling wage discrimination against male corporate directors who were so discriminated against that they earn only 87 percent of what female directors earn?
I also looked through New York Times, Washington Post and the Time magazine for any special reports, article, or op-ed that bring the nation’s attention to this outrageous discrimination, but I found none. And then I realized, - oh, yes, it is WOMEN who is outearning men, not the other way around – of course in this case the whole media would go silent.

But why is the disparity? I could speculate a few reasons behind this.

Maybe the board has to put token women director in senior posts, which would come with higher compensations than the rest of directors – this would be understandable as corporations would naturally want to advertise their diversity efforts by putting the token hires in more visible, senior positions.

Also, a larger corporation are more likely to have additional financial resources to place token directors, who cannot contribute to substantive works but could contribute, by their very presence, to meet diversity goals and satisfy diversity-compliance monitors, and one could expect that compensations for directors at large corporations are higher than that of smaller corporations who may not have much room for diversity hires.

Of course, these are my mere speculations and do not have nay data to back up, but looks quite plausible. Maybe I should look into the data someday.

Coffee shop discrimination

I am always amazed by feminists' bottomless ability to find/cook up gender discrimination in every place imaginable. According to this article, it seems that women are discriminated against literally in every aspect of life, even in coffee shops, which to me seems a rather women-friendly world, with all the “double-macchiat,, blah, blah, blah,….. I don’t even pretend to understand those things on Starbuck’s menu. But one can definitely say that it is more feminine and women-friendly than, say, dive bars.

Is it a really discrimination that on average it takes longer time for coffee shops to serve women? Or is it because male employees spend more time to make sure that cups of coffee or cappuccino for female customers are made to exact recipes and taste perfect, while they don't bother to do so with orders by male customers because they couldn't care less about what male custmers think of them and thier coffees? Now it is discriminaton against whom? Do people really belive that the guys making cappuccinos, upon receiving orders from another sales asscoiate and upon knowing that the orders were placed by female customers, intentionally take another 20 seconds or so off just to remind them of women's place in society?

A few questions popped into my mind as I read the article;

Should Starbucks ban hiring of male employees, to preempt lawsuits by feminist lawyers?

And more importantly, do anyone even care about discrimination anymore? Now the new frontier in a battle for compete gender equality is formed in reducing waiting time for female customers at Starbucks. WHO CARES? Isn’t their any other pressing issues in this society than trying to spare 20 or so seconds of snobbish female customers who have a luxury of patronizing Starbucks?

And on Tim’s last point, it’s interesting to note that the McDonald in Japan has already introduced “women-only” floors, where only women customers are allowed to get in. While they didn’t ban men from getting into their premise entirely, this may be one way to pander more to women customers while not alienating male customers too much.


http://timharford.com/2007/11/smell-the-discrimination-undercover-economist/

Korean feminists

Oops, it was a “wrong” kind of woman, in the light of gender feminists’ approved ideal women model, because - she was a motherly, traditional woman. Trained in western man-hating brand of feminism, Korean feminists are up in arms against the recent government’s decision to put a woman on the face of its national banknote for the first time, and they are not going to be happy until they see trail-brazing, lesbian militant feminist-type in politics or military or large corporations (in other words, THEIR role model) adorn the banknotes.

In the western media (BBC) the “row” is rather simple and one-sided, a gender feminists’ rant against the decision of the government dominated by reactionary males, but local media (English version) reports a more complicated affair, with another feminist supporting the government’s decision by saying that the woman was actually a modern, western-type independent woman who was unfortunately portrayed as a “motherly” figure as a result of patriarchal conspiracy to keep women barefooted and pregnant, and that restoration of the woman was necessary. Very complicated indeed.

Anyway, if feminists were not happy with the public celebration of a historical woman in national banknotes, why not scrap it altogether? Who needs a little gender-mainstreaming and affirmative action in bank notes? Who wants to be reminded everyday as they reach for money in their wallets a result of gender feminists’ relentless push for affirmative action?

In some other countries (or regional organizations, to be more precise), they could not even celebrate any historical personality, however great their contribution to humanity and history might have been, because - it would discriminate against women. If they start putting faces of historical figures in banknotes, feminists argue, it would be almost all-male affair (understandably, of course). And since nothing carries more weight than feminists’ whims and words in the modern European life, the Euro banknotes do not to adorn any human faces on their notes. Quest for gender equality banned people from celebrating historical (male) personalities. It would not be long before that history would be dead in Europe because of feminism. But I guess they wouldn’t bother because they want to replace history (“his-story”) with “her-story”.

Operah Winfrey school

Note that the perpetrator of this sex crime is a WOMAN! But of course we cannot blame women for anything in this society, since women are the victims of patriarchal oppression . So the article tries to shit blame to society and (men, of course);


"perhaps because of the sexually freer environment that girls and women are experiencing and the portrayal of women as sex objects. "

But maybe even this female author sensed that shifting blame to soceity and men do not fly in this case, so she desparately try to muddle the issue....

"Most also come from extremely difficult, disorganized circumstances in which affection, love and relationships are deeply rooted in sexual behavior."

Typical Newsweek job.

Hillary's woman defence

So now it’s official that in the Democratic field for the Presidential race, we have six contenders, who discuss policy issues, trade questions and criticism at each other and could be and held responsible for one’s words and actions, and one who would only announce her policy and intentions but is above any criticism or question.

It portends what Hillary Presidency will look like, if it ever going to happen; she will only announce what she wants to do, or what her policy would be, and any criticism against her decisions or policies would be judged sexual discrimination and silenced by her cronies and liberal mainstream media. Maybe we should think again about whether America should elect someone only for the sake of achieving a diversity milestone and feel good about ourselves or if we want to elect someone who could be held accountable, who do not hide behind gender (or any other identity politic’s) victim card. U.S. Presidency is much, much more important than simply being a trophy for diversity movement. After all, isn’t it the cornerstone of democracy that citizens freely elect some one who is accountable to their constituents?

In a way Hillary is smart in letting her cronies do all the work of playing gender victim card, while she herself keep away from that kind of cheap trick. She could appear strong, statesmanlike, rising above the cheap gender card, all the while ensuring that her opponents and the media will think twice before leveling any criticism against her in the future. And it’s also a rare time that Ferraro could get a media spotlight, after her historic landslide defeat as a token woman candidate for Vice President of the U.S. She surely knows how to play the gender victim card very well because she was the foremost expert on this, in fact it is her only expertise in politics to this date, and her only qualification for VP candidacy was that she was a woman.

CIA, feminized

Espionage and intelligence collection ain’t what it used to be – just like any other organizations, public or private, CIA is not immune from relentless onslaught by litigation-happy gender-feminists. America’s battle against terrorism and other threats just got a little more complicated with adventure-seeking trail-brazing women types who see career advancement in the world’s foremost intelligence organizations as a part of their self-fulfillment and self-actualization. And when they are done with bean-counting of men and women at the rank and file and investigating subtle gender discrimination and hostile working environment, which they do when they are not doing their jobs as case offices or intelligence analysts, they are ready to launch a sexual discrimination lawsuit so that, the intelligence agency could proud itself as being at least gender-sensitive even when they are not winning its battle against terrorism and other threats.

Patriarch Verlch: The Biggest Anti-Feminist Known to Man!: A Tribute To the Much Maligned American Male!#links

Patriarch Verlch: The Biggest Anti-Feminist Known to Man!: A Tribute To the Much Maligned American Male!#links

Feminists want to control your perceptions

I don’t know exactly when it started, but from sometime in the late 20th century, feminism began to explore ways to regulate and control human’s mind at both conscious and unconscious levels. This was actually a quite a large shift in their focus from their previous emphasis on ensuring equal rights and opportunity in the external social and political settings (this endeavor seems to have ended by the 1960’s), to seeking statistical sameness in the behaviors of two sexes and working of inner minds of human being. This, needless to say, originates from their hypothesis that continuing non-existence of statistical parity in political and economical powers between the sexes (also termed as “gender discrimination” by some) and in their endless quest to achieve such statistical parity, in other words, equality of results. Subtle, even unconscious or sub-conscious bias of otherwise perfectly PC people may be hindering women’s progress in workplace, as they do not value masculine women who exhibits anger and aggressiveness, which is understood as a necessary elements to be successful in today’s cutting-edge, dog-eats-dog world of business and politics. What’s need to be done?

Maybe more researches need to be done to look into the psychology of human beings, and how they perceive gender roles and stereotypes. And subsequently more researches may be in order to rectify such biased perception of the people.

People’s inner mind, which many people would understandably consider to be the most private of all private lives, free of any governmental or outside control, could no longer be out of bounds, if biases in inner minds were “proven”, by some untouchable feminist advocacy groups, to be hindering women’s workplace progress.

Trying to regulate people’s inner mind poses fundamental challenges to ideas and principles of individual liberties and freedom. But such concern could be easily overrun by much larger societal need to urgently ensure the absolute statistical sameness between men and women.

After all, of course, these notions of individual liberties and freedom were created long long time ago, when women didn’t have a right to vote and when there was no affirmative action and gender quota, by a bunch of old men who kept their sorry housewives to mandane lives of domesticity while they engage in esoteric discussion on rights and freedom. Right, feminists?

Nancy Peloci

Look what happens when you give too much power to women. They would savor it, abuse it, in a scale that would even eclipse the worst of male-kind.

It is even exacerbated by the fact that a gang of blind supporters who would respond with shrill cry of sex discrimination at the slightest hint of criticism on any actions, statement made by people born with XX genes.

Feminization of a profession

This is quite an interesting article. By the way, both for and against the original idea by professor Clark - that feminization of medicine profession could lead to losing of influence and status - could be labeled as pro-women, and therefore, of course, anti-women. It depends on the gender of the speakers primarily and also on which side of the political spectrum you are coming from. Thus, men can always be labeled “sexist” whether you are for or against the original position – if you agree with Prof. Clark, you are sexist since you think that occupations consisting primarily of women have less stature, and if you oppose her view, you are denying the fact that those feminine fields are regarded in lower status than predominantly male profession, thus wanting to perpetuate the inequality.

Anyway, there is also a feminists’ favorite line that teachers’ salaries are low because it is a predominantly female occupation. I wonder if they ever care to consider some facts and numbers (which maybe difficult for women as Lawrence Sommers explained);

-Do the salary of teachers decline in real terms since the time when it was primarily male occupation?

-Or is it when compared to private sectors that teachers’ salaries are considered to be low?

-Or is it when compared to other public, government sectors?

-Would local governments be able to afford to pay law firm or hedgefund companies-like salaries to teachers?

-Do teachers and schools make huge financial profits from which they could be reimbursed as their salaries and bonuses?

-What are the qualifications of teachers and difficulties of getting in the field?

But of course, crunching numbers and talking data would not be as sexy and has as much headline-grabbing potential as simply shouting at the top of their voice that “Teacher’s salaries are low because of gender discrimination against predominantly female profession!”



http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/412

Karen hughes failed

It is intresting that all 3 persons charged with the task of promoting the US public diplomacy in Arab world after 9/11, including Karen Hughes herself, the perons who is subject of this article, are WOMEN. And all FAILED MISERABLY. Of course it is not all attributable to the fact that they were women (in fact maybe far from it), but for the record, it must be noted that these WOMEN failed. Because it is easy for many poeple in the liberal circle (and of course among feminist sisters) to get selective amneisa and recall only the achievements of women in senior roles and somehow start believing that women are better in politics and diplomacy.

It is also intersting to see that Hughes was not taken very well among Arab women. Here the Republican's uncharcteristic foray into Democrat-style feminist-pandering has failed. They should know that they shouldn't be playing by gender-feminist playbooks. It seems that even the so-called "oppressed Arab women" know that American-style militant feminism, characterized by its hatred against men and children (boys) and most of all, against family and family values, is not what they want.

In fact, there is something unsettling about the supposedly conservatie Bush admnistration's blind pursuit of diversity in its administration. The administration was even credited by some liebral media as the most diverse administration in history, but it seems that many of the "diversity" appointments have backfired (Gonzales, and now Hughes)

Immigrant women

A typical “You go, girl” advocacy article, with a hint of “what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine” mentality el Latino version.

Of course what husbands earn in foreign countries in hard and often dangerous labor remitted back home should totally belong to women, so that they can make important financial and household decisions, which may have been traditionally done by men, and thereby “empowering’ women, when these women do go to work in foreign countries, money is not going to flow to men back in their home countries, but of course, to other women, women relatives or friends. To put it simply, “Men’s money is mine, and my money is mine, or in the temporary custody of other female members of the family.” This is justified by one study done by some obscure organization that belongs to feminist-pandering United Nations (upon closer look it is an UN research institute that deal exclusively with women’s issue - so much for independent, objective study) since men are lazy and tend to squander money on unworthy things.

Wait, the radical feminist is not done with her one-sided gender bashing yet, she went on to complain that those men who are left behind do not take up new role of child rearing, in the mold of feminists’ ideal “new feminine-men”, and laments that the gender wage gap in “comparable works” (these words sound familiar, don’t they?) is persistent even in country like Argentina who is otherwise happy to elect the wife of current President as a new President and establish gender quota for women in the parliament. Their goal: use whatever resources and social phenomena, including men’s remittance from abroad, more female immigrants, to re-engineer society in the image of feminist utopia.

What's troubling here is this kind of gender-feminist's proponsity to look for every opportunity to "empower" women and blame patriarchy. If men work in foreign countries, it is not seen as sacrifice by men to earn money for families back home (by the way, "families" include not only wives, but children also, remember!), but opportunity to be capitalized, with the money men remit,and the void in household decision making authority. And if women work abroad and need to remit home, money is to go to female members of families, so that these women and the women immigrant themselves when they return home could use the resource as basis for further women's economic empowerment. What is entirely lacking throughout in the article is a viewpoint of, and the need of, "family", but in radical feminist's myopic world where outdoing men gets the ONLY priority, economic empowerment of women by whatever means takes precedent.

HELP!! - there are too few women rappers!!

Yes, of course, it is one of THE major issues facing UK, US and perhaps other western democratic countries, along with global warming and Darfur genocides and myriad of other problems – an APPALING DEARTH of female rappers. (British feminists like use the "appalled" whenever they discuss gender balances that are not in their favor - although they did not use the word this time) Even more troubling, according to this author, is that even when these endangered species that is female rappers do get rare media exposures, they often have to play up to stereotyped views of women, and appear sexy and adjust their lyrics to fit that stereotypes, rather than doing what they really want to do. There is nothing more that feminists hate than being stereotyped, maybe even more so than lack of gender balance.

TOO BAD that women aren’t given equal chance to yell “f..K” and ”ni...er” and other expletives as loud and as freely as men do.

But I’m sure that a small sub-section of radical feminists who work on women and media (or music or rap) issues are working around the clock to correct this "unacceptable" problem, carefully counting all the albums released and sold by men and women by all the record labels, do some “wage-gap” check on income of all male and female rappers, and keep all related statistics as they do when creating gender-discrimination hysteria in any other field, because that is what feminists is all about.

I guess this is also an area where "girl power" needs to be asserted. I remember one feminist very fondly reacted to a recent satistic on increasing violence by young women as a good sign that females are breaking stereotypes and asserting their own powers. Leaving aside the question of whether rappers are a good role model for young people or the kind of influence their music, lyrics and lifestyles bring on to young people, it is another area where MEN RULE, and according to feminist dicta, men's rule has to be challenged and destroyed anywhere, anytime. So much for a moral judgment but a pure display of hatred against men.

Being a man bad for the environment

Here is an article on a study that looks into a critical link between two of the most (politically-correct) issues today – environment and feminism. Now that these two are “proven” to be inter-linked, (it’s vouched by non other than the government of Sweden and the United Nations – no more “discussions”, but only “actions” are allowed - ) it is now official that persecuting men is good for the environment. Nature and women will join hand in hand to attack their enemy – men.



Come to think of it, not only men drive 3 out of 4 cars in Sweden (really?), but men owns most of the car companies, and other industrial manufactures and factories, large corporations that utilities (assuming that Sweden is still not tainted by Norwegian women-must-make-up-40%-of-boardroom law) that causes environmental havoc.

Wait, if we continue our current women-promotion and gender-bender programmes and increase women in boardrooms, champion women in untraditional roles like drivers, and meat eaters, would it increase women’s part in environmental destruction – do we need to start persecuting women also? No! Remember that women ARE the environment, the mother nature!

Very bureaucratic execution of a man

I don't know if the female judge closed the court at 5PM because the inmate was a man. But if the inmate was a woman, it would have been on her mind for a whole day, because the media wold have been reporting it for days, as "the first women to be executied in...." and run sympathetic stories after stories about her, how childhood abuse by father,stepfather, brothers or abusive spouse have caused her to commit the crime..usual "woman defence", and the female judge would have never though about closing the office at 5PM.
I'm also sure, as a woman, the judge had to leave at 5PM to tend to her family, beause as feminsts repeatedly tell us, that even career women are burdened with "double-shift", while men can simply focus on work and slouch in the couch rest of the time. So in a nutshel, it is men's fault, right?

Looking at women = illegal

This incredible new proposed bill from New York - my home town!

Why don't you simply make it illegal for men to BREATH? That's the fastest and easiest way to get rid of all men from the street, if that's what women and feminists want. Instead of proposing, debating, amending and passing thousands of new laws that are designed to criminalize various activitiesof men and ensnarle more and more men into prisons, why not just have one comprehensive bill? It will save lots of time, energy and resources that would have been otherwise spent on considering numerous anti-male bills. It is good for environment and saves cost.

Criminalizing prostitution

Here is an interesting line from the far-left Guardian….

“In some parts of the UK, up to 80% of the women working indoors are from other countries, but only a minority of them are trafficked. According to Lithuanian anti-trafficking police, even trafficked women often know that they are coming to the UK to work in the sex industry. They make the decision to come because they are living in poverty.”

This would weaken the case presented by feminist groups on anti-trafficking (plus some conservative groups as well), who want to imprint the image that ALL women from foreign countries are TRAFFICKED, and trafficked AGAINST THEIR WILLS. Ooops, how could Guardian editorials missed this line which contravene their official line? I don’t know.

I’ve always had impressions that, however pitiful their plight may be, it is hard to understand that those trafficked women did not know anything about the actual work that they had to do (prostitution) when they were recruited in Romania or Hungary or elsewhere…even though they are young and maybe mostly uneducated, at least they’ve got to have some sense of what’s going on, especially if it such a widespread phenomenon as feminists claim…

While experience and studies have shown that criminalizing prostitutions does not work, that does not matter to ideologically-driven feminists (and again, right-wingers, too). The reality needs to fit their ideology, not the other way around.

“Such a law was introduced in Sweden eight years ago, but research has shown that instead of wiping out street prostitution, it has simply become more hidden, placing the women involved in it at greater risk of violence from punters. The most socially marginalised women who work on the streets have suffered most. Meanwhile, sex for sale on the internet has increased.”

Women's soccer

Just rambling thoughts on women’s soccer. Like many other women’s sports, women’s soccer is not just a form of entertainment, but a noble political cause in itself. To play, to watch, to root for and to cover the games in media all are acts of noble political cause that elevate the status of women in sports and the agenda of feminism. The better the quality of the game, the more fans pack the stadium, the more viewers tune in, the more coverage it gets in the press, the standing of the women’s soccer increase vis-à-vis men’s soccer and in the whole sports. Thus ensues mainstream media’s understandable (in a politically-correct atmosphere) rush to exhort plays in the Women’s World Cup, when most of the male soccer fans know the level of play is quite dismal, (especially those of keepers), give more-than-deserved time in TV broadcast and space in printed papers, and treat some of the female players like true heroes who should be treated in the same vain as way as male star players. It’s all about equality, isn’t it?

Equally rampant are self-congratulations about how the sport is growing, how it help’s girls’ self-esteem, how it empowers women, how it help defy gender stereotypes, etc. etc. all the usual litany of feminists' hyperboles. At the same, interestingly enough, when the women’s sport is supposedly doing superb, media also wail on the sorry state of the sport, e.g. how it is held in low regard, how little support it gets from sport’s association compared to male counterparts, how little (or none) they are being paid, etc. etc., - this is where feminists' adrenaline and their man-hating instincts kicks in, and blast about how the male-dominated soccer associations in many countries, media, fans and society at large discriminate against women and girls.

Watching soccer on TV is not relaxing activities that you can enjoy while slouching in your couch on weekends. That is, when you watch women’s soccer. The experience might not be as relaxed and enjoyable, as you are constantly bombarded with female commentators’ political agitprops about the greatness of women’s game, and the plays you see on TV should rather belong to high school sports, but at least you can take comfort in the fact that you are participating in a noble act of empowering women, taking part in feminists’ crusade against men and patriarchy.

YOU MUST VOTE for the Madame President

Here is a peice that goes "YOU HAVE TO VOTE HILLARY BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!!".

I amazed that the author of this article actually went so far as to say that guys (Obama and Edwards) cannot and should not be the President because they are “guys”. I think it’s OK for him to say these things without fear of repercussion because, first, he is are discriminating against men and it is sooooo OK in this country, and second, he is also a black, which means that he is not going to be fired since the management will be in trouble for diversity non-compliance for one less black face in the editorial room.

But one thing he may got right is that women can only vote for other women, because, well, they are women and do not have ability to weigh pros and cons of each candidacy and see deeply into policy alternatives offered by different candidates. Maybe those analytical traits, fair and balanced, belong only to men. Maybe women are a kind of species that could only see the sex of the candidates, could note only whether they speak in high tone, wear skirts, wear pink or red clothes, and have breasts and bigger hips. And if none of the candidates have breasts or large hips, then maybe, maybe look at policy issues. Maybe women are so myopic in their visions and entrapped in a feeling-based, analysis-free thinking that could only care about being in a very, very good mood on November 2008 over the fact that a woman finally become the President, but could not and do not care to think about the political, economic and social long-term consequences that the Hillary presidency might bring. And these people now comprise majority of American electorates – isn’t it a tragedy?

if you endorse the author's view, then you agree with the above statement.

What media is trying to do here is to frame the Clinton candidacy as a sort of referendum on women becoming the US President. Instead of asking what Hillary has done in the past and what she would do in the future, and whether it is good or bad for America, the questions are framed as "whether Americans are ready for Madame President?" or "Americans are sexist enough to not vote for Hillary?" This is a very shrewd tactics. Of course if questions are framed in these ways, most Americans, who do not want to be caught saying politicaly-incorrect thing, would answer that they are ready to elect a female president - but that does not necessarily mean that they want Hillary to be the one. But the media hastily treat this as people's endorsement of Hillary as the next President. I don't know how long this kind of CHEAP TRICK would work.

I would imagine that as Clinton's campaign starts to flounder, and trail behind Guilliani, she and her mediA allies would resort to usual "women" defence. A kind of defence that were in full display when French female presidential candidate Ms. Royal sank behind THE eventual and WELL-deserved winner Mr. Sarkozy in the polls right before the election. You know, "The media, the society are sexist, biased against women", "I was unfairly attacked for being a woman", or "Men are still afraid of women in power", that kind of usual emotional rhetoric favoured by feminists.

MI5 calls for more woman applicants

Feminists are eager to cry discrimination and call for immediate remedies as soon as the women’s gender ratio in British intelligence agency drops to 44 %, - which wouldn’t be such a lopsided figure in the first place, but maybe quite a decrease from “more than half” that they were enjoying in the 1990s. Wait, let’s say that the “more than half” were, say, 55 or 56 percent, consequently men’s ratio would have been 45 or 44 percent respectively – that is same as the current percentage of women! Were there any outcry and remedial measures to correct the “gender imbalance”? Of course not! Gender-balance discussion is always only one-way street – how to increase ratio of women.

By the way, I think 44 percent, or above 40 percent is a range of gender balance that even Swedish feminists, who are in no way less militant than their British counterparts, view as acceptable, but evidently not British feminists.

Is there any correlation between the large percentage of women in the agency and the its recent intelligence failures, such as the London bombing? I know, it’s a question no one could ask without being held criminally responsible for bigotry and misogyny. If the intelligence agency’s central focus is on recruiting a kind of people who are most attracted by such socialism perks as two full year of maternity leave, then the prospect for winning the fight against terrorism and crimes are not really bright. It will only make the agency look more like a postal office or other sleepy bureaucratic office. And what if significant portion of its employees (don’t forget that women in their 40’s and 50’s get pregnant these days) take up to 2 years of consecutive leave – it will undoubtedly cripple the organization.