So Hillary has lost and nobody is dancing to the tunes of “Augusta national club is the hotbed of patriarchal conspirarcy” anymore, feminists at the NYT needed some new target to prey on and continue their feminists’ media campaign for creating the ‘women under siege” illusion. And there it is, Phoenix Country Club. Never mind that many public buildings and facilities seem to set up to favor women over men and therefore discriminates against men (New York recently passed a law stating that all new buildings need to install at least 2 public bathrooms for women for every one bathroom for male), one savvy female reporter find out that one room out of a many rooms that a private club in Phoenix, Arizona has, is for men-only. From that moment, her indomitable quest to portray it as the of center of power relations in all of Arizona, failure of becoming a member or of partaking in the ritual grilling in that particular room would be such a career-ending blow for all aspiring Arizonians (do they call that?), male and female alike. (but the governor and at least one US senator, who just happens to be the Republican presumptive nominee and possibly be the next US President, are not even members of the club) She does not forget to insinuate how that policy hinders women’s progress in the states of Arizona (wait, did the female reporter just mentioned that the states has female governor, secretary of state, chief justice, etc…..?) When the world and society are changing so rapidly, it is at least a bit comforting to know that at least there is one thing that remains the same, one media outlet that churn same propaganda piece in the same line like a broken record.
Nice Spot to Eat After Golf, but Women Are Barred
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Best article on feminists' whining on Hllary's defeat
Wow. This is one of the best articles written by anyone in the media about the never-ending feminists whining. I am somehow relieved to learn that people could still voice their criticims of women and feminism -I thought it was criminalized years ago-oh that was in Sweden, feminists' paradise? Or was it in Spain which introduced law forcing men to do housework and the only political news from the country is that pregnant young woman becoming the defence minister, just for the diversity's sake? The next prime minister has to do even more acrobatic appointment, like appointing three-legged half-human, half-sheep as foreign minister to further elevate the country's record on "diversity"...Sorry, back to the point, Hitchenson rules!!!
NOW's reaction to the death of a reporter
This from NOW's press release: "Our condolescences goes out for Tim Russert's family, but we never forget that he was the one who effectively put an end to Hillary Clinton's history-making run for the Presidency, with his pronouncement on TV that Hillary's chance is essntialy zero, on the night of her "big" win in Indiana and a "close" showing in North Carolina. Now the number one priority for NBC is to fill his position with a woman, any woman, so that "she" can be a role model for millions and millions of women and young girls. It is a high time to break the monoploy of an anchor position of an influential TV program by white males.
Consolation prize for feminists
Katie, just like Hillary, is obviously trying to capitalize on the so-called sexism charges to her salvage her standing and her show which is stuck at the bottom. It seems now that drumming up the charges of sexsim is her only hope. Hopefully there is enough dummy people to believe it.
Feminists in media are just plain furious at Hillary’s loss, and since their worldview direct them to blame every misfortune and wished did not come true on men, Hillary’s loss could not be attributed to her bad campaigning or anything else, but only to the sexism in media and society.
Now, as the second consolation prize of prospect for veep spot for Hillary is also fading away, feminists are trying to drum up the charges of sexism and start national dialogue on sexism, as their third consolation prize. Now we know that it is not only Hillary, but the entire feminists in media, who are zombies.
Feminists in media are just plain furious at Hillary’s loss, and since their worldview direct them to blame every misfortune and wished did not come true on men, Hillary’s loss could not be attributed to her bad campaigning or anything else, but only to the sexism in media and society.
Now, as the second consolation prize of prospect for veep spot for Hillary is also fading away, feminists are trying to drum up the charges of sexism and start national dialogue on sexism, as their third consolation prize. Now we know that it is not only Hillary, but the entire feminists in media, who are zombies.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Here goes Hirshman again
Yet another cookie-cutter article from Linda Hirshman. This is an article in which old white feminist come to rescue another old white feminist. It;'s quite symbolic and the most salient feature of the Hillary campaign. Of course to most feminist, any negative description or portrayal of women is a product of patriarchy.
Given this display of old-fahioned, man-hating feminism on full-frontal display everywhere, among Hillary's surrogates (mostly old white women), among her staffs(ditto), among her supporters(ditto), the question now is why blue-class white men are voting for her. That is the biggest mystery in this race. They should realize what die-hard feminists like Hillary, who so far did not ostensibly display that side of her during this campaign - as it ironically turned out that it was "white male" votes that count (much to the chigrin of feminists like Hirshman)-, really think of males. When is the last time she showed concern for men? When did she adressed issues specific to men? Equal pay? Health care reform? "The highest glass ceiling" non-sense? I don't think so. All are based on old, tired feminist dogma that put men as a culprit of all evils in the world. Neanderthall males fearful of modern, ambitious, capable women disriminates against them in wages in an effort to keep them as child-bearing machine. that's how Hirshman and Hillary think of men.
In her feminist utopia, men have no place to live or breathe except as servants of emanicipated femalekind or punching bags.
Given this display of old-fahioned, man-hating feminism on full-frontal display everywhere, among Hillary's surrogates (mostly old white women), among her staffs(ditto), among her supporters(ditto), the question now is why blue-class white men are voting for her. That is the biggest mystery in this race. They should realize what die-hard feminists like Hillary, who so far did not ostensibly display that side of her during this campaign - as it ironically turned out that it was "white male" votes that count (much to the chigrin of feminists like Hirshman)-, really think of males. When is the last time she showed concern for men? When did she adressed issues specific to men? Equal pay? Health care reform? "The highest glass ceiling" non-sense? I don't think so. All are based on old, tired feminist dogma that put men as a culprit of all evils in the world. Neanderthall males fearful of modern, ambitious, capable women disriminates against them in wages in an effort to keep them as child-bearing machine. that's how Hirshman and Hillary think of men.
In her feminist utopia, men have no place to live or breathe except as servants of emanicipated femalekind or punching bags.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Obama boys' "sexism"
On the eve of big Pennsylvania primary, when it is becoming increasingly evident to everyone, including even the most ardent Hillary supporters, that Hillary’s (so-called) history-making run for President is coming to a close, younger generation of women are resorting to tactics now that have been preferred by their older sisters.
Those younger generation of women/feminists' tactics-as told by arche-type of older generation of feminist linda Hirshman is:
-Blame Obama-boys for sexism. It doesn’t matter whether you can point out evidence or not; as usual, women’s “gut” feeling, plus a simple fact that these Obama boys are not voting for a woman, is unmistakable sign of sexism. I thought women are better at describing their feelings, with all their superiority in language and literatures etc., but all these women can do is to say that they have this sort of “gut feeling” that sexism is alive and well, and this is the reason Hillary’s candidacy is now in the tank. And she keep repeating stories of those young women who have never heard their male colleagues or friends, families say anything explicitly "sexist", even by today's very low threshold for judging everything "sexist", all of them knew there's something about those men that tell them that they are closet "sexist" and try to make readers into believing that the sheer number of those "gut feeling", their collective weight, is somehow genuinely the evidence of "sexism". it shows that women are not good t logical thinking or have a sound reasoning; "gut feeling" will become a "fact" if it comes in large numbers; at some point there is no more a need for evidence or proof.
The articles (Hirshman's and the two articles mentioned in her article) also show that women, both old and young, are not accustomed to, or not mature enough, to distinguish between criticism and their imagined attacks by males based on (of course) sexism (what else?). They are simply not used to be on the receiving end of criticism or harsh words. they think that simply by throwing all-utility killer questions, "Is she being criticized because she is a woman?"(version 1), or "If she was a man, would they riticize in the same way?"(version 2), somehow men would be too scared to continue question/criticize women. It is a good, battle-tested tactic; nobody would be able to answer such purely hypothetical question definitively, and simply by not being able to answer definitively, the doubts were somehow substantiated; yes, "it is because she is a woman" that she is being criticized. The questions throw men off balance. The questions, once uttered, magically stops men from further questioning, women will have breathing space and time to recover.
In the lady-first western culture, women get used to having men do everything for them, give credit for them, and on top of that, take all the blames for them. before daydreaming that there will be vagina warriors in the oval office, femnists should first get used to women being question and criticized, becuase that's what's supposed to happen to people in power. The questioning of people in power is sfunction of healthy democracy. Feminists conveninently forget this very basic principel of democracy and think that all positions of power are to be offered to women just becuase they are women, and no question asked, and with no accompanying responsibilities. I think they will need 40 or 50 more Hillary-like politicians getting pummeled and scrutinized,and be mentall prepared for harsh but legitimate criticism.
The sad thing that become apparent from these three articles is that, with all the options and opportunities that were made available to them, women still decide which candidate to vote for on the basis for who their mothers vote for,(and will vote for opposing candidate as a way of saying "I hate yoou mommmeeee!!") and what their “gut feeling” tells them about the dark interior motive behind males voting pattern so that they can vote for the opposing candidate (again). And politicians are supposed to woo these voters. And media loves to portray women having decidedly big say in election, as a large voting bloc, swing voters, as a good, progressive thing.
The problem is not that consciously or unconscious sexism by Obama-boysm, as the author claims. The real problem is the mentality (unconscious) among those young women who simply can’t live with the fact that a woman politician could come with so much dirty political baggage. After all, they were taught all their lives in schools (especially in universities) that women are fair creatures, source of all goodness in the world while all the evil in the world are brought on by men, and that behind the sins of all the women who do bad things, there are men or male dominate society at large who caused women to do such bad things. They cannot stomach the fact that women politicians could be incompetent, or liar, or simply power-mongers. if they (are taught to) belive in the unbonded possibility of women, why are they so reluctant to belive in the women's possibility to be a horrible public figures?
Those younger generation of women/feminists' tactics-as told by arche-type of older generation of feminist linda Hirshman is:
-Blame Obama-boys for sexism. It doesn’t matter whether you can point out evidence or not; as usual, women’s “gut” feeling, plus a simple fact that these Obama boys are not voting for a woman, is unmistakable sign of sexism. I thought women are better at describing their feelings, with all their superiority in language and literatures etc., but all these women can do is to say that they have this sort of “gut feeling” that sexism is alive and well, and this is the reason Hillary’s candidacy is now in the tank. And she keep repeating stories of those young women who have never heard their male colleagues or friends, families say anything explicitly "sexist", even by today's very low threshold for judging everything "sexist", all of them knew there's something about those men that tell them that they are closet "sexist" and try to make readers into believing that the sheer number of those "gut feeling", their collective weight, is somehow genuinely the evidence of "sexism". it shows that women are not good t logical thinking or have a sound reasoning; "gut feeling" will become a "fact" if it comes in large numbers; at some point there is no more a need for evidence or proof.
The articles (Hirshman's and the two articles mentioned in her article) also show that women, both old and young, are not accustomed to, or not mature enough, to distinguish between criticism and their imagined attacks by males based on (of course) sexism (what else?). They are simply not used to be on the receiving end of criticism or harsh words. they think that simply by throwing all-utility killer questions, "Is she being criticized because she is a woman?"(version 1), or "If she was a man, would they riticize in the same way?"(version 2), somehow men would be too scared to continue question/criticize women. It is a good, battle-tested tactic; nobody would be able to answer such purely hypothetical question definitively, and simply by not being able to answer definitively, the doubts were somehow substantiated; yes, "it is because she is a woman" that she is being criticized. The questions throw men off balance. The questions, once uttered, magically stops men from further questioning, women will have breathing space and time to recover.
In the lady-first western culture, women get used to having men do everything for them, give credit for them, and on top of that, take all the blames for them. before daydreaming that there will be vagina warriors in the oval office, femnists should first get used to women being question and criticized, becuase that's what's supposed to happen to people in power. The questioning of people in power is sfunction of healthy democracy. Feminists conveninently forget this very basic principel of democracy and think that all positions of power are to be offered to women just becuase they are women, and no question asked, and with no accompanying responsibilities. I think they will need 40 or 50 more Hillary-like politicians getting pummeled and scrutinized,and be mentall prepared for harsh but legitimate criticism.
The sad thing that become apparent from these three articles is that, with all the options and opportunities that were made available to them, women still decide which candidate to vote for on the basis for who their mothers vote for,(and will vote for opposing candidate as a way of saying "I hate yoou mommmeeee!!") and what their “gut feeling” tells them about the dark interior motive behind males voting pattern so that they can vote for the opposing candidate (again). And politicians are supposed to woo these voters. And media loves to portray women having decidedly big say in election, as a large voting bloc, swing voters, as a good, progressive thing.
The problem is not that consciously or unconscious sexism by Obama-boysm, as the author claims. The real problem is the mentality (unconscious) among those young women who simply can’t live with the fact that a woman politician could come with so much dirty political baggage. After all, they were taught all their lives in schools (especially in universities) that women are fair creatures, source of all goodness in the world while all the evil in the world are brought on by men, and that behind the sins of all the women who do bad things, there are men or male dominate society at large who caused women to do such bad things. They cannot stomach the fact that women politicians could be incompetent, or liar, or simply power-mongers. if they (are taught to) belive in the unbonded possibility of women, why are they so reluctant to belive in the women's possibility to be a horrible public figures?
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Gee, I hate this article, we need more women (in powerful positions, of course)!!
Why women like Ms. Pollitt thinks that just seeing an article she dislikes appearing in the Washington Post is a good enough justification for gender quota in the editorial room, etc.? It will be good for her and her less-talented sister journalist to get ahead of more talented male colleagues, but should life be that easy for women (or for anyone, for that matter)?
Old white women's dying wish
It is quite interesting that quite a large number of very old white women innocently and almost pitifully say that they wish to see a woman President before they die.
We all want to help very old women, right? When we see them having trouble crossing a street, or carrying heavy stuffs, we stop whatever we are doing and help them first, right? And when these very old women, whose days on the earth are limited, have a wish that they want to see happen before they die, we want to do everything in our power to make it happen, right? And these old women want to see Hillary as president – what kind of a bastard would do anything that would remotely make that prospect smaller? We should be spend all our off-hours online-donating, volunteering, calling up voters, caucusing and voting for HER, right?
Maybe very old white men might have kissed their racist past goodbye and might have voted for Obama but many of them have died already. Most of the senior citizens are women. For them, they do not have to worry about race guilt, because they have another victimhood to hide under; women. It doesn’t matter that some of them might have been, or still is, very racist, and even might have been guilty of, especially in the South, accusing innocent black men of raping her (or just staring lusciously at her), and have white brothers beat them up back in the 50s and 60s when nobody questioned white women’s innocence and black men’s guilt.
But if you are very old citizen, and if you worry even a least bit about your grandkids or future generations, you should not be so selfish and impose Hillary on the rest of us. Allow me to be very blunt, (and impolite), but to put it directly, old people may die soon, even before HER inauguration, but all the rest of us, young and not so young and kids under voting age, would have to suffer the consequences of old people’s dyng wish for four / eight years. Is it fair? Is it the legacy that you want to leave for the succeeding generations? If you lived all your life being selfish, can’t you stop being selfish for a moment and think about your grandkids? If you lived all your life always being nice and fair, thinking about others, that is very great; can you do one more, final favour?
We all want to help very old women, right? When we see them having trouble crossing a street, or carrying heavy stuffs, we stop whatever we are doing and help them first, right? And when these very old women, whose days on the earth are limited, have a wish that they want to see happen before they die, we want to do everything in our power to make it happen, right? And these old women want to see Hillary as president – what kind of a bastard would do anything that would remotely make that prospect smaller? We should be spend all our off-hours online-donating, volunteering, calling up voters, caucusing and voting for HER, right?
Maybe very old white men might have kissed their racist past goodbye and might have voted for Obama but many of them have died already. Most of the senior citizens are women. For them, they do not have to worry about race guilt, because they have another victimhood to hide under; women. It doesn’t matter that some of them might have been, or still is, very racist, and even might have been guilty of, especially in the South, accusing innocent black men of raping her (or just staring lusciously at her), and have white brothers beat them up back in the 50s and 60s when nobody questioned white women’s innocence and black men’s guilt.
But if you are very old citizen, and if you worry even a least bit about your grandkids or future generations, you should not be so selfish and impose Hillary on the rest of us. Allow me to be very blunt, (and impolite), but to put it directly, old people may die soon, even before HER inauguration, but all the rest of us, young and not so young and kids under voting age, would have to suffer the consequences of old people’s dyng wish for four / eight years. Is it fair? Is it the legacy that you want to leave for the succeeding generations? If you lived all your life being selfish, can’t you stop being selfish for a moment and think about your grandkids? If you lived all your life always being nice and fair, thinking about others, that is very great; can you do one more, final favour?
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Another feminist orgy in Newsweek
What is all this feminist orgy going on in Newsweek? Obama could never had such a lopsided coverage in favour of him even after 11 consecutive wins, but Hillary does, even with one not-exactly-landslide win in predominantly white, old, blue-color State and barely holding onto a popular vote win (and possibly losing out on a delegate count) in what was once her firewall State. It looks like all the old, white female writers in the Newsweek came out from hiding from the long and disappointing February and chanting feminists roar. February must have felt like forever for these ladies who were frustrated by black men utterly clobbering old white woman in Presidential nomination race (it didn’t help that there was an additional day in the month). Gee, in old days, white women in the South could accuse innocent black men who they don’t like of rape and have their white brothers beat them up. That was only 40 years ago. What a difference time makes, now all they could do was their feminist heroin and her campaign fumbling. ( I wonder how many of those very old white women who innocently say “I want to see a woman President in my lifetime”, actually are guilty of accusation of false rape against black men in the 50’s and 60’s.)
Why is this feminist media orgy, and no party for Obama? Let’s see how many African-Americans are in Newsweek, as writers, staffers, etc. I don’t see many (in fact none of the opinion writers are black). Now let’s see how many women are there? Many. I don’t know how many more junior writers and staffers are women, but I suspect a lot of them. Those old white women in the Newsweek, just like in Ohio or Texas or almost all the States who had primaries and caucuses, are just expressing their preferences. As old feminist guards, they practice what they preach. They are writers and staffers in the Newsweek, one of the preeminent weekly magazines, and it is read by millions of people, Their articles and coverage have influence on what people talk and how people think. They use there position to advance their agenda. If their heroin sister finally got a moment to shine a little, blow it out of proportion. If it is for a good cause, such old and tired media principle as a balanced and objective reporting could wait a while. Plus, March is a women’s month, so what’s wrong with it? Plus, this is not the first time Newsweek’s women hijacked entire issue. It’s funny how Hillary whine about media bias, when in most of the media, Newsweek and others, you will see so many old white women type, well-educated, pant-suit wearing, shoulder-pat feminists.
Why is this feminist media orgy, and no party for Obama? Let’s see how many African-Americans are in Newsweek, as writers, staffers, etc. I don’t see many (in fact none of the opinion writers are black). Now let’s see how many women are there? Many. I don’t know how many more junior writers and staffers are women, but I suspect a lot of them. Those old white women in the Newsweek, just like in Ohio or Texas or almost all the States who had primaries and caucuses, are just expressing their preferences. As old feminist guards, they practice what they preach. They are writers and staffers in the Newsweek, one of the preeminent weekly magazines, and it is read by millions of people, Their articles and coverage have influence on what people talk and how people think. They use there position to advance their agenda. If their heroin sister finally got a moment to shine a little, blow it out of proportion. If it is for a good cause, such old and tired media principle as a balanced and objective reporting could wait a while. Plus, March is a women’s month, so what’s wrong with it? Plus, this is not the first time Newsweek’s women hijacked entire issue. It’s funny how Hillary whine about media bias, when in most of the media, Newsweek and others, you will see so many old white women type, well-educated, pant-suit wearing, shoulder-pat feminists.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
My comments on yesterday's mini Super Tuesday, or Super tuesday II...
Now most mainstream media talk as if the next Pennsylvania primary is going to be a key battle for for both Hillary and Obama. ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Obama only needs to stay comfortably close to Hillary and then it's his de facto strategic win, since he's so far ahead in the delegates count. Don't be duped into Hillary's raising expectation game...PA is Hillary's State, because of its demographics and all major power players in the State, most notably the governor himself, is relentlessly campaigning for her. The State was heavily titled for her (20% and more) and the gap is now closing.
It is like saying Mississipi is a key State for Hillary to keep momentum and she absolutely need to win, if she's to be able to make inroads in Blacks, but nobody's saying that. (well, it's much smaller state but the point is that every state has demographic characteristics that favour one candidiate). But media are already in the mindset that if Hillary could keep PA, by even a small margins like 5 points, that proves Hillary is on her way to coronation! - What a non-sense. You set a bar so low that you are very likely to pass it, but spin it as a major, major victory.
The narratives of 2 weeks ago, right after Wisconsin blowput for Obama, was that Hillary needed to win Texas and Ohio, BOTH and in both VERY BIG. Now did she achieved that? Of course not!!! She only narrowly beat Obama in TX, by 3 %, and delegate pickups are minimal. (Could be noen depending on the outocme of the caucuses) In OH, you could barely call it a "big" win, if "big" win eans double-digit victory. 10 is the smallest double digit. Remember, in both States, Hillary was up 20% just a few weeks ago, and OH and TX were both Hillary States to begin with, for its demographics (OH) and Bill's popularity among Hispanics (TX). Actually, to be honest, I was also surprised to see Obama went down in TX, but that actually proves how much he had made inroads in just a few weeks to became a heavy favourite there. Another point, Obama lost his edges among independents, trailed badly again among women, Hispanics, low income voters, and older voters in TX and OH. This looks familiar, losing its base or coalition"? When hillary got her base eaten in Winsonsin by Obama, she was pummelled in the poll (17 point). But when Obama got his base eatne, he still nearly tied in TX (only 3 %, baby). Tell me who is doing better and winning.
Now most mainstream media talk as if the next Pennsylvania primary is going to be a key battle for for both Hillary and Obama. ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Obama only needs to stay comfortably close to Hillary and then it's his de facto strategic win, since he's so far ahead in the delegates count. Don't be duped into Hillary's raising expectation game...PA is Hillary's State, because of its demographics and all major power players in the State, most notably the governor himself, is relentlessly campaigning for her. The State was heavily titled for her (20% and more) and the gap is now closing.
It is like saying Mississipi is a key State for Hillary to keep momentum and she absolutely need to win, if she's to be able to make inroads in Blacks, but nobody's saying that. (well, it's much smaller state but the point is that every state has demographic characteristics that favour one candidiate). But media are already in the mindset that if Hillary could keep PA, by even a small margins like 5 points, that proves Hillary is on her way to coronation! - What a non-sense. You set a bar so low that you are very likely to pass it, but spin it as a major, major victory.
The narratives of 2 weeks ago, right after Wisconsin blowput for Obama, was that Hillary needed to win Texas and Ohio, BOTH and in both VERY BIG. Now did she achieved that? Of course not!!! She only narrowly beat Obama in TX, by 3 %, and delegate pickups are minimal. (Could be noen depending on the outocme of the caucuses) In OH, you could barely call it a "big" win, if "big" win eans double-digit victory. 10 is the smallest double digit. Remember, in both States, Hillary was up 20% just a few weeks ago, and OH and TX were both Hillary States to begin with, for its demographics (OH) and Bill's popularity among Hispanics (TX). Actually, to be honest, I was also surprised to see Obama went down in TX, but that actually proves how much he had made inroads in just a few weeks to became a heavy favourite there. Another point, Obama lost his edges among independents, trailed badly again among women, Hispanics, low income voters, and older voters in TX and OH. This looks familiar, losing its base or coalition"? When hillary got her base eaten in Winsonsin by Obama, she was pummelled in the poll (17 point). But when Obama got his base eatne, he still nearly tied in TX (only 3 %, baby). Tell me who is doing better and winning.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Neanderthals and gender roles
The most interesting part of this new book "Logic of Life", written by Tim Hartford, a bestselling author of "Undercover Economist", is the theory on the reason why Neanderthals died out, losing competition to Homo sapiens. Neanderthals did not have division of labor, while Homo sapiens did. And the division of labor here specifically means division of labor between MEN and WOMEN. Division of labor, come to think of it, is such a basic social arrangement which improves work efficiency dramatically and has been employed since the earliest time in history.
But in the 21st century, in the name of gender equality, Western societies are trying feverishly to do away with any division of labor between men and women. They argue that division of labor between men and women, a.k.a. traditional gender roles, is what kept women at home and hindered their fuller actualization / realization as a human being. But just ask why would anyone want to force clumsy, smelly, hairy men to take care of newborn babies? Their skin is coarse, unsanitary, and their voices low – not something that babies usually like. And why would anyone want to put women in military special forces, when they can't lift heavy weapons by themselves? Their maybe some valid biological reasons, why across all societies and all ages, women are the ones who take care of babies, and men are the ones who went to fighting. Maybe, just like Neanderthals were, 21st century Western countries are on its way to extinction.
But in the 21st century, in the name of gender equality, Western societies are trying feverishly to do away with any division of labor between men and women. They argue that division of labor between men and women, a.k.a. traditional gender roles, is what kept women at home and hindered their fuller actualization / realization as a human being. But just ask why would anyone want to force clumsy, smelly, hairy men to take care of newborn babies? Their skin is coarse, unsanitary, and their voices low – not something that babies usually like. And why would anyone want to put women in military special forces, when they can't lift heavy weapons by themselves? Their maybe some valid biological reasons, why across all societies and all ages, women are the ones who take care of babies, and men are the ones who went to fighting. Maybe, just like Neanderthals were, 21st century Western countries are on its way to extinction.
Old white women's dying wish
Leading article from NY Times (on the web), a night after Obama’s another comprehensive win in overwhelmingly white and blue-collar state.
One woman’s response to often-repeated line by many old white women that justifies Hillary’s candidacy; ‘I want to see a woman president before I die,”
Her response; “But you know what? That’s a selfish reason to vote for a president just because you want to see a woman before you die,” she added. “What about the kids coming up? I feel we should vote for the young people.”
Good point. Right. Those old white ladies would die soon after Hilary became President, if their wish comes true. All the younger generations (probably anyone who are under 70?) will be stuck with old white ladies dying wishes for 4 years. Is it fair? They will leave the suffering and burden of Hillary presidency to all the rest of us and they will rest peacefully in the grave. Since when Presidential election became a means to grant old women’s dying wish?
One woman’s response to often-repeated line by many old white women that justifies Hillary’s candidacy; ‘I want to see a woman president before I die,”
Her response; “But you know what? That’s a selfish reason to vote for a president just because you want to see a woman before you die,” she added. “What about the kids coming up? I feel we should vote for the young people.”
Good point. Right. Those old white ladies would die soon after Hilary became President, if their wish comes true. All the younger generations (probably anyone who are under 70?) will be stuck with old white ladies dying wishes for 4 years. Is it fair? They will leave the suffering and burden of Hillary presidency to all the rest of us and they will rest peacefully in the grave. Since when Presidential election became a means to grant old women’s dying wish?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Hillary is NOW NY Part 2
People should realize that sending another Clinton into the White House means "empowering" these militant feminists. The army of militant feminsts that Hillary would surely bring in with her would propose and push for far more one-sided, discriminatory man-hating legislation, policies, etc.
Right now these lunatics are just part of civil societies, NGOs, capable of issuing statements once in a while or staging a rally or demonstration few media would pick up. But the advent of the Hillary adminisration will turn these militant activists into "government officials", "buraucrats" and "policy advisors" who will have real power in turning their man-hating agenda into public, government policies that will be implemented and enforced, without mercy, on a national scale.
This is an urgent qake-up call to do anything you can do in your poewer to stop Hillary.
Even under the supposedly conservative, right-wing Bush administartion, we continue to see feminists-inspired legislation being passed, Title IX being continued, etc.. Just imagine what would happen if Hillary occupy the House. Just imagine what the rights and the staus of men would be under such a feminist administration.
Right now these lunatics are just part of civil societies, NGOs, capable of issuing statements once in a while or staging a rally or demonstration few media would pick up. But the advent of the Hillary adminisration will turn these militant activists into "government officials", "buraucrats" and "policy advisors" who will have real power in turning their man-hating agenda into public, government policies that will be implemented and enforced, without mercy, on a national scale.
This is an urgent qake-up call to do anything you can do in your poewer to stop Hillary.
Even under the supposedly conservative, right-wing Bush administartion, we continue to see feminists-inspired legislation being passed, Title IX being continued, etc.. Just imagine what would happen if Hillary occupy the House. Just imagine what the rights and the staus of men would be under such a feminist administration.
Hillary is NOW NY
Whoa. This is just a MAINSTREAM FEMINISM speaking- anyone who do not back a woman candidate is an ENEMY of women. And Hillary's ideological roots and NY NOW women's ideological roots are the same. In other words, Hillary IS NY NOW chapter women and NY NOW chapter women ARE Hillary. They are from the same school of thoughts.
If, god forbid, if we were to have Hillary as the next President, you will see many people like them gaining power in Washington; the shrill, hysteric, man-hating militant feminists. They will be calling the shots and influencing important decisisons in the capital. People who are ideologically not so different from NY NOW President will be filling cabinet posts in the second Clinton administration. Their pals in women's studies course are filling upper echerons of federal bureaucracy and enforce their feminist utopia.
Just imagine having some of the loony heads from NY NOW chapter in key government positions - yet that is exactly what is going to happen when the Clinton wins election! She will bring in tons of people who are associated with NOW and other similar loony militant feminists oprganizations, scholars from women's study course in her administartuion to fill cabinet and other key posts and in many senior posts in the government.
Anyone with a least bit of intelligence could see to it that Hillary is not running for US President to solve Middle East crisis, boost economy, etc, etc ... All those pesky "policy issues" are just adds-on to her most central agenda - establishing a gender-free society, a feminist utopia. She is running to satisfy her onw ego to be the most powerful women in the world.
If, god forbid, if we were to have Hillary as the next President, you will see many people like them gaining power in Washington; the shrill, hysteric, man-hating militant feminists. They will be calling the shots and influencing important decisisons in the capital. People who are ideologically not so different from NY NOW President will be filling cabinet posts in the second Clinton administration. Their pals in women's studies course are filling upper echerons of federal bureaucracy and enforce their feminist utopia.
Just imagine having some of the loony heads from NY NOW chapter in key government positions - yet that is exactly what is going to happen when the Clinton wins election! She will bring in tons of people who are associated with NOW and other similar loony militant feminists oprganizations, scholars from women's study course in her administartuion to fill cabinet and other key posts and in many senior posts in the government.
Anyone with a least bit of intelligence could see to it that Hillary is not running for US President to solve Middle East crisis, boost economy, etc, etc ... All those pesky "policy issues" are just adds-on to her most central agenda - establishing a gender-free society, a feminist utopia. She is running to satisfy her onw ego to be the most powerful women in the world.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
"Subprime Crisis Snags Women"
Of course only women are, or women are “disproportionately affected” by, Subprime loan crisis…Not because the actual data suggest so, but because, to some people, men simply do not matter – if men suffer from Subrprime loan crisis or from whatever other causes, they deserve it, because they are men.
You know, newspapers pages are too precious to be expended on plight of men. they have had good times for thousands of years already. There are plenty of other issues that affect women, or plenty of women’s perspectives that need to be introduced and prioritized over others on any important issues that affect the country, I guess.
You know, newspapers pages are too precious to be expended on plight of men. they have had good times for thousands of years already. There are plenty of other issues that affect women, or plenty of women’s perspectives that need to be introduced and prioritized over others on any important issues that affect the country, I guess.
Wonder Woman gets women's voice
It is such an important milestone in women’s lib movement that both New York Times and the Newsweek magazine reported. Is it progress or regress, exactly? There is nothing else significant to report in this week’s feminists’ scorecard?
Anyway, my huge congratulations for all womankind out there for finally breaking the “glass ceiling”, or whatever “ceiling” they want to call in this case, of boys’ comic club…I
n this latest frontline of feminists’ constant struggle to tear down patriarchy, feminists celebrate that the comic “Wonder Woman”, after 66 years into existence, will finally have some feminine touch..
Anyway, my huge congratulations for all womankind out there for finally breaking the “glass ceiling”, or whatever “ceiling” they want to call in this case, of boys’ comic club…I
n this latest frontline of feminists’ constant struggle to tear down patriarchy, feminists celebrate that the comic “Wonder Woman”, after 66 years into existence, will finally have some feminine touch..
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Help! there is a dearth of top female chefs!
I’ve always wondered why most of the top chefs in the word are men, even though most of the home cooking, throughout the world and history have been done by women. This article in the New York magazine tells you that it is because of a blatant sexism.
Perhaps the author of the article graduated from Women’s Studies programme just a few months ago, and employ a pure gender-feminist style analytical framework - The author knows the answer to the low number of top female chefs already – so she does not stop just because “ the chefs we spoke to were at first reluctant to cite sexism as the reason there aren’t more women among the city’s elite chefs .”. Instead she pushed, cajoled and guided the women until she get desired answers and arrived at a pre-set conclusion “ it became clear that gender bias is still an issue.”
So you round up seven of not-exactly-top-tier chefs in New York restaurants, who, to a various degree, are holding anguish and resentment against their male colleagues who pass them over for whatever reasons, real (not as good as male colleagues) or imagined (I am discriminated against because I am a woman), and spit out their rants against male colleagues and patriarchy in consciousness-raising-group-style interview.
Off course food cooked women is better since;
“It’s more from the heart and more from the soul.” And
“more accessible, it’s easier to understand, it’s friendlier, it’s more comforting, and it doesn’t get bogged down in all these nutty freaking trends. And
“because it’s comfort food or it’s very nurturing."
Wait, is this a feminists-approved line?
Anyway, I think the reason why there is a dearth of top-female chefs is the same for why there are fewer top female politicians or scientists or whoever rose to the highest level in whatever fields, compared to males. Men put extraordinary energy and determination to rise to the top. You cannot just do the same job as every others do and wait for someone to promote you over the others. You have to be better than others and have an edge that differentiates between you and the rest of them.
Feminists have now become too accustomed to the idea of just doing ordinary job and waiting for the government or media to pick up on you and push you to the top of the ladder due to your specific demographic character. That complacency (“I am a woman, and I WORK (as opposed to EXCEL), THEREFORE I need to be promoted) seems to be slowly spreading to the chef world too.
Maybe it is not too long before some feminist organizations would start screaming “discrimination” against women in the restaurant business, call for immediate government action and file a string of multi-million dollar sexual harassment lawsuits. It would be soon followed by Five-year government or industry action plan to affirmative- action women into more top chef posts – only then they could see their number increase. Bottom line; they can never rise to the top on their own merit, they need government / industry backed affirmative-action plan to rise to the top.
Perhaps the author of the article graduated from Women’s Studies programme just a few months ago, and employ a pure gender-feminist style analytical framework - The author knows the answer to the low number of top female chefs already – so she does not stop just because “ the chefs we spoke to were at first reluctant to cite sexism as the reason there aren’t more women among the city’s elite chefs .”. Instead she pushed, cajoled and guided the women until she get desired answers and arrived at a pre-set conclusion “ it became clear that gender bias is still an issue.”
So you round up seven of not-exactly-top-tier chefs in New York restaurants, who, to a various degree, are holding anguish and resentment against their male colleagues who pass them over for whatever reasons, real (not as good as male colleagues) or imagined (I am discriminated against because I am a woman), and spit out their rants against male colleagues and patriarchy in consciousness-raising-group-style interview.
Off course food cooked women is better since;
“It’s more from the heart and more from the soul.” And
“more accessible, it’s easier to understand, it’s friendlier, it’s more comforting, and it doesn’t get bogged down in all these nutty freaking trends. And
“because it’s comfort food or it’s very nurturing."
Wait, is this a feminists-approved line?
Anyway, I think the reason why there is a dearth of top-female chefs is the same for why there are fewer top female politicians or scientists or whoever rose to the highest level in whatever fields, compared to males. Men put extraordinary energy and determination to rise to the top. You cannot just do the same job as every others do and wait for someone to promote you over the others. You have to be better than others and have an edge that differentiates between you and the rest of them.
Feminists have now become too accustomed to the idea of just doing ordinary job and waiting for the government or media to pick up on you and push you to the top of the ladder due to your specific demographic character. That complacency (“I am a woman, and I WORK (as opposed to EXCEL), THEREFORE I need to be promoted) seems to be slowly spreading to the chef world too.
Maybe it is not too long before some feminist organizations would start screaming “discrimination” against women in the restaurant business, call for immediate government action and file a string of multi-million dollar sexual harassment lawsuits. It would be soon followed by Five-year government or industry action plan to affirmative- action women into more top chef posts – only then they could see their number increase. Bottom line; they can never rise to the top on their own merit, they need government / industry backed affirmative-action plan to rise to the top.
True face of gender-feminist warrior
WOOOOOWWWW…
Do men (and women) want this face to be on TV, newspaper and all over the media for the next four or eight years telling you to do this and do that, and preaching that men should be more like women and other her feminists nonsense? Do we REALLY want that?
In Asia (and many other parts of the world) people say that the face gives insights to the inner mind of the people. Hillary looks OLD (indeed really, really OLD) in the picture, but it’s not just being old that make most people feel awfully disgusted. I think the picture shows a true FACE of a person (happens to be a woman, yeah!) who have been pursuing unbridled power and control over other people, a true face of radical gender feminist warrior and petit-totalitarianist.
Even though feminists still want to spin this to their advantage as much as possible; e.g. this is a new female face of power, people should challenge their inner unconscious sexism that make them want to vomit to this image and instead embrace it, need a sensitivity training to old female leaders’ faces or the society is generally hard on women because of sexism and this was the result, etc. etc., the undeniable fact throughout history is that people prefer younger, fresh-looking face over tired, exhausted, senile face.
Why did Nixon lose to Kennedy in 1960? Is it sexism against men? Why Ronald Reagan had to wear make up in front of camera? Do face and style never matter in politics? What, are you living in 19th century?
Managing and projecting good (and young, fresh) images is an important pillar of modern-day political campaigning. That’s why many campaigns hire scores of image consultants, stylists, etc. But when a woman stumbles on this one time, and all of a sudden there is huge cry of sexism?
I remember long time ago, in one of the late night talk show (I forgot which show, but it was many years ago), the guest was Sting, who was famous for his tireless efforts to save Amazon rainforests and the host said that if Sting could finish his guest appearance that night without uttering a word “Amazon rainforest”, the host would give him some small prize. I think he didn’t get the prize, because, you know, he was an activist.
Likewise, I want to offer feminists some small gifts if they could see this picture and hold the urge to scream out the word “sexism”. But I bet they cannot, because they are ‘feminists”. Their brains are wired to remote a computer in feminists world headquarter where they are programmed to scream the word “sexism” at least three times per minute when they see a picture of an old, haggard woman. The feminist programmer meant to program one scream per minute but since she was not so good at computer (she only joined her computer class after the Women in Math and Science programme at her school compelled her to take the class and her grade was padded to atone for past injustices against women in science field)
Althouse: That picture of Hillary on Drudge right now.
Immodest Proposals: The Most Significant Photo of 2007 . . .
Do men (and women) want this face to be on TV, newspaper and all over the media for the next four or eight years telling you to do this and do that, and preaching that men should be more like women and other her feminists nonsense? Do we REALLY want that?
In Asia (and many other parts of the world) people say that the face gives insights to the inner mind of the people. Hillary looks OLD (indeed really, really OLD) in the picture, but it’s not just being old that make most people feel awfully disgusted. I think the picture shows a true FACE of a person (happens to be a woman, yeah!) who have been pursuing unbridled power and control over other people, a true face of radical gender feminist warrior and petit-totalitarianist.
Even though feminists still want to spin this to their advantage as much as possible; e.g. this is a new female face of power, people should challenge their inner unconscious sexism that make them want to vomit to this image and instead embrace it, need a sensitivity training to old female leaders’ faces or the society is generally hard on women because of sexism and this was the result, etc. etc., the undeniable fact throughout history is that people prefer younger, fresh-looking face over tired, exhausted, senile face.
Why did Nixon lose to Kennedy in 1960? Is it sexism against men? Why Ronald Reagan had to wear make up in front of camera? Do face and style never matter in politics? What, are you living in 19th century?
Managing and projecting good (and young, fresh) images is an important pillar of modern-day political campaigning. That’s why many campaigns hire scores of image consultants, stylists, etc. But when a woman stumbles on this one time, and all of a sudden there is huge cry of sexism?
I remember long time ago, in one of the late night talk show (I forgot which show, but it was many years ago), the guest was Sting, who was famous for his tireless efforts to save Amazon rainforests and the host said that if Sting could finish his guest appearance that night without uttering a word “Amazon rainforest”, the host would give him some small prize. I think he didn’t get the prize, because, you know, he was an activist.
Likewise, I want to offer feminists some small gifts if they could see this picture and hold the urge to scream out the word “sexism”. But I bet they cannot, because they are ‘feminists”. Their brains are wired to remote a computer in feminists world headquarter where they are programmed to scream the word “sexism” at least three times per minute when they see a picture of an old, haggard woman. The feminist programmer meant to program one scream per minute but since she was not so good at computer (she only joined her computer class after the Women in Math and Science programme at her school compelled her to take the class and her grade was padded to atone for past injustices against women in science field)
Althouse: That picture of Hillary on Drudge right now.
Immodest Proposals: The Most Significant Photo of 2007 . . .
Stay-at-home mom
At the hands of able writers in the NYT, even a stay-at-home mom was portrayed as a well-traveled, influential and efficient campaigner ……. just a small spin, and indeed as a wife of one of the serious contenders in the race of President, she might be just so, but at the same time in the way they title and frame the whole article I can see their hatred against stay-at-home-mom and their desire to “rescue” such moms from their abject circumstances through spin…..
Monday, December 17, 2007
Sexual harassment between politicians in Canada
This is what happens when you have loads of, or to use feminists' favorite line, "critical mass" of female politicians. She is doing merely what her ideology tells her to do; reduce male politicians as much as possible, since, nothing is more important than increasing women's share in politics, or, in other words, again to use their catch phrase, "empowering women". In their eternal fight to reduce men's presence from any socially significant arena, the charges of sexual harassment only becomes yet another tool.
Thus, it doesn't matter whether the male politician was only looking at his private computer, or whether the female politician was in fact violating his privacy, or whether in fact the material he was looking at was sexually explicit or not. The only thing that matter in this case, at least to politically-correct mainstream media, ,was that the female politician "felt" that there was something wrong in his computer, and the fact that sexual harassment complaint was made. And they were looking only for one thing: to kick another male out from the Canadian legislature, and possibly replace him with ‘a woman”, to drive up female gender ratio a notch. And in the way, they might have figured that they would even be able to highlight the issue of sexual harassment again, focusing this time on sexual harassment by high-ranking men, and against high-ranking woman, as well as against women well past their prime age.
The definition of sexual harassment has been on the constant expansion; gone were the days when strict traditional “quid pro quo” type was the definition and now we are entering the time when vindictive women or women with agenda would go all the way, even sneaking into men’s private computer or correspondence to see the slightest hint of “sexism” and claim that they were victimized by it.
Thus, it doesn't matter whether the male politician was only looking at his private computer, or whether the female politician was in fact violating his privacy, or whether in fact the material he was looking at was sexually explicit or not. The only thing that matter in this case, at least to politically-correct mainstream media, ,was that the female politician "felt" that there was something wrong in his computer, and the fact that sexual harassment complaint was made. And they were looking only for one thing: to kick another male out from the Canadian legislature, and possibly replace him with ‘a woman”, to drive up female gender ratio a notch. And in the way, they might have figured that they would even be able to highlight the issue of sexual harassment again, focusing this time on sexual harassment by high-ranking men, and against high-ranking woman, as well as against women well past their prime age.
The definition of sexual harassment has been on the constant expansion; gone were the days when strict traditional “quid pro quo” type was the definition and now we are entering the time when vindictive women or women with agenda would go all the way, even sneaking into men’s private computer or correspondence to see the slightest hint of “sexism” and claim that they were victimized by it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)