It’s always difficult to understand why more women going into the science field is better for the future of science.
For a start, we can more or less agree that today we have pretty advanced state of science, at least compared to hundreds (or thousands) years ago, or even compared to an animal kingdom. And ALL these scientific and technological advances have been made by MEN, without a single EXCEPTION. In other words, women haven’t contributed to a single bit to today’s complex science. And now some people want to make us believe that increasing women in the ranks of scientists is the single most urgent issue for the future of science. Remind you, women has 0% track record in the science field, but we want to do whatever we could do to increase their number, and reduce the number of men in the field who are responsible for all the advances made in this field in the first place. Is there something wrong here? How we could arrive at such twisted conclusion?
“More female science professor/teacher are needed if women are to get better grades in science.” What a self-serving non-sense.
The fact that female teacher/professor have a tendency to be show more ‘empathy” (as we all know women genetically have plenty of it) towards the student who belong to the same sex, is actually an argument against affirmative action programme for female science teacher/professor. It is abundantly clear that female professors are not capable of evaluating students' grades impartially, it's just that hormones intereferring with objective judgement.
And oh, yes, female students (or female cadets) are too timid and shy to show their true talent in science if their professor were men, ar at least not feminist men. And we want these young female cadets to be the future leader of US armed forces. Joke never ends.
And please, please, for the love of God, don’t tell me that the one of the criteria (or the ONLY criteria) for the outgoing female Xerox CEO in choosing her successor wasn’t a gender. It is the most blatant case of appointing people to senior position based solely on gender. I've never seen a more explicit case of affirmative action at the top level of Fortune 500 companies, and for that reason, I agree with the author that this one os for the record book
Friday, June 05, 2009
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Girl valedictorian Part III
People can never worry about girls too much, it seems. People worry that young girls don't eat enough (anorexia), eat too much (obesity), care about weight and appearances too much, do not play sports enough, watch TV too much, spend too much money on clothes, and show too much interest in English literature and social sciences, don not show enough interest in math and science.
Even valedictorians, but only the girl valedictorians, seems to suffer from too-low-ambition sydrome, and in need of immediate help.
Oh, the girls, the frail, always in need of help...
Even valedictorians, but only the girl valedictorians, seems to suffer from too-low-ambition sydrome, and in need of immediate help.
Oh, the girls, the frail, always in need of help...
Girl valedictorian Part II
Talk of twisted priorities....
People spend countless hours and pages and inks wondering how a small number of girl valedictorians, who were virtually assured of success in future one way ro another, could increase earning potential by another thouands of dollars, just so that they catch up with men.
I think it is more beneficial and practial for feminists to view the problem of boys failing schools more seriously. Those boys are far more likely to become criminals, and engage in criminal activities such as theft, burglary and oh yes, sexual assault. If feminists want (or want other women and girls-I know the welfare of men and boys are not in their radar screen in the slightest) to live in a safer society, and reduce sexual assault, etc., then it is also in their best interest to tackle the problem more seriously, not just looking at the problem with a gleeful smile.
This is much more practical measures if feminists really wish to reduce crimes against women. It is much more practical than attacking culture, mass media, TV and movie as inciting men and boys to be violent against women, or even social and (alleged) patriarchal struture as root cause of violence against women. But in reality of course I know they won't, because they need certain number of violent men and victim women if they were to keep portraying society as oppressing, victimizing women.
People spend countless hours and pages and inks wondering how a small number of girl valedictorians, who were virtually assured of success in future one way ro another, could increase earning potential by another thouands of dollars, just so that they catch up with men.
I think it is more beneficial and practial for feminists to view the problem of boys failing schools more seriously. Those boys are far more likely to become criminals, and engage in criminal activities such as theft, burglary and oh yes, sexual assault. If feminists want (or want other women and girls-I know the welfare of men and boys are not in their radar screen in the slightest) to live in a safer society, and reduce sexual assault, etc., then it is also in their best interest to tackle the problem more seriously, not just looking at the problem with a gleeful smile.
This is much more practical measures if feminists really wish to reduce crimes against women. It is much more practical than attacking culture, mass media, TV and movie as inciting men and boys to be violent against women, or even social and (alleged) patriarchal struture as root cause of violence against women. But in reality of course I know they won't, because they need certain number of violent men and victim women if they were to keep portraying society as oppressing, victimizing women.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Urgent help needed in elevating career ambitions of girl valedictorians
Why we care about valedictorians? First of all, there are so many more girl valedictorians than boy valedictorians. Second of all, they are smart enough (-if they have enough brain to be the number one in the class) to see what jobs/career/major suits them best, without people like Ms. Steinberg telling them what suits best for them (or what suits best for Ms. Steinberg and other fellow feminists' grand strategy for social engineering - to statistically equalize wages between men and women), that they should be majoring not in English literature nor social sciences but in engineering and computer sciences. .
What about boys who were dropping out from high schools at a far higher rate than girls? Shouldn't this be a much more important issue than wondering the ambition level of girl valedictorians, who have bright fututre anyway, no matter what career they choose? What NY Times is spending so much space and readers' time for is whether girls with bright future could beat out equally bright boys in future earning power - I guess there are many more things in the world deserving more immediate attention. This clearly shows that prioroties and concerns of NY Times is so twisted and could only care about beating out males.
For feminists, boys falling in school system isn't a problem that needs to be addressed, it is a triumphant sign for girls, it is simply a proof that girls are smarter, that males are dumber, that more girls should be in higher positions and outearning males as a whole.
What about boys who were dropping out from high schools at a far higher rate than girls? Shouldn't this be a much more important issue than wondering the ambition level of girl valedictorians, who have bright fututre anyway, no matter what career they choose? What NY Times is spending so much space and readers' time for is whether girls with bright future could beat out equally bright boys in future earning power - I guess there are many more things in the world deserving more immediate attention. This clearly shows that prioroties and concerns of NY Times is so twisted and could only care about beating out males.
For feminists, boys falling in school system isn't a problem that needs to be addressed, it is a triumphant sign for girls, it is simply a proof that girls are smarter, that males are dumber, that more girls should be in higher positions and outearning males as a whole.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Belfort Bax
I have come across this long article written in 1910’s, when women suffragists were campaigning hard for women’s right to vote, in the era of the so-called first wave of feminism, which many people, including people who normally take an anti-feminist stand, view somehow favorably as a more benevolent kind of feminism, a classical, original, or “good” feminism before it devolve into a virulent anti-man movement in the 60’s and the 70’s with the advent of the second and the third wave of feminism.
Well, it seems it is not so simple – as in old days of original, true feminism was good, only modern incarnation of it is bad.
By glancing through this classic article written by Belfort Bax, a noted Socialist but also known for his ardent anti-feminism views at the time, you would immediately see that even early feminism is fundamentally the same as the modern gender feminism. Both are based on the principles of equality (or sometimes superiority) of women under law as well as preservation of women’s special privileges that ironically have roots in old times when women were regarded and treated as second class citizens.
Entire article could be accessed here;
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism
This is truly a classis anti-feminist article. I have rarely seen an article this long, written by a prominent figure, devoted exclusively on the subject of problems of feminism. Though in the article the author express his disdain for giving voting rights for women (even I cannot agree with him on this point), the article shows that double standards, special privileges for women, unequal law (criminal, matrimonial, etc.) and its enforcement, execution for men and women, male sympathizers (“femi-nabler” to use a word suggested in one of the comments to this blog) in government, judiciary, press, in other words, all the ingredients of modern-day anti-male gender feminists movement are all there as early as in the 1910’s.
Now does this give us a hope? Nope. To know that those problems associated with gender feminists are actually not unique to them, that they have history of nearly a century and deeply rooted in the original feminist movement, led me to think that anti-male characters of feminist movement will not simply go away, just because some courageous people (mostly women) voice their skepticism against them.
Some quotes from the article;
“Personal violence on the part of the husband is severely punished; on the part of wife she will be let off with impunity.”
Hmmm. Looks like the same charade has been going on for a century now.
“…should be legally compelled to pay a certain sum to his wife, ostensibly as wages for her housekeeping services, no matter whether she performs the services well, or ill, or not at all.."
Did Hillary and other feminists get their idea that government (who else?) should pay for the work for housewives here?
“..demand that in the case of the murder by a woman of her illegitimate child, the putative father should be placed in the dock as an accessory! In other words, a man should be punished for a crime of which he is wholly innocent,”Purely absurd, but this is feminism.“This sex hatred, so often vindictive in its character, of men for men, which has for its results that: "man-made" laws invariably favor the opposite sex, and that "man-administered justice" follows the same course, is a psychological problem which is well worth the earnest attention of students of sociology and thinkers generally.”
“I must confess to being unequal to the task of accurately fathoming the psychological condition of the average man who hates man in general and loves woman in general to the extent of going contrary to..”
I completely agree. I think that some (men) needs to take a comprehensive look into the minds of feminist male, to see what motivates them into this “sex-hatred’ phenomena. (my personal view is that those feminist male are motivated by the expectation that they, as ardent male feminists from early on, will be rewarded handsomely in the coming (or so they think) “feminist-run utopia”)
“A man murdered by a woman is always the horrid brute, while the woman murdered by the man is just as surely the angelic victim.”
Sounds familiar….
"The mere physical fact of sex was never for a moment regarded as of itself sufficient to entitle the woman to any special homage, consideration, or immunity, over and above the man.."
In the Medieval period, the word “chivalry” did not mean what it generally means today.
"Sir Walter Besant, entitled "The Revolt of Man," depicting the oppression of man under a Feminist regime, an oppression which ended in a revolt and the re-establishment of male supremacy."
This must be also a “must-read”
“…that woman is, as Herbert Spencer and others have pointed out, simply "undeveloped man"--in other words, that Woman represents a lower stage of evolution than Man.”
“Take the instance of Madame Curie. When radium was first discovered in the laboratory of the late Professor Curie we were told that the latter had made the discovery, it being at the same time mentioned that he possessed in his wife a valuable aid in his laboratory work. We were afterwards told that the discovery of radium was the joint work of both, the implication being that the honors were equally divided. Now, Feminist influence has succeeded in getting Madame Curie spoken of as herself the discoverer of radium!”
Well, it seems it is not so simple – as in old days of original, true feminism was good, only modern incarnation of it is bad.
By glancing through this classic article written by Belfort Bax, a noted Socialist but also known for his ardent anti-feminism views at the time, you would immediately see that even early feminism is fundamentally the same as the modern gender feminism. Both are based on the principles of equality (or sometimes superiority) of women under law as well as preservation of women’s special privileges that ironically have roots in old times when women were regarded and treated as second class citizens.
Entire article could be accessed here;
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism
This is truly a classis anti-feminist article. I have rarely seen an article this long, written by a prominent figure, devoted exclusively on the subject of problems of feminism. Though in the article the author express his disdain for giving voting rights for women (even I cannot agree with him on this point), the article shows that double standards, special privileges for women, unequal law (criminal, matrimonial, etc.) and its enforcement, execution for men and women, male sympathizers (“femi-nabler” to use a word suggested in one of the comments to this blog) in government, judiciary, press, in other words, all the ingredients of modern-day anti-male gender feminists movement are all there as early as in the 1910’s.
Now does this give us a hope? Nope. To know that those problems associated with gender feminists are actually not unique to them, that they have history of nearly a century and deeply rooted in the original feminist movement, led me to think that anti-male characters of feminist movement will not simply go away, just because some courageous people (mostly women) voice their skepticism against them.
Some quotes from the article;
“Personal violence on the part of the husband is severely punished; on the part of wife she will be let off with impunity.”
Hmmm. Looks like the same charade has been going on for a century now.
“…should be legally compelled to pay a certain sum to his wife, ostensibly as wages for her housekeeping services, no matter whether she performs the services well, or ill, or not at all.."
Did Hillary and other feminists get their idea that government (who else?) should pay for the work for housewives here?
“..demand that in the case of the murder by a woman of her illegitimate child, the putative father should be placed in the dock as an accessory! In other words, a man should be punished for a crime of which he is wholly innocent,”Purely absurd, but this is feminism.“This sex hatred, so often vindictive in its character, of men for men, which has for its results that: "man-made" laws invariably favor the opposite sex, and that "man-administered justice" follows the same course, is a psychological problem which is well worth the earnest attention of students of sociology and thinkers generally.”
“I must confess to being unequal to the task of accurately fathoming the psychological condition of the average man who hates man in general and loves woman in general to the extent of going contrary to..”
I completely agree. I think that some (men) needs to take a comprehensive look into the minds of feminist male, to see what motivates them into this “sex-hatred’ phenomena. (my personal view is that those feminist male are motivated by the expectation that they, as ardent male feminists from early on, will be rewarded handsomely in the coming (or so they think) “feminist-run utopia”)
“A man murdered by a woman is always the horrid brute, while the woman murdered by the man is just as surely the angelic victim.”
Sounds familiar….
"The mere physical fact of sex was never for a moment regarded as of itself sufficient to entitle the woman to any special homage, consideration, or immunity, over and above the man.."
In the Medieval period, the word “chivalry” did not mean what it generally means today.
"Sir Walter Besant, entitled "The Revolt of Man," depicting the oppression of man under a Feminist regime, an oppression which ended in a revolt and the re-establishment of male supremacy."
This must be also a “must-read”
“…that woman is, as Herbert Spencer and others have pointed out, simply "undeveloped man"--in other words, that Woman represents a lower stage of evolution than Man.”
“Take the instance of Madame Curie. When radium was first discovered in the laboratory of the late Professor Curie we were told that the latter had made the discovery, it being at the same time mentioned that he possessed in his wife a valuable aid in his laboratory work. We were afterwards told that the discovery of radium was the joint work of both, the implication being that the honors were equally divided. Now, Feminist influence has succeeded in getting Madame Curie spoken of as herself the discoverer of radium!”
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Do female judges use sex appeal to influence male judges?
There are a quite a lot of points to make on this article;
Obama owes his victory to whom? Women? Weren’t women (especially, white old ones) firmly behind Hillary to realize their dream of “a woman President in their lifetime” at the expense of the first black President? Wasn’t it actually white men, who weren’t caught in either race or gender identity politics that shaped the democratic nominee process who tipped the whole election in favour of Obama? Shouldn’t Obama owe his victory to white men and therefore give another seat to one of them in case someone retires from the Supreme Court bench?
And whose “article of faith” is it that the next vacancy (and the next one too – yes, keep wishing) will be filled by a woman? Isn’t it just Ms. Dahlia Lithwick and other small group of fellow feminist comrades who want to promote as an article of faith that not only the next vacancy in the Supreme Court but any high-profile public (and private) positions be filled by women? This advocacy article conveniently comes with a list of possible female candidates to fill the vacancy if it indeed comes up. Again, keep wishing.
Now let’s turn on to the arguments made in the article.
"The male judges were 10 percent more likely to rule against alleged sex-discrimination victims. And male judges were "significantly more likely" to rule in their favor if a woman judge served on their panel"
First of all, who decided that it is better for judges to rule in favour of alleged sex discrimination victim? Isn’t it precisely judges’ job to decide whether there are merits in the cases brought about by the suitors (and by the way who are sex discrimination “victim”?) Doesn’t author know that “significant” percentage of sex discrimination cases do not have case or filed for profit or personal (such as retaliation) reasons. And if female judges rule in favour for alleged sex discrimination victims just because they are women and their ovary or breasts whatever female things interfere with their legal reasoning and analysis of the cases, then there should be fewer female judges, not more. Remember, whenever there are women (so-called “victims”) and her feminists attorneys profiting from baseless sex discrimination cases, there are plenty of male supervisors/co-workers/management suffering unjust legal and financial consequences. And ultimately it is consumers and public at large who have to bear the cost.
"It may suggest female moral reasoning—if such a thing exists—might be contagious."
Or is it because male judges were afraid that not rendering judgments along with the feminist party line (that all women are discriminated against and women never lie) would make their own positions vulnerable? That female judges sitting on the same bench would report to some “gender committee” about her male colleagues “resistance” to rule in favour of “victims”? Or are these female judges using their “sex appeal” or some “feminine attributes” to coax fellow male judges into thinking that they should rule in favour of women?
"It's why liberal lion William Brennan could write so expansively about equality and fairness and justice while still refusing to hire female law clerks."
Doesn’t he have a right “not to hire”, as opposed to “refuse to hire” underqualified female law clerks or does Ms. Lithwick think gender quota should apply in every judges’ offices?
Obama owes his victory to whom? Women? Weren’t women (especially, white old ones) firmly behind Hillary to realize their dream of “a woman President in their lifetime” at the expense of the first black President? Wasn’t it actually white men, who weren’t caught in either race or gender identity politics that shaped the democratic nominee process who tipped the whole election in favour of Obama? Shouldn’t Obama owe his victory to white men and therefore give another seat to one of them in case someone retires from the Supreme Court bench?
And whose “article of faith” is it that the next vacancy (and the next one too – yes, keep wishing) will be filled by a woman? Isn’t it just Ms. Dahlia Lithwick and other small group of fellow feminist comrades who want to promote as an article of faith that not only the next vacancy in the Supreme Court but any high-profile public (and private) positions be filled by women? This advocacy article conveniently comes with a list of possible female candidates to fill the vacancy if it indeed comes up. Again, keep wishing.
Now let’s turn on to the arguments made in the article.
"The male judges were 10 percent more likely to rule against alleged sex-discrimination victims. And male judges were "significantly more likely" to rule in their favor if a woman judge served on their panel"
First of all, who decided that it is better for judges to rule in favour of alleged sex discrimination victim? Isn’t it precisely judges’ job to decide whether there are merits in the cases brought about by the suitors (and by the way who are sex discrimination “victim”?) Doesn’t author know that “significant” percentage of sex discrimination cases do not have case or filed for profit or personal (such as retaliation) reasons. And if female judges rule in favour for alleged sex discrimination victims just because they are women and their ovary or breasts whatever female things interfere with their legal reasoning and analysis of the cases, then there should be fewer female judges, not more. Remember, whenever there are women (so-called “victims”) and her feminists attorneys profiting from baseless sex discrimination cases, there are plenty of male supervisors/co-workers/management suffering unjust legal and financial consequences. And ultimately it is consumers and public at large who have to bear the cost.
"It may suggest female moral reasoning—if such a thing exists—might be contagious."
Or is it because male judges were afraid that not rendering judgments along with the feminist party line (that all women are discriminated against and women never lie) would make their own positions vulnerable? That female judges sitting on the same bench would report to some “gender committee” about her male colleagues “resistance” to rule in favour of “victims”? Or are these female judges using their “sex appeal” or some “feminine attributes” to coax fellow male judges into thinking that they should rule in favour of women?
"It's why liberal lion William Brennan could write so expansively about equality and fairness and justice while still refusing to hire female law clerks."
Doesn’t he have a right “not to hire”, as opposed to “refuse to hire” underqualified female law clerks or does Ms. Lithwick think gender quota should apply in every judges’ offices?
Equal opportunity abortion?
Normally staunchly pro-abortion leftist people would turn into temporary pro-lifers only on one occasion - when the abortion is targeted towards female babies, as it has been allegedly practiced in China. On the other side of the coin of this temporary suspension of one of the leftist most celebrated caueses is, do these leftist people support abortion here in US because aborted babies include boys? In other words, is it because abortions in US is equall opportunity - male and female babaies are aborted at the same proportion? I don't have a strong stand on abortion issue, but this is interesting to think.
One has to think two possibilities when there are far fewer women than men in any given societies. One possibility is that women will be treated as objects, commodities, they will become target of sexual exploitation, etc. This is the (only) possibility that has been talked about in western liberal media. This is their preferred narrative since it perfectly fits their agenda and worldview - that women are oppressed, are treated as objects, and are discriminated against, and therefore actions for social justice and social engineering is needed.
However there is other possibility, a possibility that has never been discussed hitherto in liberal western media, and that is the possibility that women’s status will actually become higher. If there are fewer young women than young men, it is far more likely that those young men will bend over backwards to grab attention of women and please them, in order to get themselves girlfriends or wives, rather than abducting them or paying money to get the bride, as some media tried to portray. It is much easier and less riskier for those young men to put on some nice jackets, flowers in hands and take women to some fancy restaurants if they want girlfriends or wives than to engage in criminal acts or pay huge amount of money.
Others think that too many men, or overabundance of them in society itself will create a problem, as too much energy, testosterone and frustration of young men are pent up in society. This is nothing but an extremely misandryst view, by people who think that maleness or male virtue is essentially evil and harmful to society and women. Nobody talk about extreme gender imbalance in favour of women at senior age in any country, but if male to female ration exceeds just 1.20, then this is an emergency in need of corrective actions.
One has to think two possibilities when there are far fewer women than men in any given societies. One possibility is that women will be treated as objects, commodities, they will become target of sexual exploitation, etc. This is the (only) possibility that has been talked about in western liberal media. This is their preferred narrative since it perfectly fits their agenda and worldview - that women are oppressed, are treated as objects, and are discriminated against, and therefore actions for social justice and social engineering is needed.
However there is other possibility, a possibility that has never been discussed hitherto in liberal western media, and that is the possibility that women’s status will actually become higher. If there are fewer young women than young men, it is far more likely that those young men will bend over backwards to grab attention of women and please them, in order to get themselves girlfriends or wives, rather than abducting them or paying money to get the bride, as some media tried to portray. It is much easier and less riskier for those young men to put on some nice jackets, flowers in hands and take women to some fancy restaurants if they want girlfriends or wives than to engage in criminal acts or pay huge amount of money.
Others think that too many men, or overabundance of them in society itself will create a problem, as too much energy, testosterone and frustration of young men are pent up in society. This is nothing but an extremely misandryst view, by people who think that maleness or male virtue is essentially evil and harmful to society and women. Nobody talk about extreme gender imbalance in favour of women at senior age in any country, but if male to female ration exceeds just 1.20, then this is an emergency in need of corrective actions.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Male post-partum depression
Interesting story about male (!!) post-partum depression. I guess part of the depression stems from the gap that society (modern, politically correct) expects of new dads and what men are actually equipped and capable of doing from evolutionary perspective. Modern politically-correct society pretends that men and women are exactly the same, yet when it comes to parenting, traditional nurturing mother model is a gold standard and the society judges both new moms and new dads on that basis.
This puts men in distinct disadvantage, of course, as men are men after all, whether they take paternity leaves that are as long as wives’ maternity leaves, bottle feed or change diapers as often as their wives. For thousands and millions of years men’s primary tasks were to protect family from outside threats, provide food, etc., not feeding baby or taking care of crying babies. Men who are brain-washed by feminists think that men OUGHT to behave like moms, and SHOULD be able to perform like moms, yet evolutionary psychology tells us that men are not equipped as well as women in these departments.
At the same time, traditional roles played by fathers, such as teaching and enforcing rules, and strict, solemn father type is becoming obsolete. New dads are simply expected to be the “second” mom, a substitute mom who can take over feeding, diaper-changing and other baby and home-related chores for moms, so that the “real” moms will be freed from baby-related chores and return to work and office where they are expected to take over men.
This gap between what men are actually capable of doing from evolutionary perspective and what society expects the “substitute” mom to do, as well as the feeling being belittled by society of their traditional male role, fatherhood and general societal disregard of males, are contributing to the increasing number of depression among new dads.
This puts men in distinct disadvantage, of course, as men are men after all, whether they take paternity leaves that are as long as wives’ maternity leaves, bottle feed or change diapers as often as their wives. For thousands and millions of years men’s primary tasks were to protect family from outside threats, provide food, etc., not feeding baby or taking care of crying babies. Men who are brain-washed by feminists think that men OUGHT to behave like moms, and SHOULD be able to perform like moms, yet evolutionary psychology tells us that men are not equipped as well as women in these departments.
At the same time, traditional roles played by fathers, such as teaching and enforcing rules, and strict, solemn father type is becoming obsolete. New dads are simply expected to be the “second” mom, a substitute mom who can take over feeding, diaper-changing and other baby and home-related chores for moms, so that the “real” moms will be freed from baby-related chores and return to work and office where they are expected to take over men.
This gap between what men are actually capable of doing from evolutionary perspective and what society expects the “substitute” mom to do, as well as the feeling being belittled by society of their traditional male role, fatherhood and general societal disregard of males, are contributing to the increasing number of depression among new dads.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
UN Secretary-General speaks out (too much)
This piece of quote, from usually laconic and low-key Korean UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is a little bit old, but worth quoting;
“Violence against women is thus an attack on all of us, on the foundation of our civilization.”
Wow. It’s a heinous crime (UNLESS it’s a story made up by a vengeful woman), but is it an attack on the foundation of our civilization? This English-challenged Secretary-General may wish to consult his English-Korean dictionary before making some stupefying comments that is way out of proportion. This guy is usually so low key that nobody usually notices and below the radar screen of most people, when he goes berserk, he really goes berserk.
This kind of hyperboly is almost on par with some nutty feminists who claimed that domestic violence is sexual terrorism.
He also delivered another line in the same statement which must have been directly fed by some western (Anglo-Saxon) feminists;
“Violence against women is an abomination.” I don’t think such big words like “abomination” is within this Korean’s usual vocabulary. Well, to tell the truth, English is not my mother tongue either, so I won’t make too much of a fun of him, but at least I'd suggest that he or his aides who drafted his speech has to be a little bit more careful in the choice of words.
Well I guess that he doesn't really believe all these stuff seriously, but as the chief of the United Nations, which has been so thoroughly co-opted by international feminists (which is like American gender feminists on steroid), he had to represent the "interest" of the organization and had to read out the statement prepared by junior feminist speechwriter approved by a more senior feminist aid to SG.
“Violence against women is thus an attack on all of us, on the foundation of our civilization.”
Wow. It’s a heinous crime (UNLESS it’s a story made up by a vengeful woman), but is it an attack on the foundation of our civilization? This English-challenged Secretary-General may wish to consult his English-Korean dictionary before making some stupefying comments that is way out of proportion. This guy is usually so low key that nobody usually notices and below the radar screen of most people, when he goes berserk, he really goes berserk.
This kind of hyperboly is almost on par with some nutty feminists who claimed that domestic violence is sexual terrorism.
He also delivered another line in the same statement which must have been directly fed by some western (Anglo-Saxon) feminists;
“Violence against women is an abomination.” I don’t think such big words like “abomination” is within this Korean’s usual vocabulary. Well, to tell the truth, English is not my mother tongue either, so I won’t make too much of a fun of him, but at least I'd suggest that he or his aides who drafted his speech has to be a little bit more careful in the choice of words.
Well I guess that he doesn't really believe all these stuff seriously, but as the chief of the United Nations, which has been so thoroughly co-opted by international feminists (which is like American gender feminists on steroid), he had to represent the "interest" of the organization and had to read out the statement prepared by junior feminist speechwriter approved by a more senior feminist aid to SG.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
How to create a "controversy"
Just saw a movie “Slumdog millionaire”. It’s a fun movie, fast-paced, good soundtrack..etc. After getting home, I did some research on the movie (my favourite wikipedia) I found out that the movie is not without a co-director” of the movie who missed out on the Oscar nomination. Actually it is not really a “controversy”, or should not be called so, but in the sense that as long as there is someone out there who is determined to stir up one in order to push their agenda, yes, it may be a “controversy”.
(Ms. Jan Lisa Huttner-Champion of women filmmakers, or one-woman controversy protagonist)Feminists, as we all know, never miss a chance to claim credit even when it’s not due. So when sympathetic and (a bit patronizing as well in my view) “real” director Danny Boyle decided to give his “casting director” an unusual title of “co-director”, and that casting director happened to be a female (a rare kind in the industry we’re told), and with the film’s huge success, the stage was set for a “controversy”, at least in one feminist’s view.
A feminist who is used to entitlements, handouts and to getting pampered by males seemed to have had a hard time understanding why (male-dominated) Oscar nominated only the (male) director and not the (female) co-director. And gender imbalance is a bad thing- except in prison population or suicide rate, or high school drop out rate or unemployment in recent economic crisis - , so the on-line campaign to flood (and intimidate) Oscar board members with petition letters is one good way to rectify that imbalance.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Feminists' animation
Congratulations to all gender-feminists, now finally your dream come true - children watching animation movie featuring a female who conforms to gender-feminists ideology (minus big boobs and ultra-skinny thing) I understand that's what you've all been fighting for since the 60's when your elder sisters were burning bras and storming beauty contests.
You guys can continue discusing how the movie could have been even better, (or have better influence for girls and boys) by analyzing why the heroine has to have big boobs and be skinny and young and has a pretty face, rather than be a middle-aged, "curvy", cosmetically challenged women, or in other words, a "real" women. if you don't have appetite for this, then go back to home and wash dishes!!
You guys can continue discusing how the movie could have been even better, (or have better influence for girls and boys) by analyzing why the heroine has to have big boobs and be skinny and young and has a pretty face, rather than be a middle-aged, "curvy", cosmetically challenged women, or in other words, a "real" women. if you don't have appetite for this, then go back to home and wash dishes!!
Friday, March 20, 2009
More on Chris-Rihana saga...
In fact the Chris-Rihana saga is truly a god-sent for feminists who are always on the lookout for opportunity to advance their agenda. As lately the national attention is on economic crisis, unemployment and large scale lay-offs (though somehow feminists succeeded in reframing the issue as the need for laid-off men to stop looking for jobs, settle at home and be a he-mom); Duke’s case is long gone and it’s already exposed as a hoax…
And then all of a sudden you got a photo of a beaten woman plastered all over tabloid news. And the alleged batterer is Chris Brown (of all people)!! and the battered woman is Rihana!! It had perfect ingredients… celebrities, photos – feminists couldn’t have hoped for a better opportunity and thus they want all over the media on full salvo denouncing not just Chris in question but all males in general as well as a rap culture for allegedly encouraging misogynistic views and encouraging violence against females. There were two tiny feckles in this otherwise perfect story…the one was the fact that Rihana returned to Chris and the other being young girls not lining up behind old feminists’ patriarchy-made-him-batter-her claim. But these are small problems after all, the important thing for them is that their agenda is back on the frontpage again and their sisters and viewpoints monopolized coverage and opinion pages of mainstream media… Mission accomplished.
Nice job, feminists.
But beware of a story too good to be true, feminists. Remember Duke lacross players? That case also had perfect ingredients; white privileged males, jocks at frat party, low-income black working (here we don’t bother what her “work” was) mom, and sexual assault…
It’s also amazing to see how standards / criteria to decide who are the guilty ones in domestic violence cases have been switched, changed and invented to ensure that women are victims all the time and men are culprits all the time. First feminists conceived “first strike” theory in which the person who initiated assault was supposed to be the guilty one, no matter what the outcome (who ended up injured more) was. A small inconvenient fact was that it turned out women initiate physical assault more often than men. Thus feminists wasted no time in conjuring up the “primary aggressor” theory which holds that the person who are bigger and stronger would be held guilty. This seems to be working well since in most couples, men are bigger and stronger. (I wonder what feminists are going to say if a woman happened to be bigger and stronger than a man in a given case and injured him? – I bet they’d sneer at small, weak man, and triumphantly chest-thump and declare women are new men) This is already an ART in itself, an ART of ensnarling males as always guilty party in domestic disturbance cases while maintaining a semblance of gender-neutral languages in domestic violence laws so as not to violate Constitutional clause which prohibits discrimination based on gender.
And then all of a sudden you got a photo of a beaten woman plastered all over tabloid news. And the alleged batterer is Chris Brown (of all people)!! and the battered woman is Rihana!! It had perfect ingredients… celebrities, photos – feminists couldn’t have hoped for a better opportunity and thus they want all over the media on full salvo denouncing not just Chris in question but all males in general as well as a rap culture for allegedly encouraging misogynistic views and encouraging violence against females. There were two tiny feckles in this otherwise perfect story…the one was the fact that Rihana returned to Chris and the other being young girls not lining up behind old feminists’ patriarchy-made-him-batter-her claim. But these are small problems after all, the important thing for them is that their agenda is back on the frontpage again and their sisters and viewpoints monopolized coverage and opinion pages of mainstream media… Mission accomplished.
Nice job, feminists.
But beware of a story too good to be true, feminists. Remember Duke lacross players? That case also had perfect ingredients; white privileged males, jocks at frat party, low-income black working (here we don’t bother what her “work” was) mom, and sexual assault…
It’s also amazing to see how standards / criteria to decide who are the guilty ones in domestic violence cases have been switched, changed and invented to ensure that women are victims all the time and men are culprits all the time. First feminists conceived “first strike” theory in which the person who initiated assault was supposed to be the guilty one, no matter what the outcome (who ended up injured more) was. A small inconvenient fact was that it turned out women initiate physical assault more often than men. Thus feminists wasted no time in conjuring up the “primary aggressor” theory which holds that the person who are bigger and stronger would be held guilty. This seems to be working well since in most couples, men are bigger and stronger. (I wonder what feminists are going to say if a woman happened to be bigger and stronger than a man in a given case and injured him? – I bet they’d sneer at small, weak man, and triumphantly chest-thump and declare women are new men) This is already an ART in itself, an ART of ensnarling males as always guilty party in domestic disturbance cases while maintaining a semblance of gender-neutral languages in domestic violence laws so as not to violate Constitutional clause which prohibits discrimination based on gender.
On laid-off (high income) males
No so subtle attempt to further stigmatize the stay-at-home-moms.... To feminists like her, current economic crisis is just another opporunity to advance their agenda of gender role reversal and social engineering. All the stuff about pretending to show concern for middle to low income families are just so bogus, and beneath its thin veneer you can see her gleeful smile....
In her continuing vilification of laid-off males, Judith Warner is narrowing down her target to top 5 (or 1%) of (previously) high income males, whose family are more likely to adopt (or stuck) in traditional sex roles in terms of division of family labour and who are less likely to help doing dishes than middle- to low-income males.
What’s her motives here?
Obviously it is a bigger victory for feminists if high-income males change their mind and totally give up their career and be stay-at-home-dads than middle- to low-income dads doing so, because;
-Ratio of males in those high-income industries will decrease, and that of women will increase. Also the income ratio of men and women will shift (albeit slightly) in women’s favour.
-Wives of high-income males tend to be more educated and more likely to have previously held high-income jobs than wives of middle- to low-income males, and when these women go back to workforce, they are more likely to work in high-paying jobs than, say, 11$/hour telemarketers which is one of typical jobs that wives of middle- to low-income males get. Again this will serve to increase ration of women in high paying jobs or senior positions, and shift the income ratio in women’s favour.
So again, it’s all about power and money, the two things gender feminists love most (and the money IS power, according to gender feminists)
By the way, I wonder how the Judith Warner and other feminists would react if the 82% of all laid offs were on women; I’m sure she won’t be too obsessed about pesking women to stop looking for other jobs and instead wash dishes and coffee mugs…
In her continuing vilification of laid-off males, Judith Warner is narrowing down her target to top 5 (or 1%) of (previously) high income males, whose family are more likely to adopt (or stuck) in traditional sex roles in terms of division of family labour and who are less likely to help doing dishes than middle- to low-income males.
What’s her motives here?
Obviously it is a bigger victory for feminists if high-income males change their mind and totally give up their career and be stay-at-home-dads than middle- to low-income dads doing so, because;
-Ratio of males in those high-income industries will decrease, and that of women will increase. Also the income ratio of men and women will shift (albeit slightly) in women’s favour.
-Wives of high-income males tend to be more educated and more likely to have previously held high-income jobs than wives of middle- to low-income males, and when these women go back to workforce, they are more likely to work in high-paying jobs than, say, 11$/hour telemarketers which is one of typical jobs that wives of middle- to low-income males get. Again this will serve to increase ration of women in high paying jobs or senior positions, and shift the income ratio in women’s favour.
So again, it’s all about power and money, the two things gender feminists love most (and the money IS power, according to gender feminists)
By the way, I wonder how the Judith Warner and other feminists would react if the 82% of all laid offs were on women; I’m sure she won’t be too obsessed about pesking women to stop looking for other jobs and instead wash dishes and coffee mugs…
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Re-educate those young girls - Part 2
The article exemplifies old radical feminists thinking style:
"perhaps the first time their generation has been compelled to think aloud about dating violence."
This is interesting since feminists always scream about the national scourge of young women getting beaten by their boyfriends, yet for many girls, this incident seem to be their first encounter with such dating violence! How could they have missed all the violence that were allegedly going around everywhere according to feminists?
"On a Facebook discussion, one girl wrote, “she probly ran into a door and was too embarrassed so blamed it on chris.”"
Even some girls (non-New York Times reading type), seem to know that in real life, many women conjure up stories of violence by men as an excuse for their fault or mishaps.
"don’t shock Marcyliena Morgan, executive director of Harvard’s hip-hop archive. “But it’s the girls!” she said. “Where have we gone wrong here?”"
Where’s the sisterhood here? All the females are supposed to line up behind other fellow females under any circumstances!! Girls are not supposed to use their own judgment or think independently, just follow suit of older women, who knows better than them that all men are enemy and all the evils in this world have been created by men!
"Acknowledging his attack would make them feel vulnerable: How could they have a crush on someone who could do that? It was less terrifying to blame Rihanna."
Good job trying to psycho-analyze psyche of young girls who uncomprehendingly don’t stand behind feminists. But is it the young girls or actually the old feminists who are really feeling "vulnerable" or "terrified" about this? Who are feeling vulnerable that their feminist old guards' torch has not been properly passed on to younger generation?
“What really matters is that we don’t destroy boys.”
Oh, really? It rather seems that there is a huge social drive not to destroy the lives of girls, or to make life easier for girls at any expense. As if excelling in school over boys on most areas is simply not enough, pushing bright young girls into studying physical science rather than English literature is getting so much more attention and public money than helping underachiveing boys. Boys’ lives, especially those of black, Latinos in inner city are so routinely destroyed that it’s not going to be even a news in this world.
"In the last few years, efforts to educate teenagers about abusive relationships have begun."
Looks like young girls have been let loose, and there has not been enough indoctrination of young girls in feminists ideology, so now we march on!
“Rewrite the ending of ‘Othello,’ ” they were told, “where there’s an intervention before Othello comes in with the pillow.”
Here’s a good old example of radical feminists' effort to re-write history, re-write great literature, and to alter the great cultural heritage of western civilization so that it fits their agenda and worldview. Remember, these so-called great literature is written by a man after all...reflecting ethos of the time that is extremely misogynistic by today's feminists' standard. How can we teach "his"tory when it is all writen by men... We need to teach "her"story..
"perhaps the first time their generation has been compelled to think aloud about dating violence."
This is interesting since feminists always scream about the national scourge of young women getting beaten by their boyfriends, yet for many girls, this incident seem to be their first encounter with such dating violence! How could they have missed all the violence that were allegedly going around everywhere according to feminists?
"On a Facebook discussion, one girl wrote, “she probly ran into a door and was too embarrassed so blamed it on chris.”"
Even some girls (non-New York Times reading type), seem to know that in real life, many women conjure up stories of violence by men as an excuse for their fault or mishaps.
"don’t shock Marcyliena Morgan, executive director of Harvard’s hip-hop archive. “But it’s the girls!” she said. “Where have we gone wrong here?”"
Where’s the sisterhood here? All the females are supposed to line up behind other fellow females under any circumstances!! Girls are not supposed to use their own judgment or think independently, just follow suit of older women, who knows better than them that all men are enemy and all the evils in this world have been created by men!
"Acknowledging his attack would make them feel vulnerable: How could they have a crush on someone who could do that? It was less terrifying to blame Rihanna."
Good job trying to psycho-analyze psyche of young girls who uncomprehendingly don’t stand behind feminists. But is it the young girls or actually the old feminists who are really feeling "vulnerable" or "terrified" about this? Who are feeling vulnerable that their feminist old guards' torch has not been properly passed on to younger generation?
“What really matters is that we don’t destroy boys.”
Oh, really? It rather seems that there is a huge social drive not to destroy the lives of girls, or to make life easier for girls at any expense. As if excelling in school over boys on most areas is simply not enough, pushing bright young girls into studying physical science rather than English literature is getting so much more attention and public money than helping underachiveing boys. Boys’ lives, especially those of black, Latinos in inner city are so routinely destroyed that it’s not going to be even a news in this world.
"In the last few years, efforts to educate teenagers about abusive relationships have begun."
Looks like young girls have been let loose, and there has not been enough indoctrination of young girls in feminists ideology, so now we march on!
“Rewrite the ending of ‘Othello,’ ” they were told, “where there’s an intervention before Othello comes in with the pillow.”
Here’s a good old example of radical feminists' effort to re-write history, re-write great literature, and to alter the great cultural heritage of western civilization so that it fits their agenda and worldview. Remember, these so-called great literature is written by a man after all...reflecting ethos of the time that is extremely misogynistic by today's feminists' standard. How can we teach "his"tory when it is all writen by men... We need to teach "her"story..
Re-educate those young girls
It looks like young girls are living in a more gender-free world where you don't have see every single events through tired old doctrinaire gender-feminist lense.
Understandably it poses a trouble for traditional feminists type. While they pretend that they've fought for a gender-free world where peopel do not have to be judged on the basis of gender, they are doing the exact opposite : re-educate those free-minded young girls into the mold of old radical feminsts type, by re-interpreting the entire Chris-Rohana event for them. I understand this motive, because, if this confrontation was simply reduced to physical altercation between a couple, as more common-sensical young girls of today do, then the whole feminists ideology which posits that males uses violence to perpetuate patriarchy would totally collapse. Such a prospect would really, to use the author's words, make these arch-feminists "feel vulnerable" and "terrifying".
Understandably it poses a trouble for traditional feminists type. While they pretend that they've fought for a gender-free world where peopel do not have to be judged on the basis of gender, they are doing the exact opposite : re-educate those free-minded young girls into the mold of old radical feminsts type, by re-interpreting the entire Chris-Rohana event for them. I understand this motive, because, if this confrontation was simply reduced to physical altercation between a couple, as more common-sensical young girls of today do, then the whole feminists ideology which posits that males uses violence to perpetuate patriarchy would totally collapse. Such a prospect would really, to use the author's words, make these arch-feminists "feel vulnerable" and "terrifying".
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Playing a "gender card" in Israel
You would think that playing a gender card in election to become a leader of a country is a luxury that only countries not in imminent danger of war or attacks by terrorists can enjoy. When Islamic terrorists armed with rocket right across the border are aiming at citizens, most people would think that it’s not really a good time to choose the leader of the country on the basis of gender just so that you can show off to the rest of the world how politically correct, progressive, and open-minded, tolerant, diverse and inclusive you are, and to please feminists that there are one less countries in the world led by another Neandelthaal males. There is a little bit more important thing at stake here than winning the politically-correctness sweepstake, like safety of you and your family’s lives.
But things are little bit different in Israel.
Livni, who have mostly stayed away from playing a gender card has in desperation resorted to one of the most efficient, battle-test methods to get some more votes as she trailed behind leading candidate Nethaniyahu. And this almost always works as there are always some elements that are going to blame ANYTHING on gender discrimination – questions or doubts about competency or experience of female candidates are automatically labelled as “sexist”, no matter how legitimate such concerns are. No one, especially men, are permitted to question; instead they are only allowed to “follow”.
Trying to silence opposition or even questioning of experience of female politician by hauling sexist label is fine, but it also has unintended consequences. It will make discussion or examination of female politicians experience and competency off-limit to the public. There will be no opportunity to judge female politicians’ merit or competency; you are only to decide for yourself whether the act of electing a female leader - a political gesture signalling a total submission to feminist ideology and political correctness - is worth foregoing more experienced and competent male leader for the country.
But things are little bit different in Israel.
Livni, who have mostly stayed away from playing a gender card has in desperation resorted to one of the most efficient, battle-test methods to get some more votes as she trailed behind leading candidate Nethaniyahu. And this almost always works as there are always some elements that are going to blame ANYTHING on gender discrimination – questions or doubts about competency or experience of female candidates are automatically labelled as “sexist”, no matter how legitimate such concerns are. No one, especially men, are permitted to question; instead they are only allowed to “follow”.
Trying to silence opposition or even questioning of experience of female politician by hauling sexist label is fine, but it also has unintended consequences. It will make discussion or examination of female politicians experience and competency off-limit to the public. There will be no opportunity to judge female politicians’ merit or competency; you are only to decide for yourself whether the act of electing a female leader - a political gesture signalling a total submission to feminist ideology and political correctness - is worth foregoing more experienced and competent male leader for the country.
Male-bashing in the era of recession
Liberal news media these days simply cannot stop belittling men and hounding them into doing more housework, or to be more like “housewives”. In addition to a piece by New York Times, the Newsweeks also jumped on the use-economic-downturn-as-means-to-realize-feminist-utopia bandwagon. I don’t know exactly what kind of benefits it will bring to national economy as a whole if laid-off men do more housework rather than watch TV (do they?) or look for the next job, but it doesn’t matter to feminists. They would rather have more men permanently stay at home to be stay-at-home-dads than seeing economic recovery. It’s in a way understandable since the economic recession seems to be taking toll much more on men (and especially high-paid men in financial sector, etc.) than on women, so feminists would lose nothing by seeing this recessions going even deeper. Just wait to see more men, especially in high-paid position, get pink slips, and see the proportion of women in workforce rise higher (and to break the historic 50% mark). They know they are inching towards a feminist utopia. Now that’s a “silver lining” or what?
Feminists don’t need to worry much about recession anyway because as they can thrive on government entitlements and giveaways. So when most people are worried about how to pay the next mortgage or rent, instead feminists’ minds are preoccupied with how to make more men to do more housework, how to change people’s perception of men from breadwinner to stay at home caretaker!
Continuing economic downturn is a cause of great concern for all of us except feminists, but it is even worse to see the degree to which this country is poisened with man-hating brand of feminism - which can only see current economic downturn as "opportunity" to further their social engineering agenda.
Feminists don’t need to worry much about recession anyway because as they can thrive on government entitlements and giveaways. So when most people are worried about how to pay the next mortgage or rent, instead feminists’ minds are preoccupied with how to make more men to do more housework, how to change people’s perception of men from breadwinner to stay at home caretaker!
Continuing economic downturn is a cause of great concern for all of us except feminists, but it is even worse to see the degree to which this country is poisened with man-hating brand of feminism - which can only see current economic downturn as "opportunity" to further their social engineering agenda.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Rwanda - feminists' experiment
A couple of interesting points on this NYT Kristof's blog....
It is interesting that he is noting this majority (or superiority), although a slight one, with a hint of glee. Well, I guess sometimes “equality is not enough” and you may be tempted to compensate for inequality in the past or inequality in other areas.
“That much of what has happened is a result of genocide can’t be denied…”
As sad as it may sound, you simply cannot de-link this artificially high proportion of women representatives, which in many parts owes to the imposition of gender quota, which was sneaked in by western white feminists, to this historic catastrophe.
“Rwanda’s situation is vastly different from the U.S. and an authoritarian hand is in large part responsible for female representation.”
This cannot be stressed enough. The “authoritarian hand” which is actually mostly a “feminine hand” that combines authoritarian forces of women representatives in the country (as they now constitute a majority) and mostly white international feminists groups, and major donors (most of whom are co-opted or pressured by international feminists groups), who take advantage of a chaotic situation in a country that’s ravaged by years of genocide and conflicts, and try to sneak in their model of utopian gender-free / gender neutral or even pro-matriarchal society.
It is interesting that he is noting this majority (or superiority), although a slight one, with a hint of glee. Well, I guess sometimes “equality is not enough” and you may be tempted to compensate for inequality in the past or inequality in other areas.
“That much of what has happened is a result of genocide can’t be denied…”
As sad as it may sound, you simply cannot de-link this artificially high proportion of women representatives, which in many parts owes to the imposition of gender quota, which was sneaked in by western white feminists, to this historic catastrophe.
“Rwanda’s situation is vastly different from the U.S. and an authoritarian hand is in large part responsible for female representation.”
This cannot be stressed enough. The “authoritarian hand” which is actually mostly a “feminine hand” that combines authoritarian forces of women representatives in the country (as they now constitute a majority) and mostly white international feminists groups, and major donors (most of whom are co-opted or pressured by international feminists groups), who take advantage of a chaotic situation in a country that’s ravaged by years of genocide and conflicts, and try to sneak in their model of utopian gender-free / gender neutral or even pro-matriarchal society.
Mr. Kristof - Part 6, Women not "represented" nor 'utilized"?
One of the most repeated reasons why there need to be more women in parliament is that unless there are more women in the Parliament, women, who constitute half (or slightly more than half) of the population, are not represented.
REALLY?
Just the most basic understanding of how democracy work (and this level of stuff must be taught in civic class at elementary school) can tell you this is not correct. If, say, a white guy Mr. Smith is elected to US Congress from district 123, does it mean that Mr. Smith represents only his demographic group in district 123, white males, while all the rest of people, women, black, Hispanic, Indian, Asian and etc. were not represented in the US Congress? (I mix in ethnicities here since black and Latino activists, among others, also advance a similar line of argument) If the district 123 has only elected white guys in its entire history, does it mean that those rest of the demographic people have never been represented, EVER? Isn’t he a representative of the entire district, which also includes women, black, Hispanic, Indian and Asian voters?
If we were to follow this flawed logic, then no matter who will be elected, more than half of the population will always be unrepresented. If a white woman was elected, all the guys plus non-white women are not represented, which amounts to more than half of the population. If Indian man is elected, then all the population except Indian males are not represented at the District. If Asian woman as elected, no one but Asian women (who are quite a minority in most parts of the country) are happy. In districts, there are roughly equal number of men and women, and there are many different ethnicities (though the proportion of each will vary from district to district) in each district, mathematically the demographic character of elected person (gender and ethnicity) will never more than half of the population in the district.
Is this what “representative democracy” was supposed to mean?
Mix in the party affiliation and it’d be even more complicated. What if district 234 elected Ms. Jones, a black Democrat? Are all the women in the district represented, including a white Democrat, and a black Republican?
Feminists also like push the argument that a Parliament that doesn’t have 50% women ratio is “not utilizing the talent of half of population” (I guess the “half” means women). This one is even harder to comprehend. Again, if Mr. Smith, a nice white guy, is elected, can you assume that all the talents of white males in district 123 have been utilized? The talents that include that of electricians, farmers, bankers, lawyers, janitors, teachers, etc., and Mr. Smith somehow embodies the aggregate talents of all white males in the district but not at all the women or non-white males? Or Mr. Smith’s talent is confined to what Mr. Smith, only one individual in the district of tens of thousands of people, has personally acquired over the years through education and experience? Or should white male janitors in the district take solace in the fact that a same white guy is elected and therefore his “talent” of fixing broken pipes is going to be utilized in the US Congress?
OK, let’s move from each individual district to a national level, and see the entire Congress. Let’s say women legislator comprise about 20% of Congress. Does it mean that only 20% of American women are represented in the congress? If so, which 20% of women are represented? Would that mean all 100% of women voters in district 234 which elected Ms. Jones are represented (again, including white, Latin, Indian, and Republican women?) but 0% of women in Mr. Smith’s district 123 (even if she volunteered for his campaign and waited in line for 5 hours to vote for him)?
In the representative democracy, the person elected represents the entire district, not just the particular democratic group that the elected person belongs to. The elected person even in theory represents people who did not vote for that person, or voted against that person, or people in different political parties. Period.
REALLY?
Just the most basic understanding of how democracy work (and this level of stuff must be taught in civic class at elementary school) can tell you this is not correct. If, say, a white guy Mr. Smith is elected to US Congress from district 123, does it mean that Mr. Smith represents only his demographic group in district 123, white males, while all the rest of people, women, black, Hispanic, Indian, Asian and etc. were not represented in the US Congress? (I mix in ethnicities here since black and Latino activists, among others, also advance a similar line of argument) If the district 123 has only elected white guys in its entire history, does it mean that those rest of the demographic people have never been represented, EVER? Isn’t he a representative of the entire district, which also includes women, black, Hispanic, Indian and Asian voters?
If we were to follow this flawed logic, then no matter who will be elected, more than half of the population will always be unrepresented. If a white woman was elected, all the guys plus non-white women are not represented, which amounts to more than half of the population. If Indian man is elected, then all the population except Indian males are not represented at the District. If Asian woman as elected, no one but Asian women (who are quite a minority in most parts of the country) are happy. In districts, there are roughly equal number of men and women, and there are many different ethnicities (though the proportion of each will vary from district to district) in each district, mathematically the demographic character of elected person (gender and ethnicity) will never more than half of the population in the district.
Is this what “representative democracy” was supposed to mean?
Mix in the party affiliation and it’d be even more complicated. What if district 234 elected Ms. Jones, a black Democrat? Are all the women in the district represented, including a white Democrat, and a black Republican?
Feminists also like push the argument that a Parliament that doesn’t have 50% women ratio is “not utilizing the talent of half of population” (I guess the “half” means women). This one is even harder to comprehend. Again, if Mr. Smith, a nice white guy, is elected, can you assume that all the talents of white males in district 123 have been utilized? The talents that include that of electricians, farmers, bankers, lawyers, janitors, teachers, etc., and Mr. Smith somehow embodies the aggregate talents of all white males in the district but not at all the women or non-white males? Or Mr. Smith’s talent is confined to what Mr. Smith, only one individual in the district of tens of thousands of people, has personally acquired over the years through education and experience? Or should white male janitors in the district take solace in the fact that a same white guy is elected and therefore his “talent” of fixing broken pipes is going to be utilized in the US Congress?
OK, let’s move from each individual district to a national level, and see the entire Congress. Let’s say women legislator comprise about 20% of Congress. Does it mean that only 20% of American women are represented in the congress? If so, which 20% of women are represented? Would that mean all 100% of women voters in district 234 which elected Ms. Jones are represented (again, including white, Latin, Indian, and Republican women?) but 0% of women in Mr. Smith’s district 123 (even if she volunteered for his campaign and waited in line for 5 hours to vote for him)?
In the representative democracy, the person elected represents the entire district, not just the particular democratic group that the elected person belongs to. The elected person even in theory represents people who did not vote for that person, or voted against that person, or people in different political parties. Period.
Woman's "feat" exposed
Oops, just a little bit of inconsistencies in a story that was meant to showcase women crowning achievement in sports. “First women to swim across the Atlantic”! Only one man has achieved this feat so far (with rest on accompanying oats every night), and already a woman is doing the same! Which means that woman is almost as good as man! Hooray gender equality!
It still remains wonder why many reputable news organizations did not bother to check facts before publishing the original story (which was exposed as a hoax today). I’d be curious to see why they omit to go through such a basic procedure as checking facts and doing some simple math. Is it because many news outlets didn’t dare to check or challenge “women’s achievement”, however it looked dubious? Or is it because they wanted to actively believe in such a story, immerse themselves in an euphoric moment in the history of women’s sport, even though they were somehow sensing that there was something wrong with the math?
It still remains wonder why many reputable news organizations did not bother to check facts before publishing the original story (which was exposed as a hoax today). I’d be curious to see why they omit to go through such a basic procedure as checking facts and doing some simple math. Is it because many news outlets didn’t dare to check or challenge “women’s achievement”, however it looked dubious? Or is it because they wanted to actively believe in such a story, immerse themselves in an euphoric moment in the history of women’s sport, even though they were somehow sensing that there was something wrong with the math?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)