Pick that Jaw up off the Floor

Tumeke! has been toying with the border of antisemitism throughout the week, so I guess Tim Selwin thought he’s change tack and engage in some all-out sexism.

I’ve just seen a story that lacks the crucial and most obviously necessary data.
- There is a 90% chance you are reading a story by a female journalist.

There’s no attempt in the article to provide an answer or explanation for what has happened.
- There is a 85% chance you are reading a story by a female journalist.

The author uses first person (I and Me and My) and never lets up, turning the assignment into a story about themselves.
- There is an 80% chance you are reading a story by a female journalist.

The author fails to put whatever has happened, or whatever things they are talking about into any meaningful context or perspective.
- There is an 70% chance you are reading a story by a female journalist.

Are all female journalists like this?
- No, of course not.

Are all male journalists unlike this?
- Pretty much, yes.

Maybe he’s trying to show that feminists also like the “hang ‘em high” slogan?

Maybe he’s suicidal? If so, I can suggest far less painful ways to go.

Or may be he just wants lots of comments to keep up his weekly comment count?

Idiotic Discrimination Claim of the Day

Oh this is so beyond stupid:

“Question 10. Women do the vast majority of cooking and shopping, and increases in food prices are a burden borne disproportionately by women.”

The money you spend on food has nothing to do with how often you shop, or how often you cook.

It’s how much you eat. Men are bigger. Men eat more. They have to pay for more food, ergo price increases affect them more.

Women might buy it, but in most cases men will be paying for what they eat, and more often paying for the woman than the other way around. (I hasten to add that in our house and most houses, no one “pays” for the other to eat as we are married – there is no “my” money or “her” money.)

But I guess if you can find some angle where you can call women victimised, go for it and to heck with reality and logic.

Feminists, not Palin Set Women Back

There’s been some particularly nasty stuff against Palin lately.

NewsBusters sums it up after pulling apart the latest attempt.

I think the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate has proven one thing: leftist women are not qualified to write political analysis. These lefty female writers just aren’t experienced enough with politics to write commentary. They haven’t seen enough, read enough, been through enough to be able to do anything other than name call, spew bile and regurgitate prosaic talking points without any meaning. They are so steeped in only their one-sided ideological dogma that they are utterly blind to all other matters. According to this narrow, leftist only worldview if you don’t believe in abortion, you’re not wrong, you’re evil. Don’t believe in socialism? You’re not wrong, you’re evil. You’ve gotten elected anyway? You’re obviously a Machiavellian manipulator who people would never vote for if they really knew what you really stood for… and you’re not just wrong, you’re evil.

There is no capacity of these blind partisans to see that there are millions of Americans that don’t view the world through the same red colored glasses that their aging hippy university professors fitted them with. They haven’t the capacity to analyze the American political landscape. They can only squeeze everything they see through that little red book that contains all their talking points.

These female journos are simply out of their depth when attempting to actually comment about anything other than their own, socialist opinion. When it comes to analyzing politicians they are simply too parochial in their viewpoint and cannot see the forest for the trees.

Yes, these women writers set women back decades.

Equality isn’t here yet

Apparently we don’t have equality yet.

Apparently there’s even a poll showing one third of women think so.

Here’s the thing.

If I setup a test for something and took 50 men and 50 women and gave them the option of taking that test and gain a reward at the end, one would expect that they’d all do that in equal numbers. Ok so far, we have equality.

Then, I say the test involves running some distance. To be fair, we base this on the fitness of the applicants. But then we say that you have a 25% chance of being attacked halfway along that run.

We all know that more women than men would pull out.

So why do we consider that with only 29% of women in the police is a “bad thing”? Women make a choice, and more choose not to put themselves into a job that involves a good chance of being beaten up on the job. I don’t blame them.

What if we changed that, and made the criteria 10+ years of hard work and long hours? That’s what you need to get into many top jobs. Women want to have families and care for their own children.

Now, you might say “you need more than hard work to get into top jobs”. I agree – and that’s where the problem is.

Just pointing blind at statistics and saying “here’s a problem” is just stupid. There’s a lot more to these statics than that – there are reasons why certain jobs attract women, and why certain jobs attract men.  for example, IS complains that NZAX companies are “more sexist” than NZX companies, but in reality NZAX companies are usually startups that involve a lot more risk and women are more risk averse then men (because they have brains, mainly!).

But it seems that simple common sense should never get in the way of a good leftist rant about how evil the world is.

Ah, Men

Hm, what was it I said last night?

But vilifying your opponents is always a good tactic if you can’t come to a debate with solid rational arguments. Works for Winston anyway.

I guess this counts. (Seen first on No Minister)

Gee thanks Right to Life, for putting abortion back on the agenda this election year. Most people were pretty happy about the fact that although the law didn’t reflect practice it did reflect what society was ok with. Ah well, I wasn’t really planning on doing anything else for the rest of the year anyway.

The picture is from the UK but so far it seems to hold pretty true for Right to Life’s Ken Orr and Family First’s Bob McCoskrie…

That photo in particular is funny on so many levels!

1. Most anti-abortion supporters are women. Most men actually support abortion, since it means they don’t have to be held up for child support when they sleep around.
2. I doubt very much that 77% of the “leaders” are men either.
3. I’ve yet to meet a man yet who’s in a leadership position in an anti-abortion or similar organization who’s wife is not even more concerned about the issue than her husband. I’m quite sure that Bob’s and Ken’s wives are both very, very strong supporter of their husbands’ position.
4. Finally, only a feminist of the most radical bent thinks it’s an insult to call someone a man![Point removed, as Julie did not say this - there is a hint of implication in the picture, but it appears that people may have the wrong idea from what I've written here. - S1]

I’m not saying that the anti-abortion cause has majority support. I understand only too well that society does not treasure unborn life. I do believe that that is changing as the real pain and damage that abortion causes to women becomes clearer to an increasing number of people willing to approach the issue with an open mind.

Teacher Sues Students

Ran into this on WordPress – one of the advantages of operating on a large blogging platform like this one.

Absolutely insane.

Oh, the horrors!

After a winter of discontent, the snapping point came while Ms. Venkatesan was lecturing on “ecofeminism,” which holds, in part, that scientific advancements benefit the patriarchy but leave women out. One student took issue, and reasonably so – actually, empirically so. But “these weren’t thoughtful statements,” Ms. Venkatesan protests. “They were irrational.” The class thought otherwise. Following what she calls the student’s “diatribe,” several of his classmates applauded.

Ms. Venkatesan informed her pupils that their behavior was “fascist demagoguery.” Then, after consulting a physician about “intellectual distress,” she cancelled classes for a week. Thus the pending litigation.

Considering the fact that most teachers would be thrilled to have their students so engaged in a lecture that they ask questions, one must wonder what Ms. Venkatesan found so objectionable. Having taken a few literary theory classes himself, the Beast thinks he knows the problem.

Literary theory is crap. When one must teach crap, one gets a little defensive about challenges, because there is no good defense available. This is particularly galling for feminists.

Rape and Responsiblity

If you feel like crossing over to a land where up is down and green is brown, have a look at this thread on Mia’s blog where among the wild and bizarre accusations thrown out by the feminists, the current final comment reads…

I think the ideological point of view you mention Dave, is the crazy idea that when rape happens in our society it is more than just one “nasty” person attacking someone, but a reflection of the sexist regime we live under.
Is it that crazy to assert that men should change their behaviour (ie stop raping women) rather than women changing theirs?
Because that is something that is not being said on ads on tv or anywhere else in the mainstream – so its good to see it said here.
MEN STOP RAPING WOMEN!

She then agrees with a previous commenter who likened the idea that “women should be careful when drinking” to telling women that their privates are like an ipod – a “piece of property”. Hm, next time my wife tells me not to go out drinking lest I get my head cracked open on the pavement after a drunken fight, I’ll try that line – “My head is not property like an ipod”!

It’d be great if we could stop rape*. Fantastic. Sadly there are evil people in the world and we have to live with that reality. It’s no use standing in front of a freight train saying “it would be morally wrong for that train driver to hit me”. It doesn’t matter how right or wrong something is, some things are just reality.

A valid point is made during the debate that of all the drinkers, only the woman is a victim – and all 3 are blamed for what happened. Except the blame is only in the eye of the beholder, it’s created in the minds of these bloggers, and they take that to bizarre extremes, vastly beyond anything the creators of the ads had in mind – warning people about drinking too much.

One of the commentors has a post on another blog where she says:

I won’t go over the points that Maia has made, but I did want to add one more issue about the ad and the rape myths it perpetuates – namely that stranger rape in a dark alley (whether you are drunk or sober) is How Rape Happens. Actually most rapists know their victims, often already very intimately. Strangers are not usually the real danger.

This one reminds me of the guy who walked onto a plane with a fake bomb, thinking the odds of 2 bombs being on board were astronomical.

That’s not how statistics work. If statistics show that most rapes are from people known to the victim, that doesn’t change the danger of a woman being drunk in a bar by herself. This ad points out that danger, the fact that there is a danger of being a victim of the same crime in a different way has nothing to do with it.

*It’d be even better if these bloggers spent their time working on ways to stop rape in the real world.

Feminist Dogma Wrong

Mia sort of admits that one aspect of feminist dogma is in fact wrong.

Maybe we’ll see more open-mindedness in future?

 She was drunk; he was tagging. She was raped; he was murdered. The rapist was a league player; the murderer was a businessman. The league player was found not guilty; the murderer should ‘get away with it’.

It’s a common feminist rhetorical device ‘in no other crime is the victim’s behaviour considered relevant.’

Except sometimes it is.

Feminists are determined to wear men’s pants despite the obvious fact that they don’t quite fit.

The only thing I have to say about abortion is this: abstain from sex if you don’t want to get pregnant!  Abstention is the only way!  Pro abortionists have so many excuses for abortion because they can’t live without their nightly “fix”.  And if pregnancy ends up being the result, then abortion has to be the cure.  I get sick and tired of it all.  They come across as selfish and uncaring about anything except their own rights, masqueraded as women’s rights all in the name of feminism, while all along, women have always had the right to be themselves without the pressure of having to aspire nedlessly to much higher levels than they were created to obtain. It is all so clear: FEMINISM KILLED WOMEN’S RIGHTS!

Feminism is responsible for making women feel like they have to be a certain someone, reach beyond that benchmark that was previously unattainable, break through the glass ceiling – so to speak, put off what their bodies have been preparing them to do – ie have kids, and above all putting on man’s pants and pretending that we can still be women!  How sad is that!  It just end’s up being a messed up world and nobody wants to live in a messed up world, now do they?  I sure don’t.   And I bet men don’t either.

Question: How have men survived all of this?

Aside from wanting their pants back, I am sure they all dream of a day when true feminism will thrive.

True feminism is of course what always existed from the time of Eve.  She was created to be a companion and helper to Adam.  Her role was unique and special and different from Adam’s.  She was the way God intended her to be, and the way that God has intended all women to be.  Any feminist who reads this might think I mean for women to be slaves and subservient to men. That’s not what it’s all about.  Eve was no slave.  But she did commit the first sin and from that time on her desire has been for her husband, or in this day and age her partner or  employer or colleague. In other words any man that seems a threat to her.  The point being: women have become unsatisfied with their lot and desire what men have.

If women cannot be content in their role as women, it is because they have neglected God’s perfect plan for their lives and are self-focused.  It becomes a me-me-me world, classified under yet more women’s rights in the feminists book of dribble.  Women can obtain so much more if they stop trying to obtain the unobtainable.  Feminists will never be content.  But a true feminist can live a contented life by working hard at what ever God has planned for her, whether it is a career or marriage with kids or both.

Answer: Men are left pondering what manhood is all about whilst trying to wrestle their pants back off the overbearing feminists and thinking: is it all worth it?  Maybe I should just surrender, and let the feminists have it their way?

Now that would be a bad idea.  It would be like hundreds of rats falling from a collapsing ceiling all at once and running  in the same direction with the same goal in mind (Ratatouille gave me inspiration for that little bit – good movie if you haven’t seen it!).  But it is all too late, isn’t it?  Feminists have long been running wild, like rats, devouring what is rightful man’s.

The thing is, feminist will never win, nor will it die out.  It will, however, continue to be a sad and false view of how women should be.  And as long as all this exists, feminism will keep abortion alive and abortion will continue to be a shameful crime.

See, this is why I’m not a fan of feminism

Somehow when it’s a fight between a foreign culture and women’s rights, feminists vote against women’s rights.

From NewsBusters:

All the co-hosts of “The View,” a show intended to advance women’s voices, do not get offended by women’s persecution in the Islamic world. On the November 30 edition, in discussing the British woman charged for naming a class teddy bear Muhammad, the co-hosts did not direct any anger at the Sudanese government, but rather blamed the woman for not adapting to their culture.

Co-host Sherri Shepherd opined “you would think that with her being in Sudan, she would know the rules and customs.” Whoopi Goldberg said Europeans and Americans are “not as anxious to learn the customs before we go places.” And of course that’s why we’re called “ugly Americans.”

In this case, the kids named the bear – the teacher only said “ok”. Apparently the kids didn’t know “the culture”, so how is the teacher supposed to?

In reality this is just another case of Muslims attacking a non-Muslim because they’ve found something that they can use as an excuse. I note that the local imams roused up the rabble at Friday prayers – now her life’s in danger.

“Religion of Peace” – no. “Do what we say and no one gets hurt” is closer to the mark.